The PNCR has slammed the government over what it says is the continuing abuse of NCN Radio and Television and contends that this situation has become so endemic that Guyanese should contemplate an appropriate response such as launching private radio.
In a press release on Friday, the major opposition party suggested that such an appropriate response “could include launching a private radio in light of government’s refusal to implement the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation. This included the passage of Broadcast Legislation, the establishment of an independent Broadcasting Authority and the licensing of private radio stations.” It also accused the Inter Religious Organisation of collaborating with the government to breach undertakings given to stakeholders.
The PPP needs to be reminded, the PNCR stated, that the UK government was forced to licence private radio after they were bombarded by a plethora of pirate radio stations in that country.
According to the PNCR, over the past months it had cause to draw attention to what it termed the “reckless misuse” of the NCN radio and television for the “dissemination of blatant untruths and misinformation under the guise of news.”
One recent example, the party cited, was a fabricated news item about the launching ceremony for the UN International Year for People of African Descent. “This incorrectly reported that the Leader of the Opposition was participating in the opening ceremony, contrary to a press release from his office that stated exactly the opposite of what was reported.”
The NCN’s 6:00 pm newscast on February 28 published another fabricated news report about the PNCR’s Special Congress on February 26 at Congress Place, Sophia, at which the PNCR’s Presidential Candidate was elected, the party stated.
It said further that the news report was a complete distortion of events and despite a subsequent clarification by the appointed Returning Officer, the NCN repeated its distorted report and made no attempt to offer an apology.
Diet
With the maintenance of the NCN radio monopoly in Guyana, the PNCR contended, “Guyanese who are beyond the reach of private television have been subjected to a diet of misinformation in violation of their constitutional right to freedom of information.”
“This situation cannot be allowed to continue,” the PNCR maintained.
It noted too that with the General and Regional Elections constitutionally due before the end of 2011, that would be equivalent to the subversion of the democratic process.
Consequently, the party asserted that “unless the government immediately implements the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation, Guyanese may have no alternative than to take matters into their own hands. The PNCR said that in light of the “gravity of the situation” it felt it was necessary to address this issue comprehensively.
And giving some background to the issue, the PNCR recalled that after the 2001 Election, the late former President Desmond Hoyte had agreed with President Jagdeo to establish several bi-Partisan Task Forces/Committees, which included the Radio Monopoly and Non-Partisan Boards and the joint committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation set up in May 2001.
The PNCR noted that the committee’s Terms of Reference required attention to six specific issues: (1) the state monopoly in radio broadcast; (ii) a non-partisan Board for the Chronicle; (iii) a non-partisan Board for the GTV; (iv) a non-partisan Board for the GBC; (v) a non-partisan Board for the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU); and (vi) the enactment of broadcast legislation.
And the party further pointed out that the report of that committee, which was signed by both co-chairpersons, stated that all recommendations were arrived at by consensus.
No monopolies
In dealing with a Broadcasting Policy Framework for Guyana, the committee had recommended that any broadcast legislation or regulation governing the use of the spectrum must be guided and underpinned by a set of general principles and policies.
Those objectives included ensuring a broadcasting system, comprising public state-owned, commercial/private, and community broadcast services, regulated and supervised by a single independent public authority; and ensuring that, while recognizing the special role of state-owned media, the broadcast industry is nevertheless open to fair competition, and therefore all monopolies, whether private or state, should be removed or not be allowed.
The objectives also included ensuring wide geographic availability and accessibility of broadcasting services, especially to hinterland and border communities; and promoting the growth of Guyanese expression through diversified programming that reflects Guyanese rich cultural diversity, traditions, history, attitudes, opinions, ideas, beliefs and values, and to provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern; and also ensuring that commercial and community licences, taken as a whole, are controlled by a diverse range of Guyanese persons or groups.
The committee also recommended that a national broadcasting system for Guyana should be a three-tiered one comprising public service (state-owned), privately-owned commercial, and community broadcasting services, the PNCR observed.
