A FEW days ago, the Guyana National Assembly approved the long-awaited Broadcasting Bill. And while the Bill focuses on broadcasting and not the print media, this approval imposes a significant presence on the mass media modus operandi, and compellingly indicates government’s concerns about progressively pursuing the public interest in broadcasting. And sometimes this kind of progressive development is hard to appreciate, unless we examine what the terrain was like without it; that terrain mainly refers to the pre-1992 status of the mass media operations. Here is a piece I wrote some years ago about public interest in broadcasting

Media lawlessness
Now we have some electronic media that carry on as if they have no public responsibility, as evidenced by the Media Monitoring report of 2001 and general media statements that approximate media lawlessness.
Dwight Whylie and Harry Mayers monitored the media scene from February 1 through March 25, 2001 in Guyana. They referred to one broadcast as: “…dangerous mischief which violates many tenets of professional journalism and several clauses of the Media Code of Conduct.” They referred to talk shows as a “significant destabilizing factor” in Guyana. I previously presented numerous irresponsible media statements spewed out during the crime wave 2002-2003. Regrettably, the media lawlessness today has graduated to a form of entertainment in this country.

Use of airwaves
Several media operatives continuously violate the terms and conditions for use of the electromagnetic spectrum.  This spectrum is a scarce national resource, and is not owned by any individual talk show host, television station, or other agency.  The licensee, invariably the owner of the television station, agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the spectrum.  The spectrum is issued under licence by the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU).
The recent suspension of CNS 6 from transmitting and the ensuing enforcement of that suspension, has once again brought into play intentional confusion between freedom of speech and loss of licence, due to alleged non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the spectrum. In this perplexity, freedom of speech again has transiently become the guardian of the licence, implicitly making the licensee’s agreement with the NFMU a secondary affair. ‘Yes’ to freedom of speech, but a similar ‘Yes’ to compliance with the NFMU’s conditions, must be acknowledged. Generally, it’s untidy to want freedom of speech and simultaneously not want to comply with the NFMU’s conditions. The Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) as an advisory body is expected to advise the Minister on compliance issues by Television Station Licensees on licensing conditions and to advise the Minister on appropriate action in the event of non-compliance with such licensing conditions and other related functions. At any rate, the Minister has the right to agree or disagree with any recommendation from this advisory entity. And indeed the comparison of the ACB with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is way out of line; it’s not even close!!

The public’s concerns
Let’s now talk about how we can inject the public’s concerns in broadcasting, as these concerns are fast becoming customized agendas for particular interest groups. Make no mistake that broadcasting is considered a sacred cow for some television station managers in Guyana.  Clearly, little consideration is given to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Discussions on regulation of broadcasting have to start from a premise of the people or the public’s interests and needs. However, broadcasters, by accepting as their most important responsibility, the need to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, can implicitly create a ‘public trustee’ model. U.S. broadcasters are required to comply with such a public trustee model. The Federal Radio Commission depicts the ‘public trustee’ model as follows: “[Despite the fact that] the conscience and judgment of a station’s management are necessarily personal….the station itself must be operated as if owned by the public… It is as if people of a community should own a station and turn it over to the best man in sight with this injunction: “Manage this station in our interest.” The standing of every station is determined by that conception.” 
In the U.S., the public’s concerns are addressed through the public trustee model in the following six areas: programme diversity; political dialogue, localism; children’s educational programming; access to persons with disabilities; and equal employment opportunities. Here, I shall try to show how the U.S. developed this public interest standard in broadcasting through source materials drawn from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

Programme diversity: This diversity, first implemented in 1929, mandated the station to meet the
“tastes, needs and desires of all substantial groups among the listening public…in some fair proportion, by a well-rounded program…” (Great Lakes Broadcasting Co. v. FRC, 37 F.2d 993 (1930). A market approach to public interest was applied in the 1980s. But today, both the Congress and the FCC have realized that using the market approach alone to achieving the public interest is wanting. 

Political dialogue: Public interest responsibility also has to do with political candidates and citizens’ access to broadcasting. The Zapple Rule requires that equal airtime must be available for all political candidates, excepting political editorial advertising. The Fairness Doctrine, which tried to ensure that all sides are presented fairly, was rescinded in 1987 because it was deemed to be inimical to public interest.  However, other measures, as the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Civil Rights Legislation, are in place to compensate for the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine.

Localism: The Blue Book in 1946 indicated two requirements for promoting localism. These were ‘local live programs’, and ‘programming devoted to discussion of local public issues’. The 1960 Program Policy Statement endorsed two requirements: ‘opportunity for local self-expression’; and ‘the development and use of local talent’. 

Children’s educational programming: Congress ratified the Children’s Television Act in 1990, which mandated broadcasters to have three hours of educational children’s programming per week, catering to children 16 years and under. The law further restricted children’s advertising to 12 minutes per hour during weekdays and 10.5 minutes during weekends. 

Access for persons with disabilities: The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 mandates all television sets to carry special decoder chips to display closed captioning on television programmes.  Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 introduced more requirements for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. 

Equal Employment Opportunity: The FCC must assure that licensees meet the needs and interests of minorities and women, and to make certain, too, that an appropriate number of minorities and women are employed by the broadcast stations. Broadcast stations do not meet the public interest obligations if they fail to provide equal employment opportunities. 

Self-regulation in Guyana
National discussion on the regulation of broadcasting in Guyana started ‘one hundred’ or many years ago. Then we saw the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation. Defining these discussions were some partisan sections of the media world that earnestly believe that broadcasting should be self-regulated. They further believe that even if there is little or no self-regulation, then the Parliament and not Government should drive the major decisions for the composition, functions, and operations of a broadcasting authority. 
The American experience demonstrates that self-regulation and leaving the market forces alone to serve the public’s interest, convenience, and necessity in broadcasting are inadequate. Both the market and self-regulation mechanisms can play a role in broadcasting, but the Government and Parliament through a broadcasting authority must establish the minimum requirements for the public’s concerns as well as general broadcasting principles.