IBA’s Eustace Nkandu Makes Belated Response on Hot Fm Independent Broadcasting Authority Director of Standards and Licensing Eustace Nkandu has given a belated response to the hullabaloo that characterized his organization’s ordering private radio station Hot FM to run weeklong apologies for airing a programme that discussed the reported ill health of President Michael Sata. Nkandu had written to Hot FM curiously in the absence of a complainant and vilified the privately owned commercial radio station for tackling the topical subject that the Republican Vice President has since said is important for the public to know. The Media Institute of Zambia blew Nkandu offside questioning his heavy handedness. Below is his response: Dear friends, It has taken me some time to respond to the issues surrounding HOT FM and the statement that the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) issued which was signed by me regarding the need for professional moderation of live phone-in radio and TV programs. At the time this event took place, I was acting Director General because the substantive office bearer had travelled out of the country. Now I wish to take this opportunity to clarify and explain certain issues for those who may care to know. The first thing I want to state up front is that this posting does not in any way represent the official position of the IBA on this matter but it is purely my personal effort to correct certain perceptions and share with you the mandate of the IBA. For the information of m friends, I did indicate a couple of months ago, that I was on the verge of leaving the University of Zambia where I spent a total of 12 years both as a Staff Development Fellow and Lecturer in Mass Communication and Public Relations. My joining the IBA was a conscious decision because the Authority had put up an advert in the newspapers last year. And I responded to it. I was shortlisted and interviewed along with other candidates and I finally joined the Authority as Director in charge of Standards, Licensing and Compliance. I have said all this in an attempt to put the record straight because some people alleged that I was simply appointed or given this job. Regarding the hullabaloo, ruckus or indeed discourse on the alleged threat by IBA to close HOT FM radio, I wish to note that I did struggle a lot to restrain myself from reacting to either negative or positive comments made by many people both on social platforms and even face to face encounters. I did not want to fall into the trap of rendering my opinion in the heat of the moment but take time to digest and reflect on what people had to say. I also avoided being dragged into political battles that different groups have declared against each other. It is indeed sad that as a people we have allowed everything to gravitate towards politics where sometimes rationality is sacrificed at the altar of political expedience. Some people will endeavour to analyse everything through the political lens which is certainly tainted by their strongly held political positions. This factor tends to negate objective comment as well as trivialise otherwise serious issues that would require levelheadedness when one is proffering an opinion. The other issue that worries me is that again as a people (Zambians in particular) we have developed a culture of rumour mongering. We are spending precious or valuable time discussing non-issues, which issues are highly hyped and sensationalised. Regrettably, rumours have been given such prominence in everyday discussions either at church, local pubs and indeed social platforms to the extent that some people have become experts who feel duty bound to comment on any subject and many of which they have no clue about. Truth seeking has become outdated and a sheer waste of time. But perhaps what is even worrying is that even people who call themselves JOURNALISTS OR MEDIA PRACTITIONERS are now peddlers or purveyor of rumours, half truths and in some cases blatant lies. It is a sacrosanct virtue for journalists to VERIFY any information they come across before they can allow it to be in their newspapers, radios and TV programs either as news bulletins or other forms of programming. No matter how sensational something sounds, a well trained journalist will not rush into publishing. Journalists are usually faced with an ethical dilemma of TO PUBLISH OR NOT TO PUBLISH OR TO AIR OR NOT TO AIR as the case maybe. But alas, this is no longer a cherished value. There is a good maxim in journalism and it goes, IF IN DOUBT, CHECK IT OUT, IF IT DOES NOT CHECK OUT, CHUCK IT OUT. This is a sure way of insulating yourself against those who like to make scandalous statements about others or even against hoaxes or false informers who present themselves as sources of news. Related to this is another important factor that distinguishes journalists from other conveyors of news and information. A journalist will always use SOURCES for his news or information. This is referred to as SOURCING of information. What this should ordinarily mean is that journalists tell their stories through other people. The idea is that a journalist needs to distance himself/herself from the events she /she covers/reports about to avoid being biased. But perhaps what is important about these sources of news and information is that they should be reliable and impeccable. Now coming to the discussion on the health of the President, the issue was that media discourse was based on speculative statements made by some people. Some of these commentator’s motives were far from being noble. Hence going by the requirement