The Role of Public Broadcasting in Ghana’s Media Landscape
The recent controversy surrounding GBC’s inability to broadcast Ghana’s World Cup qualifying matches has sparked widespread frustration among Ghanaians. Many questioned why the state broadcaster could not secure the necessary broadcasting rights, which reportedly cost around $750,000. GBC attributed this failure to a lack of funding, highlighting a long-standing issue that has plagued the organization for years.
GBC, once the sole television station in the country, has seen its influence wane over time. Its facilities are outdated, its coverage is shrinking, and its programming no longer holds the same appeal it once did. As someone who grew up in the 1990s, I remember how beloved GBC was during those days. However, the current situation raises important questions about the future of public broadcasting in Ghana.
Why Public Broadcasting Still Matters
Public broadcasters differ significantly from private channels like UTV, Channel One, GhOne, or Joy News. Their primary mission goes beyond profit and ratings; they are tasked with informing, educating, and reflecting the cultural and linguistic diversity of the nation. In Ghana, this means producing content in various indigenous languages such as Twi, Ga, Ewe, Dagbani, Nzema, and Dagaare. It also involves airing programs that promote unity rather than division and giving a platform to stories that might otherwise be overlooked due to their lack of commercial appeal.
Private broadcasters operate under commercial logic, often prioritizing the largest audiences and advertisers. This can lead to the marginalization of minority voices and rural interests. In contrast, public broadcasters are meant to balance the public interest with cultural inclusion and national cohesion. However, fulfilling this mandate requires substantial financial resources, which the current system does not provide.
The Funding Dilemma
For over two decades, the TV license system in Ghana has failed to function effectively. Many citizens stopped paying because enforcement was weak, and the relevance of the service diminished. Government subventions have also been insufficient to bridge the gap, leaving GBC in a perpetual cycle of underinvestment and decline. We have seen competitor stations poaching journalists from GBC.
Some argue that since private broadcasters are thriving, there is no need for a public broadcaster. This is a dangerous assumption. Even the most market-oriented democracies maintain public broadcasting precisely because markets alone cannot guarantee pluralism or access to reliable information for all citizens.
Can the TV Licence Be the Answer?
Reintroducing the TV license fee seems logical, as those who consume television should contribute to its production. In principle, a license fee ensures financial independence from both government and advertisers. However, in practice, collecting it efficiently in Ghana has proven difficult. Compliance remains low, and the administrative costs of collection often outweigh the revenue raised.
Globally, many countries that once relied on licence fees are rethinking the model. Nations such as Australia, the Netherlands, Finland, and Singapore have abolished the system, replacing it with direct budgetary support or general taxation. The BBC in the United Kingdom is often cited as a successful example of the licence model, but its uniqueness lies in strict conditions: it cannot air commercial advertising and is insulated from political influence.
In Ghana, however, GBC not only collects advertising revenue but also competes directly with private channels for commercial airtime. This dual privilege raises questions about fairness in the broadcasting market.
Finding the Right Balance
The challenge is how to design a funding mechanism that empowers GBC to perform its public service role without distorting the market. One option is for the government to provide direct but transparent budgetary allocations linked to specific public service obligations. For instance, GBC could receive public funds to produce educational programs, cover national events, or air multilingual content while the commercial side of its operations remains self-financing and accountable.
Another approach is a mixed funding model in which a modest public contribution is complemented by limited commercial revenue, but with clear separation between the two. This would ensure that public funds support public-interest programming, not commercial ventures. Oversight by the National Media Commission (NMC) would be essential.
Competition and the Public Interest
Competition, when fair, drives innovation and quality. Since Ghana liberalized its airwaves, the media landscape has flourished, giving viewers more choice and diversity. Private broadcasters have invested in technology, improved storytelling, and created vibrant newsrooms. GBC, unfortunately, did not adapt quickly enough. Reviving it should not mean returning to monopoly days, but rather strengthening it to complement the private sector.
A strong public broadcaster can coexist with private media, provided roles are well defined. The private sector thrives on entertainment and advertisement, while the public broadcaster should prioritize education, culture, and civic information. If each plays to its strength, the overall media ecosystem becomes richer and more balanced.
The Way Forward
A well-funded and well-governed public broadcaster can enrich Ghana’s democracy. While the TV license may not work in this digital world, the government could explore alternative funding sources, such as allocating some of the Communication Service Taxes (CST) to GBC. It is crucial to avoid anything that could distort competition in the TV market.
The state broadcaster must be assisted to fulfill its public service mandate. The writer is a lawyer and a competition economist, and a consumer protection advocate. He is the West Africa Regional Director of CUTS International. He can be contacted via email: apa@cuts.org or www.cuts-accra.org or 0302-254-5652.
