The other day I witnessed an interesting debate that made me ponder the purpose of Radio. I will not go into the details of the debate but, the debate exposed a fault line in the general understanding of what Radio is or should be. Even saying ‘the general understanding’ after that debate, sounds awkward. Nonetheless, is there a general understanding of what Radio is or should be? My answer to this question is a laboured yes. Yes, there is a general understanding that the purpose of Radio is to disseminate information. What is not immediately clear is whose information Radio should be disseminating. And over the years, it has become increasingly difficult to answer this question. Why?
┬áBecause of the several stakeholders who all have vested interest in the business of Radio, I have identified five stakeholders ÔÇô the government, politicians, business interests, shareholders and by default, listeners. All these stakeholders, while they are not in competition with one another, are competing for their interest in the Radio business to be met. This can cause such a headache to the administrators of Radio, those who have to somehow confluence these different interests. Right from chief executive officers to the on-air announcers/presenters/disk jockeys/personalities, these stakeholders influence and control what happens in the Radio business. And the lower you go down the rungs of Radio management, the less control you have over what these stakeholders want or wish for. It does not matter what the training manual said, the masters are these five stakeholders.
Add to this the different schools of thought on Radio management or administration – should Radio be about profit, or should it be about a personality, or should it be about ethics and morality, or should it be about actuality? Granted, Radio is inherently influential and this is the reason why it is susceptible to outside influence.
Any of the five stakeholders can change its direction and fortunes. And in its pursuit to remain relevant, Radio must somehow appease one master while it offends the other. It is a precarious position that requires constant reshuffling and repositioning. Even contracts within the Radio business are never long term because anything can, and will happen. As the saying goes on Radio, ‘you are only as good as your last show.’ That just means once someone has served the purpose of any of the five masters, there will be no further need for them.
Many questions arise, and this is where that fault line lies. Who decides what information is worth disseminating on Radio? If you say government, then someone will call it propaganda. Who holds [the] power over Radio? If you say business interests, someone will call it coercion. Who has power over the independence of Radio? If you say shareholders, someone will call it meddling. Who decides if the information on Radio is worthy? If you say listeners, someone will call it a matter of perspective. Who benefits from Radio? If you say politicians, someone will call it partisanship. In the end, every one of the five stakeholders can argue that their interest is the one that should be given priority. And boy can they go to great lengths to make sure that theirs is the only boot on the face of Radio.
Business interests will threaten to stop advertising if their interest is not met. Likewise, Government will threaten to revoke licences; shareholders will threaten to fire somebody, from the board right down to the gardener; politicians will mudsling and threaten to influence an uprising against Radio; while listeners will threaten to boycott Radio and listen to music from disks. I get a sense that you wish you could be a fly on the walls of Radio to witness the effects of these threats firsthand. And just like you; until that debate, I had not exactly thought of the amount of work that goes into keeping Radio alive. The sacrifices that are made by those at the receiving end of the stakeholders’ interests are astounding. Please pay no mind to the conditions of their employ which include low-grade pay and the constant threats to their lives and integrity.
And maybe this is where the cause of the fault line is. If the state of Radio is up to the highest bidder, who will refuse to do the bidding for that bidder? And, if the only way Radio can stay on is if it yields to the demands of one master over the other, can it dare be what it is or should be? Or, can the position Radio is in be justifiable thus, appreciated? Thanks to that debate the other day, I have no answers to these questions. I can only salute Radio for soldiering on. Over the years it has, and through the years, it will keep disseminating information. At least on this one we can agree. Long live Radio!
 
*K. Gabriel Rasengwatshe is an author and broadcaster.
[email protected]
