Licence fee can work in public’s interest
Broadcasting does not come cheap. Even the most basic broadcasting business requires relatively expensive technology and hardware simply to set it up.
Advertisement
In terms of personnel, a successful broadcasting operation requires not only competent broadcasters but a cast of people schooled in several fields including administration, engineering, marketing and accounting. Financing a major national broadcasting operation such as the Ghana Broadcasting (GBC) takes unimaginable resources just to make it happen.
It goes without any need for lengthy explanations that public service broadcasting costs much more than a commercial broadcasting operation of comparable size.
For example, there are demands on GBC which commercial broadcasters don’t have to bear. A vivid example is the ruling of the Supreme Court imposing it as a constitutional duty on GBC to provide equal opportunity to all parties to present their views. Indeed, we need the public broadcaster to live up to its responsibilities otherwise the constitutional guarantees of the right to information and freedom of expression would be futile.
There are different ways of funding public broadcasting. The state can take up all the costs and use constitutional institutions to protect the broadcaster from governmental interference.
This is easier said than done. Given the previous history of GBC being under the heel of whichever government was in power, it would be difficult to insulate it from governmental control when the government pays the bill.
In any case, given the demands on the consolidated funds or the government’s money, there would never be enough money for GBC to provide quality broadcasting. One of the demands on public service broadcasting is the production of quality programmes that set the bar for others to follow. It is doubtful that the government can do any more than it is doing at the moment.
In the US, public broadcast stations, mostly radio, are grouped under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They derive their revenues from a combination of federal funds, private donations and contributions from business sources. This method still puts public broadcasters in hock to big donors and the government.
The specific advantage of the licence fee is that it guarantees an amount of money that is predictable and which is controlled by the public. If public service broadcasting is desirable, we should select a funding method that ensures that there is a constant stream of money available to make it work.
I am convinced after comparing the different financing modes that the licence fee approach is the best. This does not mean that the system is foolproof or cannot be improved. The licence fee approach is operated in several countries in different ways with perhaps the UK being the most popular. It has been refined over the years in its governance and programme making. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
There is the need to intensify public education on the licence fee to ensure that people understand its benefits. Of course it is the law and we are all expected to obey the law, but it does no good to explain simply that people must pay because in Ghana selective observation of the law is sadly the norm!
It is important to convince us that the licence fee is good for us as a people. The process of canvassing support for the licence fee must also mean mobilising citizens to perform their civic duties.
This is important because some of the most defiant opponents of the licence fee are ironically the kind of people you would expect to rally for improvements in citizenship.
People who are worried about the fee have raised many concerns that must be addressed. For example, people have asked whether GBC should continue to run adverts when it starts receiving licence fees. This question is often based on the erroneous impression that the BBC does not undertake any commercial activities. While it is not legal for the BBC to run adverts on its public service, it has commercial activities and the account is kept separate from the licence fee.
As we cannot demand that GBC stops running commercials, we can demand that the licence fee should go into programming to ensure that programmes that would not otherwise attract advertising can be produced.
Secondly, we can and must insist that some kinds of programmes should not carry advertising. These are news and current affairs programmes. That would ensure that the news and factual programmes and documentaries are free of any kind of influence.
The licence fee must be kept separate from other sources so that it can be accounted for to the public. However, using the money solely for programming does not mean it cannot be used to pay for items that enable programming. For example, at the moment GBC pays a lot of money for fuel to power the generators that enable production and transmission to take place. It would make sense to use some of the licence fee money to offset such essential expenditure. Of course, over time, more of the money must support programming, research, production and other broadcasting-related services. The important point is that the licence fee must be accountable directly to the people and, therefore, a separate audit mechanism should be created for its accounting.
Another question is whether the government must continue to subsidise GBC. Ideally, GBC and all public service stations must be independent of the government but withdrawing government money immediately will not be possible or even desirable.
The government is a major stakeholder in the communication arena in the country and the state will continue to own GBC. State money will ensure that GBC can employ people and pay them while the licence fee supports programmes and direct broadcasting activities.
The important thing is that the government does not directly control GBC. This has already been achieved under the 1992 Constitution which gives the powers previously vested in the Minister of information to the National Media Commission (NMC). The NMC is not directly mentioned in the licence fee law, but the constitutional body can exercise its powers under the Constitution, especially the obligation to insulate the state-owned media from government control, to constitute itself or appoint a trusteeship body to oversee the operation of the licence fee on behalf of the public.
The point is that the licence fee excites debate wherever it is operated. There is the need to provide safeguards against its abuse and also ensure that it is value for money. It is not meant to supplement GBC income merely to allow the corporation to continue to do what it does at the moment. It must lead to real changes in the way it does its business and to promote the public interest.
In summary, we need public service broadcasting to serve the public interest without fear and bias. The licence fee is the best way to fund public broadcasting at the moment but the purpose will not be served if the public does not have a keen interest in how the money is spent. There have to be governing structures in which the public must be represented to ensure that programme policies are in line with the public good.
The public must support the board and management of GBC in these years of transition. Going from a state broadcaster through a quasi-public broadcaster phase to the real thing demands a lot of planning, expertise and good old commonsense all guided by the public interest. It will not be easy but if we all pull in that one direction everything is possible.
HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]" [email protected]
The columnist is a member of the National Media Commission.
The views expressed are not necessarily those of the NMC