The party underscored the fact that the committee had agreed that State-owned media should, in line with their public-service function, facilitate, during election season, access of political parties and candidates to the State media, based on objective and fair criteria governing allocation methods, airing times, and qualification thresholds as established by the broadcast authority on advice from the Guyana Elections Commission.
State monopoly
Regarding the State monopoly in radio broadcast, the PNCR noted that the committee had agreed that while the state media have a special role to play in national development, “the monopoly of State radio should be removed and the radio spectrum be opened to other licensees where technically and otherwise possible.”
The committee had also made detailed recommendations with respect to privately-owned commercial broadcasting, community broadcasting services, unconventional broadcast frequency users and a National Broad-casting Authority, (NBA), the PNCR added.
Drafting
Instructions
The party also highlighted that with respect to the proposed NBA, the report had stated that “The NBA must be independent and autonomous within the framework of the constitution, true to the spirit and letter of its establishing legislation, answerable only to the National Assembly and must serve the public interest and the national good,” and drafting instructions were also provided by the committee.
It was also proposed that the authority should have powers, inter alia, to formulate the terms and conditions for issuing licences for radio, television or any other new broadcast technologies; establish a system of monitoring the transmissions of licensees to ensure their adherence to the broadcasting legislation and regulations;
investigate complaints as well as initiate investigations into alleged broadcasting violations;
set up mechanisms to resolve conflict through arbitration, conciliation, mediation and other forms of dispute resolution; recommend to the National Assembly through the relevant Minister new legislation or changes to existing broadcast legislation in light of new developments in technologies, public policy, international practices, etc.
The committee also recommended that the authority shall regulate its own procedures adhering to the principles of natural justice, transparency and impartiality.
Finally, the committee recommended that the NBA be headed by a Board of Commissioners comprising not less than 3 and no more than 5 members who would be selected by the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Appointments and appointed by the President.
To widen the range of choices, commissioners, other than the chairperson, could be allowed to give their services on a part-time basis.
The PNCR maintained that it should be evident that contrary to the representation by the Prime Minister in the National Assembly on Thursday, there could be no misinterpretation of the recommendations of the Joint Committee.
“The refusal of the government to present the relevant legislation is therefore a clear manifestation of their desire to maintain a monopoly on radio and political control of the State-controlled NCN,” the party concluded.
Meanwhile, the PNCR observed that “this reluctance by the PPP/C Administration to present the legislation was dealt with extensively in the talks between President Jagdeo and Leader of the Opposition in 2003.”
“Regrettably, the first Draft of the Broadcast Bill, finally produced two years later in 2005, and not in September 2003 as undertaken in the communiqué, varied substantially from the recommendations.
The government was embarrassed into withdrawing it after media exposure with a clear undertaking that it would have been revised,” the PNCR said.
And six years later this has not yet been done, the party added.
Consequences
According to the PNCR, it is evident that the government has no intention of implementing the recommendations of that committee for obvious reasons.
In the PNCR’s view, the establishment of the Indepen-dent Broadcast Authority would mean that President Jagdeo would have had no authority to suspend the licence of CNS Channel 6 as he unilaterally did a few years ago; the handpicked Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) would have been disbanded; the unconstitutional ERC would have no authority to hold media seminars and interfere in media matters; and NCN Radio and Television would be regulated by the NBA and not controlled by the PPP.
Moreover, the PNCR continued, private radio stations would be licenced irrespective of the views of the government; independent TV and radio companies would obtain permission to extend their signals; and, there would be no longer the government monopoly.
Significantly, the PNCR argued, the government would have had no role in holding discussions with the Inter Religious Organisation about the State establishing a TV channel for religious broadcasts.
“The IRO by negotiating with the government for a religious channel run by the government is therefore collaborating with the PPP administration to break commitments made to stakeholders in Guyana and aiding them in their continuous breaches of the Guyana Constitution,” the PNCR charged.
And “if democracy is to be achieved, the people of Guyana must have recourse to alternatives. It is obvious that such a time has come,” the PNCR reckoned.
