Radio phone-ins: Blessing or curse to freedom of expression?

In my opinion, the above question, which also happened to be the topic for the first Ghana Media Standards Improvement Project (GMSIP) organised ‘Media Development Forum’ held at the Coconut Groove Regency Hotel on March 23, 2010 seems an exaggeration of some of the misconducts in the Ghanaian media environment with regards to live phone-ins.

However, exactly in accordance with the philosophical rationale for enshrining freedom of expression in our constitution – the discernment of truth through conflict of ideas in the marketplace – there were people who answered passionately that phone-in was more a curse than a blessing, but others thought otherwise.

The discussions in support and against phone-ins

Speaking at what is by all standards a well organised and moderated forum, Mr. Ayanava Zananidu, a credible and experienced journalist, raised thoughtful points about why phone-in is more a blessing than a curse. He mentioned that as a requirement for democracy, participation by citizens in debating national issues was very important and phone-ins facilitated this requirement. The crux of his argument was that live phone-ins helped in improving the political climate in Ghana since comments, views and contributions by callers complemented the private media in enlightening the citizenry about their rights and privileges per the constitution. His view was that excesses or inconsistencies that sometimes occur during live phone-ins have not receded to the level as to be labeled a ‘curse’.

Mr. Ben Ephson, Editor of the Daily Dispatch and a renowned pollster argued that phone-ins ‘as of now’ is more a curse than a blessing to freedom of expression in Ghana. The strategy for defending his point was to premise his argument on research he has conducted in some parts of the country on the phenomenon of live phone-ins in Ghana. Even though this strategy should have firmed-up his arguments it did not quite do that.

However, his ideas and opinions were essentially clear and well articulated: most Ghanaians did not take contributions and comments made by callers during live phone-ins seriously; phone-in segments have been highly politicised, and this is reflected by ‘serial callers’ who constantly call-in to speak in support of a particular political wing in an attempt to propagate the agenda of that political wing or party and; any programme was better off when live phone-ins were not made a part since people’s views did not reflect objectivity – and here, he cited his experiences on Radio Gold and Joy FM when he was the host of ‘Ephson’s File’.

The Open Forum: challenge of ideas.

But the real issues came out when the floor was opened to participants, made up of Journalists, Lecturers, heads of Media Institutions and media regulatory institutions and associations like the Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association (GIBA), National Commission on Civil Education (NCCE) and Ghana Journalists Association (GJA).

Early on, in her welcome remark, Ms Ajoa Yeboah-Afari, Coordinator of the Ghana Media Standards Improvement Project (GMSIP) gave a humourous account of a live phone-in in which she recounted how a programme host had tried to mislead a married couple, separated by distance, to share intimate messages with each other to the hearing of thousands of listeners because the host had told them that no one else was listening. And Mr. Ephson, in his discussion of the issue, pointed the similarity of the nature of phone-ins in Rwanda, prior to the genocide, and the how it is now in Ghana. So you’ll think that the discussion of phone-ins should cut across the whole range of things done during phone-ins, or at least discussion will include such similar issues, but this was not the case in the first few minutes that the floor was opened for people to contribute.

It was clear that participants saw the ‘curse’ aspect of phone-ins to be tied to phone-ins on the morning shows of some media houses who normally discuss political issues.

Adakabre, host of the morning programme on Hot FM in Accra, spoke first. He disagreed with Mr. Ephson’s submission that people did not take comments made by callers on live phone-ins seriously recounting how the comments made by callers when the Techiman Chieftaincy conflict erupted, elicited more comments from subsequent callers and ‘texters’. But his view on the issue is that we must welcome phone-ins as a blessing and develop, as he put it, a ‘high tolerance’ for different views. To him, phone-ins have actually improved the ‘tolerance level’ of Ghanaians such that there is no way people would just react negatively to anything they hear through phone-ins.

I agree to the need to encourage people to be accommodating of divergent views by being tolerant, but I do not agree that because Ghanaians have not actually embarked on a negative action as a result of what somebody has said in a live phone-in, it seals that possibility. That, to me, is a narrow view of what incites people to react in any situation. In any case, whether people will react violently or not, and to what degree, will depend on who is saying what.

The moderator of the programme, Mr. Berifi Apenteng, asked him in a follow up to his comments how he prepares himself for a phone-in. He then answered that he prepares himself “to the extent of being knowledgeable about the various issues” that is up for discussion on the radio show, and when he detects that a caller is going away from the issue, he redirects him.

Again, this answer gives an idea about why some media houses are notorious for constant outbursts during their phone-ins from callers. In the first instance, whether you will take calls during a programme or not you’ll have to gather enough knowledge about the topic—it is basic requirement of any production endeavor, and secondly, the issue is not so much about how to direct callers on the tracks of the topic, it is more about how to prevent, insulting, inappropriate, sensitive and potential conflict-inciting comments from callers.  Such ideas or standpoints on how to tackle the inconsistencies observed during phone-ins, even though the problem has not bloomed into the ‘curse’ label like this forum has done, could land the situation into such a gloomy description.

