ITV

Tag: Priya Ranjan

  • Draft Broadcast Bill: Big brother wants to do more than just watch

    Draft Broadcast Bill: Big brother wants to do more than just watch

    The draft broadcast regulations that the government is trying to put in place has its merits and demerits, but what is shocking is the way the lawmakers are going about the whole thing, most of which is shrouded in secrecy.

    That the draft Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill 2006, doing the rounds of ministries for feedback, is restrictive — to put it mildly — and draconian in parts is a story itself. But what is a bigger story is an attempt by the Congress-led coalition government to steamroll legislation through without taking industry stakeholders and others into confidence, thus making a mockery of democratic norms.

    It is a calculated effort to muzzle the media in general and incapacitate the electronic medium, which has its own powers because of the impact of visuals, in particular.
    _____****_____

    The attempt of the information and broadcasting ministry to quietly draft regulations for the Cabinet’s consideration, while denying at the same time that anything of that sort even exists, amplifies that the blustering of I&B minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi is not all gas. It is a calculated effort to muzzle the media in general and incapacitate the electronic medium, which has its own powers because of the impact of visuals, in particular.

    Cross media restrictions, powers bestowed on authorities to take action against the media and TV channels on the flimsiest of grounds, content censorship (which is being drafted separately, but could be made part of this Bill or legislation at a later stage) are all aimed at strangling the media.

    What make things scary is that the proposed autonomous Broadcast Regulatory Authority of India (Brai) has been given powers that permit it to run amok if interpreted incorrectly by it. Especially when Brai’s chief executive would be a serving government official of additional secretary’s rank, drawing a salary from the government and, naturally, having allegiance to the government.

    The flip side is that not all the clauses in the draft Broadcast Bill 2006 are new. Some of them do exist in some form or other in the Cable TV Network (Regulation) Act and other pieces of media legislation. References to cross media restrictions were made in the Broadcast Bill of 1997 too. And remember that never got past a joint parliamentary committee set up to examine it after being tabled in Parliament.

    The 1997 Bill stated that a person or a company will be allowed to hold licences in only one of the following category of services: Terrestrial Radio Broadcasting, Terrestrial Television Broadcasting, Satellite Television or Radio Broadcasting, DTH Broadcasting, Local Delivery Services and any other category of services, which may be notified by the Central government.

    In 1997, restriction of monopolies was more targeted towards newspaper houses. The Bill then had said that no proprietor of a newspaper will either be a participant with “more than 20 per cent interest in or control a body corporate, which is the holder of a licence to provide a licensed service under this Act.”

    Without criticizing a government’s right to make a law, what needs to be seen in a broader context is the way that right is used in a democratic setup.
    _____****_____

    This time round, the government has allowed interest in various segments of the media business, but capped them so low that effective concentration of power is totally neutralised to the extent of threatening to destroy various business models.

    Without criticizing a government’s right to make a law, what needs to be seen in a broader context is the way that right is used in a democratic setup.

    If we examine the draft of the content regulation, prepared by a sub-panel of a 30-member committee overseen by I&B secretary SK Arora, it hints at stringent content regulation, particularly for news channels. If okayed by lawmakers in its present state, it could well be the end of sting operations and coverage of issues where high profile politicians and personalities are involved.

    Sample this part: “TV channels must not use material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs or which invades an individual’s privacy unless there is an identifiable public interest reason for the material to be broadcast.”

    Who decides what constitutes an individual’s privacy? The government or the regulator? What this means of course is that it’s all up for interpretation.

    It is this scope for interpretation that is the most fearful aspect of this bill. More so since the onus of proving identifiable public interest lies with the TV channel and not the other way round.

    Additionally, the flat-footedness of the media industry and lack of consensus on important issues amongst the various stakeholders is incomprehensible, to say the least. The surprise that the draft Broadcast Bill 2006 — even if it’s an early draft for argument’s sake — has sprung on the TV industry, shows that people have been caught napping. Or, the industry thought the government was just talking gas.

    Either way, Delhi seems to be having the last laugh. Hang on, maybe not yet. There may still be some time left for saner voices in the government to stand up.

    But for that to happen, the media industry needs to project a united stand. Something like what was demonstrated when the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1988 had attempted to bring in a piece of legislation to muzzle the media. It took weeks of concerted opposition from Indian journalists to scupper an initiative to revise the law on defamation. It may be recalled that the government had rushed the Defamation Bill through the lower house of Parliament in August of that year.

    When we last commented on the ramifications of the Broadcast Bill, we expressed the view that there is a feeling of déj? vu that it may be another exercise in futility.

