[kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Coverage of migration licence issue by a few media houses unreasonable

Wed Jul 27 00:17:49 EAT 2011

This is a good step by Nation in giving coverage to the "other side" of the
debate.....Note also that it is not only media houses that have opposed the
decision. Mayfox Company Ltd (one more of the 4 bidders) went on TV today to
make their position known. In time, all these little bits of data from
concerned parties are beginning to form the building blocks of 'the big
picture' we all must be scratching pur heads to unravel.

For now, maybe a Q&A session involving media, CCK and civil society on this
fora over copious cups of Kenyan arabica coffee or Ketepa at one of our
fancy hotels will ease the tension and allow us to have a healthier debate.

Any takers?

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru at gmail.com> wrote:

> By BITANGE NDEMO
> 26 July, 2011
>
> I have followed the debate on the failure by a
> consortium of local media firms to win the award
> for a digital migration licence with dismay.
>
> The impression created by the media firms is that
> the award of the licence to a Chinese firm is ill
> thought-out on the grounds of probity and press
> freedom.
>
> The facts about digital migration speak for
> themselves. When Kenya decided to pursue it, the
> Ministry of Information established a Digital
> Migration Committee to oversee all processes
> including the licensing of backbone infrastructure
> developers.
>
> The committee offered a licence to media owners
> with interest in the broadcast sub-sector as a means
> of mitigating their investments.
>
> However, as soon as the licence was offered, the
> media houses disagreed on how to share this
> national resource. As a result, a tender process was
> seen as the best way to address the disagreements.
>
> But even when they disagreed, our doors were wide
> open, but the media houses decided not to negotiate
> with the tender committee, opting instead for the
> competitive tender process.
>
> With the doors thrown wide open to local and
> international bidders, the Chinese firm that has been
> the subject of controversy won the contract.
>
> Taken aback, the media houses sought the
> intervention of the Procurement Appeals Tribunal,
> which eventually confirmed that the Chinese firm
> had won fairly.
>
> In the criticism levelled at the government, the
> media houses have sought to portray the process as
> riddled with impropriety.
>
> While it is true that corruption has not been
> completely rooted out of the Kenyan society, there is
> no iota of evidence to suggest that the licence is not
> above-board.
>
> If there were any underhand dealings, the media
> houses should point them out.
>
> Indeed, this latest case of crying foul after losing a
> competitive bid mirrors what happened a while ago
> when the selfsame media houses took legal action
> when a Swedish firm, Smart TV, was allowed to
> broadcast through the Kenya Broadcasting
> Corporation.
>
> Eventually, the court ruled there was no irregularity
> in the process. But the continued attacks on Smart
> TV led to its exit from the Kenya market.
>
> To say the least, the message being sent to potential
> investors in the dynamic media sector is that local
> media have ring-fenced the industry and will do
> anything to frustrate entry by other players.
>
> The departure of Smart TV will, for instance, deny
> Kenya 100 jobs, not to mention other economic
> benefits, all because a few media enterprises want to
> maintain monopolies.
>
> The articles published and radio programmes
> broadcast over the last couple of days insinuate that
> it is China, the country, that won the licence, when
> the truth is that the licensee is a locally registered
> company with Chinese origins.
>
> Dragging in the name of a country that enjoys cordial
> diplomatic relations with Kenya is bad for diplomacy
> and international relations.
>
> The claim that the Kenyan media will suffer loss of
> freedom because a Chinese firm has won a backbone
> infrastructure licence is to suggest that the licence is
> for content generation or control, which is far from
> the truth.
>
> If the truth be told, the government has always
> wanted a situation where there is a multiplicity of
> channels and voices in the media.
>
> This inclination towards plurality and liberalisation of
> the media is what is under siege by those opposed to
> anybody else controlling outlets.
>
> The digital migration era provides a great
> opportunity for addressing the imbalances in the
> media sector, where some operatives have a
> suffocating control of the airwaves.
>
> The media houses seeking to influence public opinion
> in their favour have refused to acknowledge that the
> ministry and the Communications Commission of
> Kenya have agreed to issue another licence for the
> industry in view of the investments they have made.
>
> Why the focus is not on this window is anybody’s
> guess. It would appear that our media are utterly
> averse to fair play and competition.
>
> Sooner or later, we shall be in the era of web
> broadcasting with very little control by the
> government, meaning that Kenyans will be able to
> broadcast even from their bedrooms. Those stuck in
> the past will be quickly by-passed.
>
> Dr Ndemo is permanent secretary, Ministry of
> Information and Communications.
>
>
> www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Coverage+of+migration+licence+issue+unreasonable+/-/440808/1208244/-/item/0/-/uh53l1/-/index.html
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> _______________________________________________
> ke-internetusers mailing list
> ke-internetusers at bdix.net
> http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
>

-- 
*

Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly and trust in our
Creator who loves us.
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20110727/ba05b6b3/attachment.htm>