HTML last revised 12th November, 2003.In the mid-1990s the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines liberalised the radio broadcasting industry. The liberalisation process came almost on the heels of public utterances by a spokesman for the then ruling New Democratic Party (NDP) that the government had no plans or interest in liberalising the radio industry. The echo of the public utterances had not quite subsided when the mad rush began to complete the process within a specific time frame. The time of transition was short and by 1997 the industry was transformed almost overnight from a position of state monopoly to a competitive environment with approximately five new stations entering the market within nine months. Why the change of heart and who or what was behind the change?
This paper attempts to examine some of the issues relating to the liberalisation process and the impact of these issues on the content of stations and the other services offered. At the moment there are about eight radio stations on the air in this small market environment.
What are the implications of neoliberalism applied to the radio industry in small countries in peripheral regions such as St Vincent and the Grenadines? Was the industry ready for liberalism? My central argument is that the industry was not adequately prepared for liberalisation. It is therefore still feeling the effects of the limited planning that went into the liberalisation process; it is badly in need of policy direction; its services to the public in an environment of neoliberalism will not realise any meaningful gains (1) if it lacks innovative content that can attract and sustain an audience; (2) if there's a lack of needed competence and capacity because of failure to develop human resources and acquire state of the art technology which will place all stations on par and within the competitive edge; (3) if there is a lack of good practices within the industry (ethics and attitude) and policy guidelines; (5) and if the limited economic resource base in the country is not creatively tapped.
The liberalization of radio broadcasting in St Vincent and the Grenadines is the result of a global push, emerging from the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) agenda, coming out of the mandate of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). I wish to posit that the government of the day responded to a global agenda that had a specific timeline. This came out of the WTO's mandate that each member must have a national schedule of commitments. In an effort to keep on schedule with its commitment the government allocated insufficient time to put in place appropriate legislation and regulation for the industry.
World trade agreements prior to 1994 included only goods, not services. Now most services with a few exceptions are included. Each government lists services to be liberalised and they are encouraged to increase the range over time. The GATS rules, like the WTO agreements are legally binding on governments and can be enforced if a dispute arises. The current agreement recognises the rights of governments to regulate services. Liberalisation seems attractive to many, as they believe that market forces will ensure the delivery of better services. While the trade agreements set the ideas in train, it was the responsibility of the government to ensure that whatever was necessary to ensure a smooth transition was in place before the implementation of an open market.
This is not the first time that radio has experienced an uneasy transition. When Radio 705, a relay station under the Windward Islands Broadcasting Services (WIBS) came under the direct control of the government of the day in the 1971, it was as a result of the same unplanned situation. Some members of the broadcasting service had decided to go their separate ways, because of internal differences. Radio 705 staff waited one morning for the signal from the WIBS head office in Grenada, but it never came. They then contacted the government and received the instructions to sign on the Station as Radio St Vincent. The station went on to operate for years, as a government department.
The proliferation of radio broadcasting in St Vincent and the Grenadines has had contradictory influence on national identity and the awareness of Vincentians over the past five years. Since the industry was liberalised in the latter part of the 1990s the industry has been in a self-regulatory mode. In this environment the idea is 'all who will' may enter. The justification is a rule of survival of the fittest. It is generally felt that standards will go up as competition increases. But the reality is that standards tend to trend down to the lowest denominator. The broadcasting industry operating under a system of self-regulation serves the interest of the public as it conceives desirable. What is offered in most cases as desirable represent a sharp departure from the traditional social responsibility of Media. The stations that depart from social responsibility tend to look after the bottom line ... financial stability. St Vincent and the Grenadines has a small advertising market as only a few businesses believe and actually participate in continuous advertising. The new stations are all privately owned and many of the owners are in the market to realise a business agenda. This agenda has resulted in very strong competition within a small market economy where the dollar more often than not dictates the direction of the medium. Survival 'by hook or by crook' is the ultimate goal of most stations. Since profitability is the ultimate goal for many who received commercial licenses most stations favour programming that maximises returns, but which may not contribute any valuable content to development. Some of the stations represent a high level of partisanship; lack restraint and indirectly or some may say directly contribute to the emerging immoral and violent culture we are now confronted with.
