POLITICAL PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED BROADCASTING LICENCES

Mar 17, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The responsibility for the granting of broadcast licences lies with the National Broadcasting Authority while the allocation of frequencies is the responsibility of the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU). Obviously, one cannot come without the other. There can and should be no allocation of frequencies unless there is a licence issued by the National Broadcasting Authority.
The President of Guyana is no longer empowered to grant licences. However, he can and should instruct the NFMU to examine the number of frequencies granted to certain entities. After all, if the NFMU could have been asked to assign a frequency for NCN to allow CCTV to transmit, then surely they can be told to limit the number of frequencies assigned to licenced broadcasters.
The manner in which the frequencies were allocated effectively makes some stations community stations while others will become national stations. There will come a time within the next three years when the technology will make these arguments redundant because, as was explained by the Prime Minister in his statement to the National Assembly, there will be no limits to the number of television stations and radio channels which can be accommodated using the new technology which is being phased in within the developed world, and not without some resistance too.
The source of the local opposition to what is taking place in the broadcasting spectrum is two-fold. Firstly there is the question of the licences to some while others were not considered. Then there is the related issue of the assignment of frequencies to those with licences.
The National Broadcasting Authority is not likely to re-examine the licences issued controversially under former President Jagdeo. The courts had ordered that all licences be considered. But it seems as if only some were and therefore there is a basis for a legal challenge. There are also strong grounds to ask the courts to do as the Privy Council did in one instance and order that the authorities issue a licence rather than simply consider them again.
The legal route, however, takes an inordinately long time and is extremely costly to litigants. As such, those persons whose applications are languishing need to urge the authorities to consider their applications immediately.
This, however, does not settle the issue of the licences granted just before the 2011 elections, including licences to the ruling party. The ruling party or any company associated with it should not have been granted a licence or assigned a frequency. This offers an unfair advantage to the ruling party.
If an entity that is a known sidekick of the PPP can have a broadcasting license, then there is no reason why the opposition or a sidekick company should not demand the same. If the PPP-affiliated companies gain licences and establish stations, it means that concerns are going to be expressed about the fairness of elections. Having television and radio stations affiliated to the ruling party gives them an unfair advantage over their competitors and this cannot be allowed to happen.
As such, the New Guyana Company which prints the Mirror Newspaper and is known to be associated with the People’s Progressive Party should voluntarily surrender the licences which were granted to it. It ought to surrender them on the basis that no political party or any company directly associated with any party should ever be granted licences. If needs be, the law should be amended to ensure this. The worst thing that can happen in Guyana is for political parties to be granted broadcasting licences.
The President, as General Secretary of his party, should go ahead and surrender the licences, unless of course he claims that the PPP has nothing to do with the New Guyana Company.
Apart from this, an explanation needs to be provided as to why the public was never told that a licence was also granted to a company called Telcor Cultural Broadcasting Incorporated. According to newspaper reports, the contact person now happens to be employed in a civil service position within the government. Why would someone associated with a firm that was granted a broadcast licence be working within the government?
Answers are needed. Those pressing for answers and those within the media fraternity should now have first-hand experience about what this column had been warning about for years: the extending of the reach of a potent economic oligarchy that has become far too powerful because of its political connections.
Balance and order has to be restored, but those keen on this to happen must understand that the government is in turn aligned with this oligarchy and will not budge unless they are forced to do so through united and peaceful agitation.
The private media houses have an interest in ensuring that these answers are provided. As such, it is hoped that all the private media houses can come together in a show of support by shutting down their operations for one day to demonstrate their concern as to what has happened both with the granting of broadcast licences and the allocation of frequencies.
All private television stations opposed to what has taken place should run a blank screen on that day; all the private newspapers should not put out an edition on that day, and they should invite some international and regional journalists to come to Guyana to observe their peaceful protest. Only if these things happen will anything be done to remedy this terrible situation that has developed.

---

---