admin
Nicole Hondo
Sentiments by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) on developments in the broadcasting sector, where six television players were licenced by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ), have exposed duplicity by media freedom advocacy institutions in Zimbabwe.
MISA is quoted casting aspersion on the development of awarding licences to 6 new players, muddying the decision as a non-democratic process because to them the players which were licenced are somewhat linked to Government or aligned to the ruling party. Herein lies the duplicity by MISA which has been advocating for liberalisation of airwaves but when it eventually happens, they sing themselves horse about lack of diversity to justify their long-standing anti-Government stance.
Being someone with keen interest and knowledge about broadcasting, I have been following the processes that led to the awarding of TV licences to Jester Media, Zimpapers Television Network, Rusununguko Media, ACACIA, Fairtalk Communication and Channel Dzimbahwe. The BAZ in my own view was transparent and accountable in its licensing processes that encompassed public hearings where applicants were made to prove publicly their eligibility to be awarded with the licences.
The virtually public inquiries conducted by BAZ proved the capacities of applicants and the sustainability of their proposed television stations which I think was the measure that was employed by the regulatory authority to determine who was to get the licences. The list of new TV licences awarded by BAZ is a true reflection of the ranking of applicants based on their performance in proving their eligibility to be licenced.
MISA’s cries about lack of diversity is a show of rank hypocrisy on their part given the fact that the institution fancies itself as democracy and media freedom advocate while at the same time turning a blind eye to the democratic process that underpinned the licencing process by the BAZ. For MISA to say that the applicants that managed to prove their capacity and viability to BAZ are either linked to the government or the ruling party is being downright unfair and a ridiculous anti-establishment stance.
The performance by successful candidates during the public inquiries is clear testimony of their eligibility to be licenced and their capacity to deliver quality broadcasting services. Jester Media which came out tops presented a moving proposal for its 3K TV that showed their capacity to deliver diverse programming. 3K TV showed that they were ready to roll out their plan as they presented an excellent and captivating showreel that was anchored on people centred, informative, entertaining and educating program content.
The ZTN presentation was well composed as the Zimpapers team managed to prove their preparedness to deliver a broadcasting service in a short space of time after being licenced. ZTN which holds a television webcasting licence has proved it has the technical expertise to run a viable television station anchored on sound financial and content plans and policies.
Rusununguko Media which was placed third on the list presented a solid proposal that incorporated a unique element of capability to deliver various genres of charming content. The presentation of a block buster film titled “Chinhoyi 7” produced by Rusununguko left no doubts about that capacity and capability of the applicant to create local quality content that can compete on the international content markets.
The other three applicants awarded with licences, ACACIA Media, Fairtalk Communication and Channel Dzimbahwe also showed their uniqueness and capacity as they presented their proposals to the BAZ Commission and the public. No adverse comments were put forward by members of the public against the applicants that were eventually licenced by the BAZ.
It will therefore be unfair for MISA to then come out to attack the credibility of the licenced players only because of the alleged links to government and the ruling party while turning a blind eye to how they fared during the licensing process by BAZ. It also escapes all comprehension why MISA would want the BAZ to discriminate over applicants that are accused of having links to the government as if having those links reduces their right to be considered for a licence.
All the arguments against the awarding of licences to the 6 new players should be based on the merits of evidence coming from the public inquiries where all applicants were given a public opportunity to prove their worth. To then come with flimsy accusations that the licenced players are linked to the Government and henceforth they shouldn’t have been awarded with licences is to be unfair.
It’s understood that MISA and its likeminded media freedom advocacy groups survive on donor funding from belligerent states that want to see the installation of a clientele regime amenable to their neo-imperial whims and caprices. So, for them to praise the milestone made in liberalisation of airwaves by the Government they are funded to demonise is a nonstarter.
The licensing of the new TV players has caught MISA flatfooted and has presented a dilemma that has left them scrounging for political excuses against democracy and media reforms being instituted by the government they so much like to demonise.
Online Reporter