TV licence fee to help start public service broadcaster
Mar 23, 2004
The recently proposed television license fee has been a subject of intense debate.
By Godfrey Mutabazi
The recently proposed television license fee has been a subject of intense debate.
It is important to note that the idea of the fee is enshrined in the Electronic Media Act, 1996. The fee is linked to a larger plan underway to establish a public service broadcaster, different from Radio Uganda and Uganda Television (UTV), as we know them, with improved reach, quality and professional standards.
Since 1953, Radio Uganda and later UTV had a virtual monopoly of the airwaves in Uganda. Starting early 1990s, government opened up the broadcast sector to private investment. There are now seven television and over 80 radio stations on air, all with varying coverage. Radio Uganda and UTV are therefore no longer the sole source of “official†information.
In a country where the majority of people are dependant on the broadcast media (especially radio) for vital public information about health, agriculture, governance, the public service broadcaster that replaces Radio Uganda and UTV cannot be left to survive 100% on advertising revenue, as has been proposed in some circles.
It would be difficult for the broadcaster to strike the balance between meeting the targets of the advertiser and the needs of their varied national audience. It is preferable therefore that they start off with adequate capitalisation to be able to develop the necessary editorial independence.
Transforming Radio Uganda and UTV into a fully-fledged public service broadcaster would mean they do not have the liberty to act as a mouthpiece for interest, but must cater for the needs of all Ugandans, regardless of political persuasion. It would also require that mechanisms be put in place to ensure that the broadcaster is directly accountable to the public.
This process is already underway. Appropriate funding structures and an independent Board take time to establish, and entrenched attitudes and practices take time to change. The establishment of a properly functioning public broadcaster should be an integral part of the process of Uganda’s democratic transition.
The shape this broadcaster takes will, however, depend heavily on the price Ugandans are willing to pay. This will in turn depend on how important Ugandans think informed public debate on all aspects of life is in a democracy.
We need to bear in mind that a service that serves the whole country on an agenda dictated by the varying interests of the public is a challenge, but it stands a good chance of including people of all shades of opinion and all socio-economic categories in public debate.
This cannot be harmful to the kind of democracy we aspire to. Uganda’s future broadcasting policy envisages three clearly distinguished tiers of broadcasting, the public, the private, and the community broadcaster. Each tier of broadcasting will have clear license obligations. The public broadcaster will be expected to deliver a diverse and high quality service.
They will be expected to cater for all interests and tastes, provide for the needs of minorities, show a concern for national identity and be a leader in innovative programming. The public broadcaster will be expected to lead in appropriate research including exploring digital and other new technologies.
Such a broadcaster should compete favourably with other broadcasters on the basis of quality programming, and not just audience size. Most public service broadcasters aspire to these standards, but their attainment depends on the broader social-political context within which the broadcaster operates.
For the vision of this new public broadcaster to be attained, the major challenges will have to be addressed. Apart from clear policy guidelines on the mandate of the public broadcaster, this body will need to be insulated against economic and political manipulation.
Whereas we appreciate the healthy debate on this issue, there is need to realise that the debate has been based on the premise of a government broadcaster which is essentially what UTV and Radio Uganda are today. Therefore it is not justifiable to compare, as this is an entirely different setup.
However, what the Broadcasting Council aspires for is a Public Service Broadcaster similar to the BBC in the United Kingdom and SABC in South Africa.
The licence fee funds these successful bodies. The Uganda Public Service Broadcaster will be answerable to the public. And its broadcast licence will have specific obligations within its mandate.
There is evidence that the licence fee of the 1960s was still being collected until 1998 when the Broadcasting Council came into existence.
However, this money was never put to the use of UTV or Radio Uganda because all monies were passed on to the government-consolidated fund. This time the licence fees shall be at the disposal of the new broadcaster.
We must not use the failure in other countries as our yardstick after all the countries that have been cited as failures did operate a government ‘broadcaster’ and not a public one.
It is to the benefit of the public to ensure the creation of a broadcaster funded and answerable to the public as opposed to the current government broadcaster.