But he made some interesting points about the role of media training institutions like the Ghana Institute of Journalism and School of Communications Studies in Legon, in ensuring that the journalists they produce have the skills and knowledge to do proper journalism work, including moderating live phone-ins.

The General Secretary of the Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association (GIBA), Mr Gerald Ankrah observed that restricting the discussion to the regional capitals would not be discussing the phenomenon holistically. He stated that in the rural areas, for instance, certain phone-in programmes allow callers, who include farmers, to share their experiences with other farmers who may be listening-in to the programme on an agricultural related issue like fertilizer application. Hence, if we do not dwell on political-oriented phone-ins, we would see that phone-ins can be of very beneficial use and become a blessing.

He put the problem squarely on the production processes of some phone-in programmes, asking what the use was in bringing the representatives of various political parties to talk on an issue about the economy – obviously both party representatives would punch holes in each other’s arguments to score political points. This will, in the long run, reduce the discussion to a contest about who is better at punching holes in the others arguments. The callers then emulate the same, and because in their case, they cannot be identified in person, they spew out their anger on a certain political faction.

This was, in my humble opinion, a most laudable point—a reflection of the correct doze of appreciation needed to speak to the issue and, subsequently, find a lasting solution to it.

Others saw phone-ins as radio’s feedback mechanism as letters to the editors do for newspapers. The journalist who made this point acknowledged the fact that you could not edit the comments of callers as newspaper editors can do for letters they receive, but to him, fundamentally, just like the opportunity that readers of newspapers have to write their views, comments and observations of a certain social ill to the newspaper editors, so it is for audience of a radio station to express its comments, views and observations through phone-ins.

In finding a solution to the problem the issue of delay broadcast equipment, which could be adjusted to broadcast programmes five or ten minutes—or more—after the actual start time came up strongly. According to those who recommend its use, it could help in controlling unguarded and unacceptable comments which would then be edited out before they get to listeners. But others thought the fundamental problem still remained the conduct of moderators since an unprofessional and/or biased moderator or producer may still allow inappropriate comments to get to the listeners no matter how long the delay device is adjusted.

One thing was obvious throughout the open forum – all the contributors did not agree that the dark description of phone-ins as becoming a curse was appropriate. However, they all spoke about the need to rid the actus reus that phone-ins generate sometimes. Mr. Ampem Darko, Executive Director of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, likened phone-ins to the opportunity this forum has given to participants to speak their mind in the spirit of freedom of expression. He said the idea of delay broadcast device was a good one and suggested that a legislature should make acquisition of a delay broadcast equipment compulsory for all media houses.

The media regulatory bodies, GJA, NCCE, and GIBA who were represented at the forum, saw phone-ins essentially as being important to the freedom of expression in our current democratic dispensation. But then they were, just like others, of the view that some decorum should be observed by all parties, but especially the moderators, in the phone-in process.

A legal Perspective

Mr. Ace Anan Ankomah, a legal practitioner, cautioned media houses against the pursuit of profit as a main driver of their endeavors reminding them that ‘the state of Ghana owns the frequency’ on which they operate. This frequency is given to media houses as licenses to operate. This license is the ‘legal right to use’ the frequency – the only right a media house has. He said depending on how the state perceived the use or misuse of these rights, licenses can be revoked by the state.

Furthermore, he stated the need to encourage phone-ins because it was an important ingredient of freedom of expression. Media houses should conduct themselves in a way that they do not allow callers to make libelous comments on the programmes since it could land them in legal problems. He observed that phone-ins, like a knife, is either a dangerous weapon or a cooking tool depending on who is holding it.

He said the issue is not so much on phone-ins, but on those who publish what is said on phone-ins—the owner, producer and presenter of a radio station. His admonition was that the radio stations must regulate what is said on air.

He reminded the journalists that even though criminal libel has been repealed, civil libel still exists in the law books and it can be used to prosecute journalists just equally as the criminal libel law. He said a critical aspect of civil law is the law on defamation which gives an aggrieved person the right to hold the publishers or broadcasters of a certain slanderous statement accountable even if such statements did not reflect the views of the radio station or media house.

Contempt of court is another legal problem a radio station can face if phone-ins are not properly regulated, according to him. He said when callers comment on an on-going case, the media house can be held in contempt, but not the caller. These things, he advised, should be looked at cautiously by all radio stations that allow live phone-ins.

The Forum was supported by Joy FM an Accra based private radio station and Ghana Television (GTV) the state-owned television station who carried the forum live.

By George Nyavor