The fierce competition has polarised the industry. Liberalisation is therefore reaping the fruit of down market programming. Without standards in place, the 'free for all' trend which now exists will continue to bring standards down. A number of stations will survive, by whatever means and make money, but standards and choice will suffer.
The players in the industry may be of the view that the public approves of their excesses because there are few dissenting voices, but no protests and it is often said "silence gives consent". On the other hand, the few who question the proliferation of negative content also receive a negative response, 'who is not for us is against us', sealed with the attitude.
The broadcasting industry exerts a powerful influence on any society. It is also extremely dynamic and driven by the new technologies available at what can be termed affordable market price. The technologies are enabling factors in the delivery of the service; the content it delivers is what impact people and development. Having many radio stations is good, and represents a level of progress. But the industry must be taken to the next level in the realisation of true progress...people's development. To what end has the medium been used to date? I will attempt to address some of these concerns regarding utilisation and abuse in the industry.
Radio is a constant companion for many Vincentians. In the past few years, if one wished to listen to another station they had to tune in to one from the neighbouring islands. Today there is the option of tuning to another local station.
The new stations which came on board from 1997, breaking the monopoly of Radio St Vincent and the Grenadines (Radio 705), with a few exceptions offer the listeners identical or near identical content. Only two stations have explored the possibility of a niche market. The lack of variety in content brings with it a level of monotony. So while growth has been registered in terms of numbers, in content we have more of the same.
In the delivery of this service the operatives in the industry should have as a priority the concern: 'Are radio listeners better served in relation to content?' Another question which needs to be addressed is service to whom and at what cost? These are some of the issues that the players in the industry should seriously examine and consider. In this examination the possibilities of adopting a niche market approach is worth some thought?
The proliferation of talk shows and call-in programmes has brought a greater focus on the market of ideas and the value of interactive broadcasting. While call-in programmes are structured with a panel etc, the talk shows offer greater freedom and are therefore, more likely to run 'off course' depending on the host. The "market place of ideas" dictates the need for critical thinking and informed questioning or comments on the part of hosts and moderators. In radio, 'time is money' however, what seems to be the trend is that the valuable air-time for these programmes is more often than not spent in superficial and sensational chatter and gossip rather than in substantial dialogue/discourse that can help to engender knowledge for informed decisions. Some of these programmes while, seemingly aimed at the public reflect political undertones that are not subject to 'balance'. These programmes and others have also facilitated unbridled personal attacks with impunity.
Radio is still the main medium through which the majority of Vincentians receive public information. Every member of the country therefore has a right to participate in public communication, however that right carries with it responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities are like Siamese twins. The level of rights should be in accordance with the level of responsibility. There still exist today in St Vincent and the Grenadines practices in radio broadcasting that do not facilitate a free interchange of ideas, information and experiences without hostility, and discrimination. Some members of the public are excluded because of their social status; opposing views are still blocked from the air in some stations; and people of prominence still dominate the local content and have greater access to the medium than ordinary Vincentians.
In terms of news and current affairs, in some stations there is no clear distinction between news and advertising. These are presented like "hand in glove". There is no distinction between them. The depth of analysis that should come with knowledge in some current affairs programmes is also lacking because the staff members are not given the opportunity to expand their knowledge base.
There still exists in a number of the newsrooms the prevalent culture of "rip and read" and the dominance of press releases from 'spin-doctors'. There is seldom any motivation to pursue an issue, outside of the loop of press release, wire service covers, and the coverage of local prominent events strictly by invitation.
In programming content the concentration continues on foreign input while local productions are placed on the "back burner." The argument is local productions are too time-consuming and costly compare with the syndicated foreign productions. The question is if Vincentian producers do not produce and present their people who will do it? Universal access dictates the encouragement of citizens' participation and empowerment to become content producers, rather than mere users. This is essential in building a country's identity and also in establishing it as part of the knowledge society. The issue of local production is intimately connected to training and finances. The issue of training I will address later.
Advertising as noted earlier is the backbone of all players in the industry. It is the key that opens the door to viability, but because of the need to be viable a number of stations allow advertising to dictate and in some cases even control content.
Entertainment forms a major part of the radio industry. While for the most part the entertainment provided can be classified as wholesome, there are however, some persons within the industry who continue to feed the public entertainment that debase moral standards, glorifies crime and incites violence. These have no place in the public domain. As invited guests in people's private space broadcast media practitioners ought to realise that they must not insult the sensibility of their hosts.