    It could well be in the industry’s collective interest to ensure that the draconian aspects of the Broadcast Bill suffer the same fate as the Defamation Bill of 1988.

    There are several ways of voicing their grievances and making sure that the industry voice reaches the powers-that-be. Indiantelevision.com believes it can function as a forum for debate, and would love to have comments from various constituents of the industry on the Broadcast Bill 2006.

    Send in your mails to editor@indiantelevision.com. And let’s work towards building a more robust television sector – keeping in mind the government, the industry and foremost of all, the consumer.

  • Govt role: CAS’ fate linked to political compulsions

    Govt role: CAS’ fate linked to political compulsions

    The Indian government (read the information and broadcasting ministry) is suddenly finding itself caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, which more often than not takes great pleasure in turning red.

     

    Sandwiched between a strident judiciary — justifiably so in the present circumstances — and the politics of running a coalition government with vocal allies (who seem to have a view on anything and everything), the Manmohan Singh regime is bound to find it difficult to implement a recent Delhi High Court order that in short says: implement conditional access system in the areas notified earlier by a previous Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition regime over 18 months ago.

     

    The I&B ministry hasn’t yet held any talks with the various state governments where CAS is sought to be implemented. Nor have any meetings been held with industry stakeholders
    _____****_____

    State-level elections in April-May would compel the government to give a deep thought to the so-called concerns of regional politicians. And, decision-making gets that much tougher when one of the states going to the polls, West Bengal, is ruled by a Left party, which is also a crucial ally of the federal government in New Delhi.

     

    Though the Delhi High Court order exhorts the I&B ministry to rise above regional level party politics and not use ‘public interest’ to influence an executive order (the notification related to CAS rollout) passed by the federal government, reticent politicians would definitely try to have their own way. Don’t forget that the I&B minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi’s parliamentary constituency lies in West Bengal and the street-smart politician has cut much of his political teeth in Bengal.

     

    With Kolkata in West Bengal, one of the metros targeted for CAS rollout, already swinging to the election tune, the I&B ministry would have to see how New Delhi’s Left-oriented allies react to the issue of CAS or ‘watching TV channels via a black box that would cost around Rs 3,000 (approximately $ 67),’ as some politicians are explaining addressability to the people.

     

    It can just be that the ministry goes in for an appeal one day ahead of the month-long court-mandated deadline
    _____****_____

    Though it hasn’t reached a crescendo, already there are murmurs amongst politicians of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), especially the local ones, on how CAS’ introduction around election time can be ‘disruptive’ and have telling effects on the electoral fortunes of the party in West Bengal.

     

    It is pertinent to note that the I&B ministry hasn’t yet held any talks with the various state governments where CAS is sought to be implemented. Nor have any meetings been held with industry stakeholders to discuss the issue in the light of the court’s observation.

     

    Apart from the West Bengal politicians, those representing the seven constituencies of Delhi in Parliament have already been petitioned by some cable operators on the ground that implementation of CAS might upset cable TV consumers of the National Capital Territory.

     

    With Delhi’s aam junta (hoi polloi) totally clueless on what CAS is all about — apart from what has been fed to them by politicians and the media — scepticism is bound to run all across on something new, which is not part of the basic infrastructure that is severely lacking here and making daily life that much more worrisome.

     

    And, the Congress-led Delhi government, trying to battle its own intra-party differences on demolition of illegal constructions all over Delhi (as directed by Delhi HC) that has left the denizens of the Capital fuming, the will to immediately implement another court order (on CAS) is definitely lacking.

     

    It would also be interesting to see how New Delhi could read the Delhi court order, which is not as simple as is being made out by many industry stakeholders — the benefits of CAS or addressability, notwithstanding.

     

    For the I&B ministry to plan a rollout of CAS as per the court order, it has to first revoke an executive order that suspended implementation of CAS.

     

    Now, here is the piece de resistance: the court order is silent on the fact whether addressability should be introduced, as per the prayer of the petitioners, ONLY in the south zones of the metro cities of Kolkata, Delhi, Chennai in Tamil Nadu and Mumbai in Maharashtra or the whole of the cities.

     

    After revoking an earlier notification, the federal government can stick to CAS’ introduction only in the south zones of the metros or interpret the court order as rollout in the whole of the cities. A clarification on the interpretation hasn’t been sought yet by the I&B ministry as there is a section that feels an appeal should be made against the present court order.

     

    If the government goes in for an appeal, which can turn out to be time consuming, then the timing of it would also be important. It can just be that the ministry goes in for an appeal one day ahead of the month-long court-mandated deadline.

     

    As things stand today, the government is keeping things fluid — deliberately so — to weigh all options, including the biggest challenge: political compulsions.