Maravi

Regulate the media? Wait a minute

Regulate the media? Wait a minute
Written by Prof Fackson Banda
Wednesday, September 02, 2009 3:53:26 PM

In an increasingly new-mediated and pluralistic media environment, the question must be asked as to who is providing public service content. It has normally been the business of so-called state broadcasters and newspapers to provide such content, but there is evidence to suggest that such a scenario is fast changing.

I want to make a few observations based on a study that saw me interview respondents associated with various media organisations in Zambia. Clearly, the role of providing “public service content” is increasingly being shouldered by other actors, not necessarily the traditional institutions.

I want to make the case that the talk or ultimatum on statutory media regulation - designed, let's face it, for the private media - disregards the fact that people are increasingly looking to the private-sector media as providers of public service content.

Let me start by demonstrating how the notion of “public service”, usually associated with state broadcasters and newspapers, is viewed across the broad spectrum of our media services. It is clear that the traditional notion of public service as a national public sphere remains an ideal, if national suggests something of a homogenous public sphere.

Clearly, the emergence of private, commercial media outlets, including cell-phone companies carrying content of one sort or the other, has resulted in the emergence of different public spheres, defined in terms of specific geographies, interests and tastes, age, gender, and the like.

For example, MUVI TV, because it is located in Lusaka, seems to have become something of a “crowd puller” in that part of the country. But this does not mean that other parts of the country are not interested in its programming; indeed, there have been calls for the broadcaster to decentralise its operations, resulting in the company setting up a news-gathering bureau on the Copperbelt. But due to licensing limitations, they cannot broadcast throughout the country.

So, while it is evident that there is a national yearning for the content churned out by MUVI TV, and while the company seems to have the technical capability to cover much of the country, policy-regulatory restrictions stand in the way. This suggests the need for the speedier establishment of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), which will make it easier to issue broadcasting licences.

This can only help develop private-sector broadcasting in the country, especially given the fact that the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has given the Communications Authority of Zambia (CAZ) a lot more digital frequencies.

The same problem applies to The Post. While there appears to be a national clamouring for its content, its plans to expand have been thwarted through some kind of unstated anti-trust policy orientation which frowns on cross-media ownership. But it is clear that such a policy is retrogressive and is likely to result in a stunted private-sector media growth. The Post, already operating as an internet service provider (ISP), has applied for both broadcasting and cellular-telephonic licences. These have yet to be issued, despite the fact that the newspaper has the technological capability - using WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) - to help reduce the cost of internet and cellular-telephone costs in the country.

Clearly, in a technologically converged media environment, there is no need for a country yearning for more media services to seek heavy regulation of the industry. Such heavy regulation amounts to stifling both technological growth and freedom of expression. The media industry needs to be left free to pursue its business-economic logic.

It is strange to find that, while the private media houses appear willing and able to expand throughout the country, their natural growth and expansion plans become a subject of government approval. Here, it is perhaps useful to mention that even Radio Phoenix has plans - and the requisite technological capability - to expand beyond its current geo-broadcasting map. From a purely economic point of view, it is clear that the more radio and television stations we have with a national outreach, the less the advertising costs companies will incur. That will go towards reducing the much-lamented high costs of production in the country. Can't we see this logic? Or, as I suspect, is stifling private media growth a well-calculated strategy to protect the economic interests of the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) and the political interests of the ruling party?

While it is understandable that media services are more socio-politically sensitive than other business services, what must not escape the attention of policy-makers is a simple fact. Media services are business services. Would it make sense to thwart the growth of a business entity that was employing large numbers of Zambians, simply because it was growing too fast? Would we not celebrate such an exponential growth?

Of course, this does not mean that the media should operate in a free-for-all environment. There is already a constitutional and legal framework which constrains much of the work of the media. If the private-media sector must come up with more rules and procedures for conducting their professional affairs, that must be left entirely up to them, including the time-table they wish to pursue in drawing up such rules and procedures. The media - both as a sector and as individual houses - know they have a social responsibility to citizens, not politicians. While we cannot stop politicians - as elected leaders - from commenting on the nature of such social responsibility, I think they need to exercise extra caution and restraint in pushing for a heavy statutory regulatory regime to govern what are internal-professional matters. Where will it end?

Another important point that policy-makers should take into account is this: with new media technologies, traditional forms of statutory regulation and control are no longer workable. Indeed, they are undesirable; they simply inflame the political passions of the people. The word “media” is no longer necessarily an institutional homogeneity; it is a cultural heterogeneity. Although Zambia is not fully connected to the internet, the truth of the matter is that the few who can access the internet have become “media” themselves. Whatever they read off the internet, whether it originates from traditional, institutionalised media or not, it gets “re-mediated”. Indeed, they have become suppliers of public service content themselves. For example, we have, in the recent past, witnessed the online distribution of unattributed and unsigned statements - explaining away some aspect of the corruption cases going in the country. How must the government view these? Must it regulate such online distribution of unsolicited communications? Are they not part of an open public sphere, with audiences using their mental faculties to determine the value or veracity of such unattributed communications?

Therefore, introducing statutory regulation of the media will not work. In fact, it is likely to make people become even more eager to dig out the dirt that the government might wish to hide. More whistle-blowers will emerge, and might use the new media technologies much more vigorously than presently. Whereas traditional media can exercise some ethical restraint in publishing such information - such as when The Post chose not to publish the pictures interpreted by some as “pornographic” or “immoral” - many whistle-blowers will have no qualms about releasing sensitive information to the public. So, “regulating” conventional media must be treated as a partnership between the government, the media and civil society. You cannot have ultimatums - it just doesn't work that way!

An equally important point: we must remember that media audiences are fragmented. What this means is that there is no such thing as an undifferentiated “public”. Nor is there such a thing as a homogenous “mass” audience. What we think of as the public - I keep pleading! - is not a homogenous whole that can believe everything that the media dishes out. So, why worry so much about media services which may be seen as “partisan”? An anecdote might do.

When I was in Boston, USA, a few weeks ago, attending a conference organised by journalism educators in that country, I kept tuning in to different radio and television stations. Because Barack Obama is something of my hero, I couldn't stomach the vitriolic - even racist - stuff being broadcast against him by some of the neo-conservative broadcasters. But I would turn to a different broadcasting station, and get something of a balance. True, some may exercise freedom insensitively, but political tolerance is needed, unless we are dealing with the kind of hate speech that can result in violence and disrupt the very democratic order we cherish. So, it was refreshing to realise that there are still radio and television stations, even in the US, that report on Obama with some even-handedness.

In most cases, the solution is not to statutorily regulate the media. Now, (media) freedom is not an American or Western thing - it is an integral part of our make-up as Zambians, and we can trace it to our anti-colonial struggles, so don't let anyone suggest to me that our “culture” dictates otherwise! Those who appeal to our “culture” for some form of journalistic restraint often do so for selfish (political) reasons. Our African cultures are pregnant with examples of social critique of some form or other.

Labels: CENSORSHIP, FACKSON BANDA, MEDIA

posted by MrK @ 2:55 PM