SAME OLD STORY AGAIN

Sep 01, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

It rarely happens, even for two newspapers operating in the same jurisdiction and covering the same story, to run almost the exact headlines on the same day about the same matters. What is even rarer is for this to happen twice in the same edition.
Yesterday, the Kaieteur News reported boldly on its front page, “Accused tax evader feared dead after jumping into the Mahaicony River.” The Stabroek News headline read, “Accused tax-evader feared dead after Mahaicony plunge.”
On the same day, the Kaieteur News carried a news item captioned, “President Jagdeo again promises broadcast and FOI legislation. Stabroek News’s headline read “President Jagdeo again promises broadcast, FOI laws.”
Both newspapers carried the same old story about promised broadcast legislation and a Freedom of Information Act.
We have heard similar promises before. Another one will not make a difference. And even if these laws are passed, as again promised, they will not make a difference.
Broadcast legislation is a manifesto promise that has to be met. But it will result in the “ same old story” since such legislation will not disturb the grip that the government and its friends have on television and radio.
The introduction of broadcast legislation will satisfy a campaign promise made years ago and will also silence critics who have been on the government’s case about the absence of such legislation. But it will not liberalize either radio or television. The legislation will therefore not make any difference when it comes to the broadcast media. The legislation has already been superseded by technology which has made wireless cable available.
In a matter of five years, most of the television stations in Guyana would be forced to close shop because of the advent of cable. It will make no economic sense to invest in a television station since with the introduction and spread of cable networks, the advertisers on whom local TV stations depend for their survival will switch almost exclusively to cable, which will also offer a wider range of radio channels.
The cable companies in Guyana have reportedly been told that despite operating for years with permission but without regulation, there is no guarantee that they will be granted licences once broadcast legislation is enacted. There will be no automatic licencing of existing cable providers.
This is hardly surprising. For years, some companies had been providing such services. They must have had some form of permission, and operated under the rubric of some laws, even if those laws did not cater specifically for the new technology that is now available.
The siren was first sounded when certain entrants, with political connections, came into the market. When this happened, the existing cable companies were called in and told that they would be allowed to operate until the sector is regularized.
They are now being told that there is no guarantee of an automatic licence when the regulations are brought into force. This is hardly surprising to anyone familiar with how the new economic oligarchs operate.
It really does not matter when the existing cable providers are licenced. They are not going to be able to compete with the few companies that are positioning to corner the cable TV, cable radio and satellite phone markets.
What difference will legislation make when it makes no business sense to establish new television, radio or cable networks? The proposed legislation that will be passed may bring some order to the broadcast media, but it will not make it more liberalized or freer.
Already, one official of the government is saying that he does not think there is a need for any new television station. He would prefer to see a channel dedicated to educational programmes.  The very purpose of broadcast legislation is supposed to be to allow market forces to decide on the need for new stations. The decisions as to whether there is a need for a new station should be left to these market forces governed by appropriate regulations. But the market itself is already cornered and like the airline business is soon to be, will become the preserve of a small, powerful and politically influential elite.
As for Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation, this only works where there is already some basic commitment to transparency in government. FOI only works where there is already a culture of openness and accountability by government institutions and its officers.
Such a culture does not exist in Guyana. The proposed legislation will not make the tongues of public officials looser when dealing with the media through formal requests for information.
Government officials will continue the same old story of frustrating requests for information. Under any FOI, they will find a legally sound and protected ground – national security, foreign policy restrictions, or confidence agreements or simply administrative processing times –  to continue to frustrate the media‘s access to information. By the time certain requests are answered the desired information would be as useless as the legislation that facilitated its release.
Broadcast and FOI legislation are redundant, and will not alter the story line of civil freedoms in Guyana.

---

---