There is also the issue of freedom in the unregulated environment. The question is 'Freedom by whose measure?' Does this freedom give media workers the right to do anything they wish to do? In this unregulated environment the general feeling is it is one's choice to be either partisan or non-partisan, to be just or unjust, to be true or false, and to vilify and distort if they so desire. Can any medium that practices the above truly claim to be contributing to the positive development of a people and country?
One of the important uses of Radio is to provide information and knowledge for the "public good", in so doing, radio performs its social responsibility by supporting the democratic process of the country and widening public participation in decision-making. It is part of that "public space" where debate takes place and public opinion is formed. The public has a right to be informed so that they can in turn make informed decisions.
The Public needs to realise that as beneficiaries they have a responsibility to ensure that radio stations provide a service that will progressively meet their satisfaction. They need to demand certain standards of performance from the broadcast media to operate for the "public good" and thereby fulfil the public's need for information and knowledge.
One of the major flaws within the industry at the moment is the lack of trained personnel. The traditional view in broadcasting is that training is a luxury. In radio the tendency has been to wait from opportunities for training from UNESCO, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, The Caribbean Broadcasting Union, BBC, Radio Deutsche Welle, the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association etc. The training of radio personnel was based on the agenda of the benefactors. Training was not planned with any specific outcome in mind. The attitude was wait and see what they will contribute when they return. That attitude still exists today.
Many barriers still exist at the institutional level for personal development, many persons experience a lot of injustices from within the broadcast systems. It's endemic to the profession. Many workers are undervalued, underpaid and overworked. Obstacles are placed in the way of academic pursuits for young journalists who wish to formally equip themselves to serve the people of the country. Some are constantly frustrated and discouraged by un-informed decisions from within their organisation or training policies outside of the organisation. Some owners and decision-makers feel there is no need for informed training.
The other issue with regard to training is that most radio managers use the opportunities for training as reward, not based on performance or aptitude but for their favourite people. In most cases then, the people who really need to training are ignored, while most of the others who get the opportunities do not value them, resulting in a lack of impact. This practice needs close scrutiny from the public.
In the normal flow of business, there is budget allocation for utilities and other activities that can be classified as incidental to the service, while a core area such as training is not even considered. Training should be an operational priority with an annual budgetary allocation. The managers can justify the spending and the benefits will confirm the value. Training should also be tailored to the specific needs of the stations as part of its overall national agenda.
In today's broadcast industry, practitioners need to have technical skills to produce creative programmes. The lack of human capacity in terms of essential skills, knowledge, training resources and attitude and the overall good work ethic are fundamental barriers to development, not only for the personnel within the stations, but the public as well. In a number of instances bad practices are passed on and in some cases become the norm. Today's technologies demand technical capabilities and knowledge. The use of new technologies and catering to a global market place demands competence and know how.
Formal and continuing education is therefore an integral pre-requisite to the ability of workers to produce and access information; it develops a person's capability for learning, interpreting information, adapting, applying and sharing knowledge. An investment in education can only benefit the institution. Retraining and retooling are also very important for the industry because of the growing complexity of knowledge, the quantity of information and the speed with which it is updated. Lifelong learning should be the focus. An environment within which innovations are desirable should be encouraged so that the creative ability of the workers can bloom and flourish.
Media owners and decision-makers should consciously seek training for their staff, based on a specific agenda. The organisations need to carry out an assessment of their training needs; have a plan in terms of direction and exert effort to train their workforce in order to secure their own growth and survival.
Some people may argue that a lot of talent exists in the industry. The truth is the industry cannot be transformed if the latent talents which exists are not harnessed to enable the workers to give of their best to their listeners. The industry has gifted people who can do much more with a stronger knowledge base and guidance in terms of standards etc.
Broadcasters have great influence in transforming society, and being true partners in the development process, if they are prepared to meet the challenges. The situation can change if station managers/owners and the political directorate as a whole give serious attention to the framework within which the industry is operating at the moment, develop the human resources and strengthen capacity with technological input. These are essential elements in laying the groundwork for empowering people, building a sound base for the industry and participating without inhibitions in the global knowledge society.
