Devising a broadcasting regulatory system requires wider public consultation

The broadcast media plays a pivotal role in shaping public opinion. Its reach and influence extend to every household. On Average, children spend at least one to two hours daily in front of the television. Not only for kids, but also for most adults, their perception of society is heavily influenced by what they see and hear through broadcast media channels. Therefore, having a professional broadcasting system which enriches the culture, enlighten the citizens by providing reliable news, quality information and deliberative opportunities on diverse social issues is fundamental to developing a caring democratic society. The overarching objective of a broadcasting regulatory mechanism therefore should be to develop a meaningful broadcasting system in which private, public and community broadcasters complement one another to serve diverse information, education and cultural needs of the citizens.

However, the current draft which is in circulation now falls short of this goal. Instead, it seeks to create a collaborative media environment between the government and the media owners that can be exploited by the government to marginalize dissenting voices and control the media portrayal of government affairs. Certain provisions of the draft even allow for the suppression of criticism concerning the government’s economic agenda through prior censorship. This approach contradicts the fundamental principles of a democratic society that values access to unbiased information and diverse viewpoints.

The proposed draft also neglects the importance of engaging key stakeholders, such as journalists, professional organisations, civil society groups, academicians, and the audience at large in the vital discussions on determining the code of practices for broadcasting organization. No ethics and codes of practices will receive a social validation if the process excludes the participation of all stakeholders, particularly those who are at the receiving end.

Some licence holders seem to argue for minimal regulation, claiming that it fosters competitive services that meet customer needs. However, any regulatory approach which neglects the broadcasters’ task to air reliable information, maintain fairness and due impartiality when addressing controversial issues will not help to develop a credible broadcasting media system. Minimal regulation they request risks allowing broadcasting organisations to disseminate fictional stories as news, serving political biases or personal preferences. Instances like the Kelaniye Naya scandal, where media owners aimed to sway public opinion in favor of a particular presidential candidate, exemplify the need for robust public interest minded regulations to prevent such manipulations. Adherence to journalistic ethics and code of practices validated by all stakeholders would enable the regulator to hold broadcasters accountable in providing reliable news and unbiased information.

Content diversity in the broadcasting system is also a matter of regulatory concern. Market competition does not necessarily help increase the diversity and quality of broadcast content. Many broadcasters prefer to air cheap imported programs rather than investing in high-cost quality native documentaries, movies or in-depth investigative programmes. The regulatory body can provide financial assistance to qualified independent local producers to produce quality local content in collaboration with preferred broadcasters. Such a mechanism can be funded from the licensing income and administered by the independent regulator following the international best practices for similar funds.

Given the scarcity of broadcasting frequencies, only a select few can hold broadcasting licences. Therefore, a key licensing condition is that broadcasters ensure due impartiality in reporting on news and current affairs without taking the privilege of acquiring a broadcast license to promote personal preferences of the license holder. Due impartiality refers to the principle that broadcasters should present a balanced and unbiased view of news and current affairs. It requires broadcasters to provide fair and equitable coverage, treating different viewpoints objectively and avoiding favoritism or bias.

Due impartiality also acknowledges that broadcasters have a responsibility to offer a range of perspectives and opinions, providing audiences with a comprehensive understanding of different issues. It ensures that controversial or sensitive subjects are covered in a fair and balanced manner, without promoting any particular agenda or taking sides.

However, due impartiality does not mean that all perspectives need to be given equal weight or that false or baseless claims should be presented as valid. It recognizes that some viewpoints may carry more weight based on evidence, expertise, or consensus. Broadcasters must exercise editorial judgment to determine the appropriate balance and proportionality of coverage while still adhering to the principle of due impartiality. Any evidence-based violations of due impartiality have to be investigated and acted upon by the regulatory body.

The best international practices in regulating the broadcasting sector are based on the `Public Trustee Regulatory Model, of which crucial features are the operational independence and the professional credibility of the regulating body. This model recognizes that scarce public properties, such as broadcast frequencies, should be used exclusively for the public good. To achieve this, regulation must be rooted in the public interest, with editorial independence of the broadcaster as its cornerstone. Independent regulatory bodies are justifiable largely because their role is to ensure that license holders do not betray the undertaking that they gave to the public to use the entrusted broadcasting frequencies, which are a public property, primarily to serve public good and not for private or sectarian purposes.

The broadcasting licence is essentially a written agreement between license holders and the public to use broadcast frequencies in the public interest. The regulator’s task is to oversee the implementation of this agreement. To accomplish this, the regulator must have functional independence from both the government and media owners. The provisions to appoint the regulatory body in the draft proposal does not guarantee this uncompromising independence. Therefore, any discussions on establishing a regulatory mechanism for the broadcasting sector should not be limited to business transactions between governments and current licence holders. They should be open to public hearings and inclusive deliberations, allowing all key stakeholders to participate and propose the best independent regulatory framework based on international best practices.

Wijayananda Jayaweera