The writer is the Chairman Broadcasting Council
The recently proposed television license fee has been a subject of intense debate.
It is important to note that the idea of the fee is enshrined in the Electronic Media Act, 1996. The fee is linked to a larger plan underway to establish a public service broadcaster, different from Radio Uganda and Uganda Television (UTV), as we know them, with improved reach, quality and professional standards.
Since 1953, Radio Uganda and later UTV had a virtual monopoly of the airwaves in Uganda. Starting early 1990s, government opened up the broadcast sector to private investment. There are now seven television and over 80 radio stations on air, all with varying coverage. Radio Uganda and UTV are therefore no longer the sole source of “official†information.
In a country where the majority of people are dependant on the broadcast media (especially radio) for vital public information about health, agriculture, governance, the public service broadcaster that replaces Radio Uganda and UTV cannot be left to survive 100% on advertising revenue, as has been proposed in some circles.
It would be difficult for the broadcaster to strike the balance between meeting the targets of the advertiser and the needs of their varied national audience. It is preferable therefore that they start off with adequate capitalisation to be able to develop the necessary editorial independence.
Transforming Radio Uganda and UTV into a fully-fledged public service broadcaster would mean they do not have the liberty to act as a mouthpiece for interest, but must cater for the needs of all Ugandans, regardless of political persuasion. It would also require that mechanisms be put in place to ensure that the broadcaster is directly accountable to the public.
This process is already underway. Appropriate funding structures and an independent Board take time to establish, and entrenched attitudes and practices take time to change. The establishment of a properly functioning public broadcaster should be an integral part of the process of Uganda’s democratic transition.
The shape this broadcaster takes will, however, depend heavily on the price Ugandans are willing to pay. This will in turn depend on how important Ugandans think informed public debate on all aspects of life is in a democracy.
We need to bear in mind that a service that serves the whole country on an agenda dictated by the varying interests of the public is a challenge, but it stands a good chance of including people of all shades of opinion and all socio-economic categories in public debate.
This cannot be harmful to the kind of democracy we aspire to. Uganda’s future broadcasting policy envisages three clearly distinguished tiers of broadcasting, the public, the private, and the community broadcaster. Each tier of broadcasting will have clear license obligations. The public broadcaster will be expected to deliver a diverse and high quality service.
They will be expected to cater for all interests and tastes, provide for the needs of minorities, show a concern for national identity and be a leader in innovative programming. The public broadcaster will be expected to lead in appropriate research including exploring digital and other new technologies.
Such a broadcaster should compete favourably with other broadcasters on the basis of quality programming, and not just audience size. Most public service broadcasters aspire to these standards, but their attainment depends on the broader social-political context within which the broadcaster operates.
For the vision of this new public broadcaster to be attained, the major challenges will have to be addressed. Apart from clear policy guidelines on the mandate of the public broadcaster, this body will need to be insulated against economic and political manipulation.
Whereas we appreciate the healthy debate on this issue, there is need to realise that the debate has been based on the premise of a government broadcaster which is essentially what UTV and Radio Uganda are today. Therefore it is not justifiable to compare, as this is an entirely different setup.
However, what the Broadcasting Council aspires for is a Public Service Broadcaster similar to the BBC in the United Kingdom and SABC in South Africa.
The licence fee funds these successful bodies. The Uganda Public Service Broadcaster will be answerable to the public. And its broadcast licence will have specific obligations within its mandate.
There is evidence that the licence fee of the 1960s was still being collected until 1998 when the Broadcasting Council came into existence.
However, this money was never put to the use of UTV or Radio Uganda because all monies were passed on to the government-consolidated fund. This time the licence fees shall be at the disposal of the new broadcaster.
We must not use the failure in other countries as our yardstick after all the countries that have been cited as failures did operate a government ‘broadcaster’ and not a public one.
It is to the benefit of the public to ensure the creation of a broadcaster funded and answerable to the public as opposed to the current government broadcaster.
The writer is the Chairman Broadcasting Council