that journalists should use impeccable sources, it becomes fundamentally wrong for any radio and TV station to allow people to make comments in the absence of an official statement from either the Chief Government spokesperson or the presidential spokesperson or indeed from the President himself. The concern that many people have is that some radio stations do not take time to critically look at the topics they allow for listeners to call in and pass comments. Radio and TV stations should realise that topics for discussions must be carefully selected and when it comes to moderation of such programs, it is the responsibility of the person moderating the program to “control” overzealous callers who may take advantage of the opportunity given to attack defenseless individuals who are not available to rebuttal and may not even have an opportunity to do so. Broadcasting stations are held accountable for what people say when they allow such people to express themselves on their platforms/channels. Even the disclaimer of “views expressed in this program do not necessarily represent the views of the station” will not absorb a station from litigation. The bottom line is that a station has allowed someone to say something on the airwaves using their facilities. I now want to address the issue of advising stations to be careful when discussing certain issues on air. Some people condemned me stating that doing so was tantamount to suppression of freedom of expression or indeed stifling/muzzling press freedom. However, what my critics conveniently ignored is that there is no absolute freedom. If it were so, the world would have degenerated into total anarchy and confusion. Liberties/freedoms and rights have to be enjoyed with responsibility and a strong sense of duty. Hence to suggest that people should be allowed to say as they please, would be courting trouble. IBA has one of its mandates the promotion of freedom of expression through allowing a pluralistic and diverse media. And this is exactly what the Authority is doing by licensing radio and TV stations on a non-discriminatory or preferential basis. So encouraging stations to be careful with what issues they allow for discussion on live phone–in programs is not an affront on press freedom or freedom of expression but rather it is a way of inculcating a sense of responsibility in those who moderate the programs as well as the people who call into the radio or TV stations. In case some of you didn’t know the concept of live call-in programs has taken a different dimension in developed countries. Technology is now there to delay a call until the station is sure that the caller has not said anything slanderous that’s when the call in allowed so it is not live as such. These are countries that we even extol for their defense of freedom of expression. They do that to protect themselves against peddlers of lies and people who always want to use media channels to attack others. I also observed from some contributors that their comments were made in total ignorance of the role of or mandate of the IBA. Sadly enough, even bodies that we expect to be knowledgeable about the functions of the Authority conveniently decided to cast the Authority as a villain. I’m not suggesting that the Authority is infallible, no but rather that on the issues I have stated above, we acted above board and in accordance with the Act. In an attempt to come up with attacks on the Authority, some people cited parts of the Act as a basis for their comments. Unfortunately, most of them only touched on the parts that were convenient to them ignoring the fact that the two Acts (2002 and Amendment Act of 2010) must be read in full for one to come up with a solid position. This is also common in Christianity. Some Christians read the Bible selectively. But I shall not deal on the Bible because I did not go to a Theology College. In conclusion for now: The IBA is a statutory body that was established through an Act of Parliament No. 17 of 2002. The Principle Act was amended through the IBA (Amendment) Act No. 26 of 2010. The IBA became operational in July 2013. The Authority is responsible for regulating the broadcasting industry in Zambia by promoting a pluralistic and diverse broadcasting industry in the country. The functions of the IBA include among others, scrutinising applicants for radio and television licences and suspending or revoking such licences. The Authority also sets standards in the broadcasting sector as well as receives public complaints about broadcasting houses. In line with this mandate, the IBA has handled a number of complaints against radio and TV stations. These have been sorted out amicably and stations have complied each time we have talked to or written to them to address the raised issues. Stations have been summed to appear before the Authority to correct certain issues. We do not rush to the media to “expose” such stations. We want to protect the interests of our broadcast license holders as well as the public. I must add that the broadcasting sector had remained unregulated for a long time such that certain things are regarded as normal even when they are wrong. And naturally, human beings don’t want to be regulated in their conduct. But regulation is different from control. We do anticipate resistance as we execute our mandate of getting rid of mediocrity that has characterised some broadcasting stations. zambiareports/2014/06/13/ibas-eustace-nkandu-makes-belated-response-hot-fm/
Posted on: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 07:57:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015