MARINA SALANDY BROWN Thursday, October 1 2009

click on pic to zoom in

The lighter side: Tabaquite MP Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, centre, and economists Dennis Pantin, left, and Prof Patrick Watson express the lighter side o...

It is a very unhealthy situation when the State could be found guilty of prejudice against an applicant for a radio licence and the country’s taxpayers forced to fork out $2.6 million in compensation. Last week’s announcement of the pay out to the Hindu organisation Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS) to correct the wrong of having been unfairly deprived of a licence, and subsequent calls by the Secretary General of the organisation, Sat Maharaj, for cabinet ministers to be called to account on the matter should never have been able to occur.

In the judgment handed down by the final court of appeal, the Privy Council, the decision not to grant the licence was considered “arbitrary or capricious”, and from reading the judgment pure prejudice seems unclear to me, but a lot of bungling and mishandling of the application was certainly one reason that the SDMS application failed. At the time of the incident the current telecommunications act was not in force and the Telecommunications Authority of TT (TATT) was not yet in existence. From reading the Act, it would appear that a repeat of a similar SDMS affair is unlikely, not least because a six-month consideration time is provided for under TATT regulations, as opposed to the years it could take previously, and the procedures also seem more transparent.

But the aspect I wish to pursue is what are the criteria on which licences to operate TV or radio companies are granted? The Act says little about what we should be able to hear on our radio stations but does talk about the $$$s. For a start, the Act says that “The Authority shall regulate the use of the spectrum in order to promote the economic and orderly utilisation of frequencies for the operation of all means of telecommunications and to recover the cost incurred in the management of the spectrum”. So, TATT needs to make money out of the operations and the broadcasters have to make money to keep TATT going. Therein lies the biggest problem. What about us?

Sat Maharaj’s application said they wanted to cater for the Indian youth market “for the enhancement and better understanding of youth related issues, and the programme format will reflect this through its religious, cultural, musical, educational and discussion contents”. Notice two words: “discussion” and “format”. Just on the basis of that alone I would not grant a licence to any applicant. When are we going to get away from the poor diet of endless empty talk and music on radio? It is quite clear that the SDMS know little about broadcasting formats and thinks there is just one, like so many of the existing radio stations. Where is the drama, the readings, the intelligent linking of music to talk, the comedy, the current affairs investigations? The answer is that the stations cannot afford to do them, that they do not know how to do them, even if they knew that other formats existed at all, and that there is no need for them to do them according to their licences.

If the SDMS application were received now, TATT should want to know the extent to which the station would cater to the tastes and interests of the stated target audience and how it would broaden the range of existing services. Also, and importantly, what evidence is there that the proposed audience wants such a service? If you are going to sell something that few people want, how can the service be lucrative or sustainable? A broadcasting licence cannot be provided on the basis of idealism. We have several Indian stations in this country and they can only make money if they are really competitive, which means the lowest common denominator. I hope Mr Maharaj will take his $2.6 million and make some truly good programmes that people will really want to hear and which will add significantly to what’s already on offer, and if he doesn’t then his licence should be taken away.

In TT the broadcast media — TV and radio — are essentially profit focused businesses, but commercial viability should be only one criterion in a business that has inordinate power to dictate tastes, standards and even the moral sensibilities of a nation. The most recent MORI poll (April 2009) is evidence of the key, influencing role that TV and radio play. The poll reveals that most people, about three-quarters, take their official information from television while slightly less than half think radio provides the most reliable source of that sort of information. That is a captive audience for presenting culture beyond popular music and ole talk. I do think that culture and development go hand in hand. Broadcast media can play a vital role in broadening and deepening what we enjoy and in offering alternative ways of entertaining and seeing ourselves. Sadly, we just think about money.