Broadcast Legislation is far more important than a FOIA

Oct 03, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

For months now, the government has been taking a mauling on blogs on the Internet. At the same time, two Internet radio stations have emerged, both featuring discussions on happenings that at best paint the government in a bad light.
It is in this context that one must view with suspicion, the announcement a short while ago about the imminent tabling of broadcasting legislation. As far as this writer is aware, there have been no recent reports of discussions between the government and the media in Guyana and therefore questions are bound to be asked as to what is inspiring this move towards the long-delayed broadcast legislation.
Is it that the government has finally decided to take the bull by the horns and move ahead with this legislation which some sections of the media had in past expressed concerns about? Or is it that the government has been fired into action because of the need to bring the Internet under the control of broadcast legislation?
We will know when the contents of the Bill are made public but it is difficult to see how the government expects to bring the Internet under regulation. From a technical perspective, the Internet is not part of the media. The Internet is really a collage network of computers linked to each other but through which access is gained by a technological medium.
It is therefore doubtful whether the Internet can ever be brought under the purview of broadcast legislation since cyberspace cannot be deemed part of the local jurisdiction. But we shall have to wait and see just whether there are plans to regulate Internet radio stations.
We are now told that soon both broadcast legislation as well as a Freedom of Information Act will be tabled when the National Assembly convenes this month. Both will be seen by the government as heralding greater freedoms in the media in Guyana.
However, the Broadcast Legislation is far more important than a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The latter does very little for press freedom. There are a myriad ways and exceptions through which requests for information by the media and the public can be frustrated.
This column dealt previously with the fallacy involved in FOIAs and needs not repeat these here.
What enhances freedom of the information is not an Act but a culture of openness and transparency and we are far from the ideal when it comes to these things as this newspaper can testify in its frustrations to obtain information of contracts signed by the government. A FOIA will not make that any easier.
Broadcast legislation, on the other hand, can bring about greater liberalisation, increased access and greater responsibility by the media, and while there is bound to be resistance towards regulation of the media, this in unavoidable if standards in the media are to be improved.
Our own experience would suggest that there is urgency in bringing greater regulation to the media, particularly the electronic media. The record would show that the liberalisation that has taken place in Guyana since 1992 has not been accompanied by increased responsibility. In fact, certain sections of the electronic media can be deemed as being culpable in contributing to the descent into anarchy which characterised the period 1997 to 2001.
Broadcast legislation therefore cannot only be about breaking the government’s monopoly in radio. It also has to promote improved standards to avoid inciting violence and racial enmity. It must seek to exercise some mechanism for a media complaints authority so that the media can also be held accountable to certain standards.
Broadcast legislation must not ever be seen as giving any talk show host the right to shout fire in a crowded cinema.
The media in Guyana, given the fears over Government control, are bound to be suspicious and resistant towards regulation. But instead of decrying this aspect, the media associations in Guyana should work towards ensuring there is a credible and acceptable oversight body that would address transgressions by the media as well as incursions by the government against press freedom.
Obviously, also, any broadcast legislation in Guyana would be lacking if it did not encourage greater diversity within the media spectrum. Some persons in Linden for example have complained that all they are allowed to view is the government-owned TV station and thus they wish to see other stations licensed to transmit to their corner of Guyana.
The legislation therefore must deal in fair manner with the granting of licenses. It is no use bringing into being legislation that would allow for liberalisation if this liberalisation would not allow for only friends of the government to be granted new licenses.
This would defeat the whole purpose of improved liberalisation which is to create a more diverse media and allow citizens to have the benefit of wide variety of views.

---

---