|
|
The need for informed judgement?
To make a good judgement, we need sound information and that means we need to know the standpoint of the person or organisation providing that information but also something about their character. In the case of some organisations we know almost any statement is PR guff but what about those with better reputations/ And even then what about the grey areas? We ask this because of the momentous decisions which could be taken affecting radio at the World Radio Congress when it meets in Istanbul in May ( see RNW March 25th). We also ask it because of the response to date in Australia from the presenters at the heart of the cash-for-comment question ( see RNW March 29 )) Both are important for different reasons. WRC Issues?
The issues for the WRC are more important as they are global
in nature and it is therefore even more important that the debate be informed.
Spectrum is becoming worth massive amounts ( RNW April 1 re UK mobile
bids) (link is mobile1) and this means there is equally large motivation
to grab it. From our point of view, we'd hate to see any encroachment
into existing radio and TV broadcasting bands but from a more specialised
point of view some literally life-or-death decisions are involved. This
is at the heart of the concerns expressed by the International Air Travellers
Association (IATA) lest spectrum currently reserved for aircraft use should
be affected. One could say "let the market rule" but only on the basis
of the cost of any deaths that do ensue are then in some way chargeable
against those who benefited from the changes that led to the tragedy.
And even that's not simple since where an accident occurred could have
a massive bearing on the monies involved ( can you imagine the cost of
the Bhopal chemical plant tragedy if it had taken place in the US instead
of India??) but would be of no concern whatsoever for the dead and injured
and their families. Which brings us on to the need for sources of soundly-based
neutrally presented scientific information. Who should provide scientific information?
At one time there would have been
no real question that governmental bodies would have been expected in
advances countries to be funded so as to provide independent scientific
advice but as historical records have become available it is clear that
even there the message was tainted at times with the need to avoid embarrassment
rather than preserve a necessary secrecy? Academia? The universities long
ago seem to have got into the habit of taking funds from industry which
may well taint their ability to be unbiased. Those involved? Well look
at the Low Power FM exchanged between the Federal Communications Commmission
(FCC) and the National Association of Broadcasters. One would have thought
proper test fairly simple in this case; it wouldn't have been that expensive
for NAB and the FCC to have agreed on some 'typical' locations and then
set up test LPFM broadcasts to check real interference a 100watt minnow
causes to a 35000watt giant and others in between. Instead we seem to
have had the NAB producing simulations and comparisons of existing commercial
station interference. Presumably the idea was that their 'CD-demonstrations'
would have more impact than scientific evidence and they seem to have
gained some of their way; to this reader they made the FCC more credible
on the basis of material as presented and the less-to-gain-by- misleading
principle. It still leaves a need for some proper debate on setting up
bodies to give scientific information, even if it won't be in time for
this year's WRC and we may thus suffer the consequences of having ducked
the issue in the past.And the broadcasters?
And even if that information is available, would you really trust broadcasters
to present it fairly? Most of them do not have a science background which
of itself might make it difficult to sort out evidence from public relations.
Even if they did how many would fight their employer if the scientific
evidence went against a station owner's views. And for the third time
lucky what if the presenter has sponsorship of large amounts from an interested
party? Say a mobile phone company in Australia. The public there might
not give a damn for cash-for-comment but at least they ought to be aware
of the amount of funding the presenter is getting from the company when
a related issue is being debated. And that's something the latest Australian
Broadcasting Authority conditions don't require.This writer is reminded of a comment made by one of the scientists working on the Manhattan project for the atomic bomb. He commented that, as a refugee he had no problem with idea that in a democracy the views of one ignoramus were counted as equal to his. The problem was when he knew the science and the views of two ignoramuses were taken as superior. That comment still has meaning and the best answer is better information.. |
|||||||||
| Front Page | About this site | Freelance
bulletin board |
Site audio files | Radio Stations | Other links | Archives Index | Comment Pages | Your feedback | Browsers and players |
|
|
Radionewsweb.com, 38 Creswick Road, Acton,
London W3 9HF, UK:
|
||||||||||
Feb 2000