State should reform KBC to make it top public broadcaster
What you need to know:
- Given the lack of faith the local stations have shown in existing arrangements with Chinese firms earlier awarded the deals, why can’t the Government instead upscale the role of Kenya Broadcasting Corporation.
- As it is now, Kenyans depend only on private broadcasters for provision of information, and in the absence of ‘must-carry’ obligations, its hard to achieve universal access to information by Kenyans.
- On the same note, what has the authorities done to ensure the digital sets are as cheap as possible, especially in rural areas.
The biggest ideal behind the switch to digital platforms of broadcasting was that it would increase access to information by Kenyans, improve media plurality by increasing channels and strengthen public service broadcasting.
Indeed, just like other projects associated with big monies in Kenya, the issues around the digital switch in Kenya have nothing to do with the technical preparedness and the infrastructure challenges in the country now, but the politics inherent with such big money projects and vested interests.
And as the big boys go on playing, the big losers are Kenyans, who are missing out on the opportunities offered by the migration. What we are seeing is chest-thumping and extreme positions taken by those supposed to be critical players in the process.
As seen in the countries that have embraced the migration, the thing is a process rather than an event, and if not well managed, can be sabotaged mid-stream.
Given the lack of faith the local stations have shown in existing arrangements with Chinese firms earlier awarded the deals, why can’t the Government instead upscale the role of Kenya Broadcasting Corporation.
Why does the government trust that it will improve the provision of information to Kenyans by relying on private players only.
The government must compete the implementation of Article 34 of the Constitution by reforming KBC to become a truly public broadcaster that can play its rightful role.
PRIVATE BROADCASTERS
As it is now, Kenyans depend only on private broadcasters for provision of information, and in the absence of ‘must-carry’ obligations, its hard to achieve universal access to information by Kenyans.
Global standards and best practices encouraged by bodies such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe recommend that regulators in the industry take steps to increase pluralism of content and prevent concentration of property in broadcasting.
How has this been done? What has the regulator done to ensure there is more content? The row playing out between Communications Authority of Kenya and local media houses is purely on content.
Even the licensed players do not have enough content and air material they have not invested in producing.
On the same note, what has the authorities done to ensure the digital sets are as cheap as possible, especially in rural areas.
The new technologies should serve the government’s general goals of promoting both digital and public broadcasting.
The process should be based on media laws and policies that would have safeguards essential for preservation and strengthening of human rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of the media and access to information.
The country does not have a media policy nor access to information law. So what is the legal framework meant to support the migration process? Where are our competitive laws to guide the process?
The writer is the deputy chief executive of the Media Council of Kenya
