There
was a lot of concern about the ability of the national broadcaster,
the SLBC, to treat all political parties fairly in terms of coverage
in the just-concluded general elections. As it turned out, the
station’s performance did not reflect the pre-election hype of its
management about their motto of “your voice, my voice”. Here we
quote the portion of the report of the EU election observer mission
which deals with their conclusions on the performance of the public
broadcaster during the campaign period.
“The
public broadcaster Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) gave
access to all political parties on radio and to nine political
parties on television. Contestants were granted two hours of free
airtime to present their political proposals on the public TV channel
during the campaign period –although only PMDC, UDM, SLPP, RUFP and
PDP made use of it.
SLBC
national and regional radio stations also offered free airtime to
political parties and local candidates to address their messages to
voters.
Nevertheless,
in key areas like news bulletins and election related programmes SLBC
showed significant quantitative unbalance in favour of the ruling
party. EU EOM’s media monitoring findings show that, from 17
October to 15 November, SLBC TV allocated double the amount of
airtime (40 per cent) to APC than to SLPP (18 per cent). On top of
that, additional 21 per cent of airtime was devoted to APC led
government activities, meaning that 61 per cent of all coverage was
devoted to the governing party.
On
SLBC radio the unbalance was slightly lower, with APC receiving 40.5
per cent of total airtime on news and programmes and SLPP being
afforded 23 per cent of the coverage. None of the remaining seven
parties received more than 8.5 per cent of coverage either on SLBC
Radio or on SLBC TV.
The
tone of the coverage on SLBC Radio was generally neutral, while 23
and 27.5 per cent of news on SLBC TV related to APC and the
government, respectively, were presented in positive tone.”
In
the light of this, we believe the following comments will be of help
to the management of the SLBC and the general public in understanding
the true role of public broadcasters. We start with the whole
question of what is actually meant by THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
We
cull the following piece from the Rhodes Journalism Review:
In
a debate hosted by the Harold Wolpe Trust in Johannesburg about the
function of the SABC as public broadcaster, Tawana
Kupe made
these points.
The Public
Interest
Embodies
the “national interest” but is not reducible to it and is not to
be conflated with it. What is in the “public interest” is in the
“national interest” but what is in the “national interest” is
not always in the “public interest”. Claims by politicians that
some information is not in the “national interest” can often turn
out to be an attempt to avoid transparency and accountability.
The
“public interest” is definitely broader than the “national
interest” in that it speaks to and reflects the values that no
single social organisation or individual or entity can claim sole
ownership of.
The
“public interest” embodies values of justice and equality, which
individuals and groups seek to attain and engage in struggles to
achieve. The “national interest” is often the interests and
values appropriate by particular groups in their attempts to achieve
hegemonic domination in a society.
Consequently
the “national interest” can often be a narrow set of
justifications, policy choices and strategies of implementation that
undermine the “public interest”. With regard to questions of
security – especially national security – the including
curtailing freedom of expression and of the media. A genuine public
broadcaster is therefore the best communicative and discursive space
for advancing the “public interest”.
Public
Service Broadcasting
Defining
public broadcasting in the 21st century is a difficult exercise
because the broadcasting environment and practices have changed as
result of political, economic, cultural and technological changes.
These changes are also true of Africa especially since the early
1990s where the “liberalisation” of broadcasting has ushered in
an era of, not only new privately-owned broadcasters, but a
predominately commercially-driven process of transformation of the
broadcasting environment and state broadcasters.
The
World Radio and Television Council (2000) defines public service
broadcasting thus: “Neither commercial nor state-controlled, public
broadcasting’s only raison
d’ etre is
public service. It is the public’s broadcasting organisation; it
speaks to everyone as a citizen. Public broadcasters encourage access
to and participation in public life.”
A
public broadcaster is a means to constitute public communicative
space free from political and commercial control. It acts as an open
public sphere for debate and discussion.
They
develop knowledge, broaden horizon and enable people to better
understand the world and others.
A
public broadcaster is central to satisfying a range of public
information and communication needs in a holistic manner on the
broadest possible range of issues and topics.
A
public broadcaster is a means to represent society in all its
complexity facilitating desired social goals including promoting
freedom of expression and other universal human rights.
A
public broadcaster should address the public as citizens who have
rights, duties and responsibilities. (A commercial broadcaster
addresses audiences as consumers and delivers them to advertisers.)
A
public broadcaster must allow for multiple communicators across the
social spectrum without privileging some voices over others.
A
public broadcaster must allow for meaningful feedback and
interactivity in its programming.
A
public broadcaster requires funding which is consistent with its
nature as a public service and critically, that does negate its
distinctness and identity.
We
culled the following piece from the Rhodes Journalism Review, 25,
November 2005
