I am not certain how many readers of this column would be aware of the name Rebecca Black. While my teenage children and many of their friends are quite familiar with the sensational Ms Black, I don’t believe that many of my contemporaries would ever have heard of her.

Rebecca Black is 13 years old and is a social network sensation attracting millions of hits on YouTube for her music video Friday. She has drawn comments from such stars as Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and Chris Brown, a fact which might mean very little to those of us who are approaching or having already hit the half-century mark. I am not sure she has any discernible vocal talents since one would have to pry her voice from the layer of AutoTune (which dominates her recording) to make such a determination. What I do know is that Ms Black has been able to hijack the viral qualities of the web in the pursuit of her quest for fame. Yet the phenomenal Ms Black has special significance to a debate (triggered by the contentious issue of payola) currently raging among some of my very good friends in the Jamaican media.

Dennis Howard, who served as programmes manager while I was general manager at IRIE FM, and who is a major player in the local entertainment industry, recently asserted in a symposium organised by the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica that traditional broadcast media is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

According to Howard, most of our children are consuming media and entertainment products through the social networks and not by traditional radio and television channels. Yet how representative of the Jamaican society is Howard’s observation? Would he have been more accurate to say that most middle-class children in Jamaica access their information through the social media? We might say that this is a small point, yet it is a very important one. The failure to make such a distinction could have enormous policy implications. The behaviour of middle-class children might not be indicative of Jamaican youth as a whole.

The notoriety of Ms Black would suggest that Howard might well be on to something, however we might need to drill deeper to see whether Professor Hopeton Dunn’s contention that there are low rates of Internet penetration and usage in Jamaica might not be putting a caveat on Howard’s argument. The fact is that Howard might well be correct as it relates to the general (international), but not the particular (local).

I would also be inclined to think, based on historical experience and evidence, that Professor Dunn’s assessment that new media is not necessarily displacing the traditional modes of information consumption but actually complementing them is indeed correct.

Many television programmes are reporting higher levels of viewership as a result of the social networks. The fact is that historically we have always assumed that new technologies will displace older ones. This analysis is consistent with the Shumpeterian notion of creative destruction which posits that capitalist societies survive through a process of constant renewal which sees the old being replaced by the new. Yet the reality on the ground is far more nuanced and in many instances the old and the new complement each other. Many thought that television would have put an end to cinemas. The reality, though, is that television is a boon rather than a bane to the motion picture industry. Many of us will recall that at the dawn of MTV there was the popular song suggesting that video would kill the radio star. No such thing happened. Radio is alive and well despite predictions also that the Internet would have heralded its demise. The fact is that the web has expanded not diminished the possibilities of radio and television.

Yet there is merit in the argument that one should be careful about regulating along technological lines. This, I think, is one of the limitations with our present regulatory structure as it relates to the Broadcasting Commission. I think the role of the Commission should be expanded.

The telecommunications sector should fall under the aegis of the Commission. Too many regulatory gaps exist in our communications architecture. There is often a considerable lag even in more developed societies between legislative response and technological development. Given our legislative torpor one has to ensure that our regulatory bodies have within their DNA the capacity to respond to changes without having to be constantly making reference to an arthritic legislature.

I noted at the symposium and, I think, in a subsequent article that the issue of payola in Jamaica, which the Broadcasting Commission is seeking to criminalise, is a matter of providing media exposure without making a disclosure of payments made. If radio stations through their announcers declare that a particular song is being aired because it was paid for then technically we would have put an end to the practice, or would we? The fact is that many persons attribute their failure to attain stardom to the insidious practice of payola. There are some who believe that once a song says “love your brother” and “peace and love” it should have guaranteed access to airplay regardless of their musical merit.

There can be no denial that there are many songs of dubious quality which have made it on to the airwaves because the announcers have been paid. Yet the same could be said for many ‘good’ songs. What this suggests is that we might be conflating paid access with low quality, which Howard is saying should not be the case. I know for a fact that many artistes who condemn payola actively engage in it. This is what I find most despicable. It is no different from certain artistes getting up on stage negating certain sexual practices in public but in which they vigorously engage in private. I am outraged when I see individuals professing the faith of Rastafafari engaging in nefarious practices. This is rank hypocrisy, which for me is the worst human vice.

Howard has brought a different perspective to the debate which seems at least to be bereft of hypocritical posturing. We need to balance his position against those of others like Dunn without engaging in the puerile imputation of motives and the assumption of hypocritical posture.

Let’s continue the debate in a civil and well-reasoned fashion.

clyde.mckenzie@gmail.com