What's the role of the radio industry in national development? How has the education policy of the state reflected the need for competence in broadcasting? How has radio promoted and realised the education of the masses? Is radio broadcasting regarded as a valuable resource/stakeholder in the country's development agenda? Are broadcasters regarded as stake holders in the change process?
If the knowledge foundation is laid; an informed and conscious broadcasting industry can bring about a more informed population. The bar for knowledge will be raised and the population can contribute confidently to debate, make their views known and influence outcomes. One of the challenges of governments and decision-makers that enjoy position of powers in society is uneasiness in building a collective consciousness. In most Caribbean countries great anxiety arises from the power corridors over citizens' empowerment and the attendant scrutiny and demands of citizens as a result of their empowerment.
The idea of a 'global village' reminds us that we are also catering for a global market in terms of content. The World Wide Web presents the opportunity for stations to produce content for the global market place. There are a lot of benefits and opportunities in this direction, but few stations seem to realise the value of this even though they may have the technical capability. Another point worthy to note is that despite the instant communication that it dictates, some who have the facility do not use it to improve communication and social cohesiveness. The information which needs frequent updating is left for weeks and sometimes months without being updated. This poor attitude and neglect reduces the impact on the global market place.
The governments of the past have had a tradition of no policy. During the period of monopoly, the unwritten policy was used as a weapon against many within the system. Policies were uncoordinated, reactive, expediential and 'high-handed'. They did not originate from or exist within specific plans or programmes.
Most governments seem not to be too concerned with the content of the programming and the use people make of them. The result is that no policy approach is adopted in regard to these. They are pre-occupied with finance and structure of the medium and in more recent times with some of the personalities. Any effort by government to impose direct control on broadcasting is likely to encounter strong opposition. I am not suggesting here that the government impose its own ideas and interest. This is likely to be counter-productive. Some may ask who sets the rules? Any policy decision should involve the stakeholders and contributions from the public to make it meaningful and effective. The stakeholders within the industry should get together and articulate their position, which will be a form of guiding light in terms of direction for the industry. The issue of standards is likely to have more meaning if handled by voluntary self-regulation. Bodies should be set up to monitor activities and apply sanctions where necessary, and these sanctions must be binding. If the lack of proper planning and restraint continues the entire industry will not successfully meet the full expectations of the public and therefore not realise its full potential. The policy should be aimed at enhancing the quality of life and knowledge of all Vincentians; build a collective consciousness; encourage participatory democracy; realise universal access; individual liberty and the promotion of local culture.
There is need for integrity on the part of all workers in the broadcast industry to eliminate the abuses, management and staff alike. Efforts should be made individually and collectively to raise the consciousness regarding ethics among the present worker force of this valuable industry. Persons who are involved in the recruitment and selection process should make every effort to attract and employ people of principle, awareness and intelligence who can provide depth and good value to programming and be prepared to invest in their development so that the stations can improve their products. Every effort should be made to head onto a more progressive path... set the boundaries.
The broadcast industry is as strong as its credibility, its accuracy and performance. The "acid test" is administered by the public.
Liberalisation may be a wagon train, however being a perpetual 'waggonist' can do more harm than good to the industry. One should not be in it just "for the ride". The players and government need to stop that train and get off, then set down roots so that the industry can be well nourished to grow strong and healthy, despite its unplanned origin. For liberalised broadcasting to be truly effective, all players in the industry must 'stand for something' and not 'fall for anything'.
Brants K., et al. (Eds.) The Media in Question: Popular Culture and the Public Interests, Sage publication, Thousand Oaks.
Curran J., Seaton J., (1994) Power Without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain (4th ed.) Routledge, London.
Dearnley J., Feather J., (2001) The Wired World: An introduction to the theory and practice of the information society, Library Association publishing, London, U.K.
Graham A., Davies G., (1997) Broadcasting, Society and Policy in the Multimedia Age, University of Luton Press.
James C., (2001) 'Anxious Insularity: the Caribbean in the Age of Globalisation' in VISTAS, National Commercial Bank, Jamaica.
Martin W.J., (1995) The Global Information Society, Aslib Gower, Vermont, U.S.A.
Siebert F.S. et al. (1956) The Four Theories of the Press, University of Illinois, U.S.A.
United Nations Human Development Report, 2001, UNDP, New York.
© J. Pamela Barbour, 2003.
HTML last revised 12th November, 2003.
Return to Conference papers.