In October 2004, the Broadcasting Monitoring Complaints Commission (BMCC) heard submissions by Icasa, Radio Today, Classic FM and the Radio Today Action Committee on charges levelled against the community station. Before considering the merits of the judgement by the BMCC, I should state upfront that our firm has an interest. We represented Classic FM in these hearings. Notwithstanding this, I have attempted to isolate a few key issues arising from the judgement, which may have an important impact on community broadcasting in South Africa. Specifically, one must ask whether the BMCC has provided clear interpretation on the issues raised for community licence holders, their communities, and interested third parties.
Given the number of review cases involving the recent allocation of four-year community licences and the obvious value attached to this limited resource, the judgement has been eagerly awaited. It is being viewed as a test case to assess the extent to which the BMCC adequately protects community radio stations from commercial considerations. Depending on one’s perspective, this could run the gambit from exploitation to infiltration – all the while balancing the realities of a station’s need for financial stability. But interested parties have not only focused on the question of whether the systems in place sufficiently protect the community radio model; there is also the question of how the BMCC deals with issues of format and programming. Here the severity of suggested sanction, should licence conditions found to have been breached, is the focus.
By way of background, the five complaints levelled against Radio Today were: the unilateral change of name by the station; the change of programming format with the inclusion of extensive amounts of business news in prime-time slots, as well as music that targets a much younger audience; the financial control of the station by Moneyweb; the targeting of young business-orientated professional instead of the 50+ English speaking community of Gauteng; and the general curtailment of community participation in the station.
The judgement has facilitated a cooling off period between the station and the community, and has made the following recommendations regarding the complaints:
Reversion to the old name, pending a meeting between the station and the community and a formal amendment to change the name.
Further consultation between the community and the station regarding the increase in business programming and the need to cater for the community’s music needs.
Bringing any commercial agreements between the station and Moneyweb to the council for consideration.
Increasing community participation, specifically community inclusion in deciding the programming.
The upshot of it all is that the station and the community will have a further opportunity, notwithstanding complaints received and arguments made, to resolve the concerns. But the judgement serves only to highlight the difficulties the BMCC faces in balancing the commercial survival of a station with the needs of a community. The tribunal has struggled to define clear parameters with regard to formatting and programming issues. In this regard they are either reluctant to make a decision on the issues, or have elected to use the judgment to nudge the parties towards settlement before delivering hard-hitting recommendations.
Certain parties had been hoping for a more definitive finding from the BMCC. A stronger judgement would not only have given clarity, it would have made other licence holders more circumspect when thinking about straying from their own licence conditions without a formal amendment. In the long run a firmer judgement, one way or the other, would have created some much needed precedent regarding community broadcasting, would have eased the work of the authority, and made for a healthier and more efficient broadcasting environment. It will be interesting to see the line taken in the event that this matter does reappear in front of the commission.
Greg Hamburger is an attorney at Rosin Wright Rosengarten , a firm specialising in entertainment and media law based in Johannesburg. Visit the firm’s new website at www.rwr.co.za