Dear Editor,
On Tuesday, December 18, the Federal Communications Commission in the United States overturned a 32-year old ban against broadcasters being owners of newspapers, citing the decline in newspaper revenues due to a changing media market.
Media observers and critics are contending, however, that the FCC had to go this route after the US Government allowed Australian media magnate, Rupert Murdoch, leeway to own radio, television and newspapers in the United States, with the prestigious business/financial publication, Wall Street Journal, being his latest acquisition.
But when I read the reason given for the ban reversal, I immediately thought of the plight of Stabroek News in light of attempts to have it die a slow death from the starvation of income generated by ads from government and related entities.
No one knows for sure how long it will be before the Guyana Government comes to its senses and does the right thing by Stabroek News, a fiercely independent newspaper, but in the face of declining ads revenues in a local media market that is itself experiencing change, perhaps the time has come for Stabroek News to innovate.
Mr. Editor, unless Internet radio operation falls under the same heading as traditional radio operations, thereby legally preventing Stabroek News from operating an Internet radio simultaneously with its Internet newspapers, I don’t see any reason why this should not be seriously considered as a route to take. Even mega rich Mr. Murdoch has expanded his media empire to include the Internet business, so why not you?
I am sure you are aware, as was the FCC, of the effects of a changing media market, but these are not limited to the United States. Television, newspapers and radio still dominate the media industry in every country, but look at what the Internet has done in the past decade alone.
With the Internet, I can now log onto a specific website, read a newspaper, watch video clips of news, and listen to radio! Did I mention that I can also interact with someone half way around the world and purchase items on e-bay? The media market we have known has really changed, and unless we adapt we will be left behind.
And the FCC, obviously realizing the need to help clients adapt to change, made a landmark decision that could result in an expansion in the American media industry and improved financial bottom lines.
But while the American government is reportedly concerned about declining revenues among newspapers due to a changing media market, back in Guyana, the government is concerned about trying to control the media market. It’s a behaviour that is as enigmatic as the government itself. How can it attract businesses with this kind of attitude?
As matters now stand, the government is the only entity in Guyana that owns all of the three known media outlets: radio, television and newspaper. And because it would require government to pass legislation so that it breaks its own monopoly on radio, or even allow a private citizen to own both print and electronic media outlets, I think it is time for local media owners to file a class action lawsuit against the government to end its ongoing deliberate discrimination manifested in its radio monopoly.
Mr. Editor, who would have thought that a group of private attorneys would have been successful in getting a judge to rule in their favour to stop Justice Carl Singh from simultaneously performing the dual functions of Chancellor and Chief Justice?
Frankly, what do local media owners have to lose that they aren’t losing already (the same rights as government and to make money in the process)?
I don’t know what the procedure is for taking such a matter before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), but if after fifteen years the PPP regime is the only entity in Guyana that operates print and electronic media, and has not passed legislation allowing private radio stations to operate or for media owners to operate both print and electronic media, as currently obtains in other Caricom countries, then this could be a matter for the CCJ to look at under the heading of blatant business discrimination by the government of a leading member of the regional bloc.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
Editor’s note
Mr Tony Vieira started a radio broadcast in July 2001. He was prosecuted in the magistrate’s court and the magistrate decided to suspend the hearing while a constitutional case was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the State’s radio monopoly. In the meantime Mr Vieira’s radio equipment was seized.
Mr Vieira filed a case challenging the State’s radio monopoly on the basis that his fundamental right of freedom of expression had been violated. That was heard by Justice Jainarayan Singh who held that Mr Vieira had operated illegally but failed or refused to address the constitutional issue. An appeal has been filed.
