Begin forwarded message:

<excerpt><bold>From: </bold>Sacha Jotisalikorn <<sacha@forumasia.org>

<bold>Date: </bold>Mon Sep 29, 2003  14:02:55 Asia/Bangkok

<bold>To: </bold>foe-foi-news@forumasia.org

<bold>Subject: </bold>HARD TALK: Radio: children should be seen and

not heard 

<bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param>The =

Nation<color><param>6663,6663,6663</param><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger>=

<bigger>

HARD TALK: Radio: children should be seen and not heard =

</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></color><bigger><bigger><bigg=

er><bigger>

</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger>Published on Sep 23, 2003 

</fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param>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 

</fontfamily></excerpt> =