THE STATE HAS NO ROLE IN LIMITING COMPETITION IN BROADCASTING
March 28, 2016 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....ion-in-broadcasting/
When the PPPC took office in 1992, they were accused of being indecisive. The same allegation can be said of the ruling APNU+AFC coalition.
The coalition can also be accused of being confused when it comes to the review and award of broadcast licences.
It does not seem to be able to know how to review the licence issued by the former government and how to encourage greater competition in broadcasting by issuing new licences.
If APNU+AFC is of the view that the award of broadcast licences by the Jagdeo administration was unlawful, then it should challenge these awards in a court of law.
It cannot of its own simply abrogate any licence issued by the former government. It has to gain the judgment of the court which is the arm of the government that decides on the legality of actions taken by government.
There is a view that even if the licences granted by the Jagdeo administration were unlawful, they may not be revocable because the persons and entities to whom the licences are granted cannot be faulted for any unlawful act by the State.
The realization that the State may not be in a position to revoke the licences granted by the former President has created paralysis within the Guyana Broadcasting Authority.
The Authority does not seem to know how to proceed. Statements are emanating from within the authority which confound rather than bring clarity to what is going to happen with those licences and the many persons and entities whose applications were not allegedly fairly considered by the former government.
The inability of the Guyana Broadcasting Authority to revoke the licences issued by former President Bharrat Jagdeo does not prevent the authority from granting new licences. The granting of new licences will help break the alleged monopoly of friends and cronies of the former administration by allowing other operators to enter into the broadcast market.
Yet even this straightforward decision to license new broadcasters is not being implemented. The latest round of excuses is that:
a. There are no broadcast regulations in place;
b. There is a need to determine how many broadcasting entities can be accommodated given the size of the advertising pie.
The absence of broadcast regulations of course is not preventing the existing radio and television stations from gobbling up audience share.
They are gaining a solid foothold in the market while others with legitimate expectations to a licence are still waiting. By the time those who are waiting receive their licences, the existing stations would have already dominated the share of media audience in Guyana and the new stations will have to play catch-up.
The delay in granting new licences creates an uneven playing field for prospective entrants.
The excuse about the need to determine how many stations can be accommodated because of the size of the advertising pie is pitiful. The size of the advertising market has nothing to do with the broadcasting authority. This is a commercial decision. If the State begins to limit the amount of entrants into a market, it will remove competition and create monopolies.
The excuse about the size of the advertising pie is a most dangerous one. It defies the need for competition within the media. A market economy is based on competition.
Those who can deliver the goods cheaper and effectively are going to prevail where fair competition exists.
Those who cannot compete must fall by the wayside. It has happened before. It happened before with a television station in Guyana who could not compete and had to be sold. It is the law of the market. There is need for measures to promote fair competition, not for interventions limiting the number of stations.
There is equally no need also for content to be controlled. No station should be told what they should be broadcasting.
The totalitarian approach in trying to influence what people broadcast is going to return Guyana to the age when the media was totally controlled by the government. Free speech is going to be made a victim of any attempt to determine content.
The government has an obligation to encourage competition and not to concern itself with the advertising pie. If limits on entrants into the market were based on the size of the advertising pie, this newspaper would not have been born.
When Glenn Lall established Kaieteur News, everyone told him he was a mad man, that the market could not sustain another newspaper because the advertising pie and the readership were too small for more than two newspapers. There are today four daily newspapers. The advertising pie is not a static phenomenon nor is the readership.
Also for ten years, this newspaper never got a single advertisement from the State. For the first ten years of this newspaper’s existence, it was deprived of State ads.
It did not go under. In fact it forced this newspaper to become busy at reporting the issues that people want to learn about and the result is that Kaieteur News became the leading newspaper in Guyana.
The state has no role in limiting, because of the size of the advertising pie, the number of broadcasting licences which can be issued. This is an excuse which can promote protectionism, censorship and dictatorship, none of which has a place in a free and democratic society.
