Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:12:06 +0700
From: Sacha Jotisalikorn <sacha@forumasia.org>
Subject: [communication 922] Fwd: HARD TALK: Radio: children should be seen and not heard
To: communication@wsisasia.org
Message-Id: <C2FC0F7B-F26D-11D7-BA07-000393DB8C92@forumasia.org>
X-Mail-Count: 00922

Begin forwarded message:> From: Sacha Jotisalikorn <sacha@forumasia.org>> Date: Mon Sep 29, 2003  14:02:55 Asia/Bangkok> To: foe-foi-news@forumasia.org> Subject: HARD TALK: Radio: children should be seen and not heard>> The Nation>> HARD TALK: Radio: children should be seen and not heard>> Published on Sep 23, 2003>>> For several months a group of school kids in Songkhla calling > themselves $BEZ(Boung journalists” went on air for three hours every => Sunday on a local FM radio station to discuss issues and problems > facing young people their age.>> Trained and guided by members of local non-government organisations > and academics, these amateur radio talk show hosts of the popular > $BE4(Bongkhla Talk” programme encouraged listeners to talk and =exchange > views on what goes on in their local community.>> They had every right to bill themselves as young pioneers of community => radio. The programme provided a unique chance for school children to => learn the art of communications and gain broadcasting experience. More => important, it became a rare forum for young and adult listeners alike => to explore issues affecting their community.>> But unfortunately, their endeavour was short-lived. One day earlier > this year, the government agency that owns the frequency > unceremoniously told the operator of $BE4(Bongkhla Talk” that it was =time > to move out. The time slot, the children were told, had just been > taken over by a major record company.>> With the unfortunate demise of $BE4(Bongkhla Talk”, another chapter =has > been closed in the struggle for media access by people who believe the => airwaves should not be the exclusive preserve of government agencies => and business interests. It was not the first and definitely not the > last programme of its kind to be taken off the air in the interest of => big record labels or major media operators.>> Working from the fringe to provide diversity in the broadcast media, => independent journalists and amateur broadcasters like those working > for $BE4(Bongkhla Talk” are often ignored by the industry that is > dominated by the major media proprietors. And the fact that they are => not geared toward generating revenue makes them particularly > vulnerable to purges by owners of the frequencies who are either > obsessed with the bottom line or guided by self-interest.>> These children$BCT(B latest ordeal should continue to ring alarm bells => over the future of broadcast media reform. There seems to be a trend => among many state agencies to commit themselves to long-term > concessions with major media proprietors with the hope that they could => somehow circumvent the reform.>> The most nightmarish scenario is that key players in the broadcast > industry, particularly the major record companies and government > agencies owning airwaves, will succeed in getting legal protection for => frequencies already in their possession. Their ultimate goal is to > make themselves practically immune to any reform.>> Outrageous as this may seem, this is not paranoia on the part of the => reform camp. With the help of certain MPs in the ruling parties, a > coalition of music companies and broadcast concessionaires, are > quietly pushing for their own version of the broadcast business bill => designed basically to protect their business interests.>> Most Thais are probably oblivious to the fact that major record > companies monopolise the airwaves. With big pockets and connections, => they have found their way onto almost every major airwave in major > provinces, kicking out incumbent independent DJs and producers in the => process. Media companies with good political connections have also > taken advantage of the delay in broadcast reform to gain stakes in the => industry.>> If the reform is carried out in the spirit of Article 40 of the > Constitution, state agencies will have to relinquish all the airwaves => they own so that they can be redistributed under guidelines to be > determined by the National Broadcast Commission and the broadcast > business law. But neither the commission nor the law yet exists.>> That explains why state agencies that own radio stations and major > record companies have found a common cause. What they want is a > provision in the broadcast business law that guarantees their > interests will not be affected by whatever changes take place.>> They are counting strongly on the support of MPs in the ruling > coalition for blanket protection for contracts with radio stations > already in place before the law takes effect. Such a guarantee would => undoubtedly unleash a wave of contracting signings.>> Of course, members of the media reform movement have promised to wage => a campaign against any attempts to dilute the essence of broadcast > reform. But their political leverage is very much in doubt, > particularly in the face of a convergence of interests between media => businesses and politicians in power who are obviously loathe to the > prospect of having to lose control of the airwaves.>> Like many of those before them, the Songkhla school kids have been > forced $BEV(Bnderground” and are now operating their own community =radio. > Though with a much-reduced audience because of limited transmission > capacity, the children continue in their own small way to be a distant => voice articulating what is largely ignored by the mainstream media.>> And nobody knows for certain between now and the setting up of the > National Broadcasting Commission how many more will end up like them.>> THEPCHAI YONG  =
	
922_2.enriched (attatchment)(tag is disabled)