particular. Prior to Mumbai it was the media coverage of the double murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and her family’s domestic help, Hemraj, in May 2008 which drew flak, not only from media critics, but also sections of the public and even the judiciary. The Supreme Court of India went so far as to declare that it would lay down norms for media coverage of ongoing criminal investigations.
The August 2007 instance of a fake sting operation telecast by a private television channel falsely implicating Uma Khurana, a Delhi school teacher, in a sex work racket – which even led to mob violence – generated widespread outrage against media malpractices and seriously eroded the credibility of the media. The High Court of Delhi even proposed prior permission from a government-appointed committee for broadcast of programmes involving “stings.”
The fact that television news has been the focus of much of the recent debate on media regulation in India is perhaps only natural in view of the nature and impact of television as a medium. However, there may be more to it than that.
The proliferation of channels has led to intense competition, which is widely believed to be the root cause of the malady of which periodic controversies are just a symptom. It is estimated that at least 77 24-hour news channels in multiple languages are currently in operation across the country and that a further 130 licences have been approved.
****
The government’s first attempt to regulate the non-governmental broadcast media focused on cable operators and resulted in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The new law was an attempt to regulate the burgeoning cable market that enabled mass distribution of television signals. The Cable Television Networks Rules include a Programme Code that imposes some restrictions on the content of both programmes and advertisements shown on cable TV. These Rules were amended in March 2008.
Cable operators contend that they bear a disproportionate burden of responsibility for controlling the content of television channels. At the same time, with networks spread across the country, implementation of the law in any case is no joke.
The comprehensive national media policy that has been discussed over the years is still hanging fire, as is the independent broadcasting authority called for by the Supreme Court in 1995 in the context of its landmark judgment on the airwaves.
The Broadcast Bill of 1997 observed that its purpose was “to establish an autonomous Broadcasting Authority for the purposes of facilitating and regulating broadcasting services in India so that they become competitive in terms of quality of services, cost of services and use of new technologies”. The proposed legislation apparently intended to establish an independent authority and to create a level playing field for indigenous broadcasters. However, the Bill never saw the light of day.
The government’s next attempt at regulation took the form of the Communications Convergence Bill, 2000, which aimed to create a single regulatory authority (the Communications Commission of India) to deal with advancements in information and communications technology. This legislation, too, remained a dead letter.
The Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2006, which came to public notice in July of that year, was widely criticised for draconian provisions that gave sweeping powers to the government and its representatives to cripple the media through pre-censorship and a particularly severe and potent form of ‘inspector raj’.
In July 2007 there was yet another effort to introduce legislation to regulate the burgeoning broadcast sector in the country. The Union Ministry for Information and Broadcasting posted the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2007 aka Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Sector on its website and announced a two-week deadline for responses to the draft documents.
The broadcast industry was quick to voice its vehement opposition to certain provisions in the Bill and several sections of the Code, particularly those referring to news television. The ministry repeatedly reiterated its intention to table the proposed law in Parliament during the imminent monsoon session. The controversy raged on for a few weeks, generating substantial media coverage. A truce was finally called, with the two organisations representing television channels, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and the News Broadcasters Association undertaking to draft their own guidelines for self-regulation, and the ministry agreeing to postpone further action on the legislation until then.
Meanwhile, the News Broadcasters’ Association (NBA) submitted two documents to the government in April 2008: a draft Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards, and draft regulations for the setting up of a News Broadcasting Standards Disputes Redressal Authority. In August 2008 the NBA announced the setting up of the News Broadcasting Standards Disputes Redressal Authority, as required in the regulations. The Authority finally came into being and the Code into effect on October 2, 2008. The nine-member Authority, headed by former Chief Justice of India J S Verma, includes four editors from different news channels and four ‘eminent persons’ drawn from different walks.
****
The push for regulation by the state has been opposed on the grounds that media independence is an integral part of the democratic framework and it can’t be regulated by those outside the industry, especially the government. The argument based on the freedom of expression ignores the landmark Supreme Court judgment of 1995, which said: “The right of free speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) does not include the right to use air waves, which are public property.”
Since then, almost every court across the country has passed numerous judgements putting pressure on the government to bring in content guidelines and/or set up independent regulatory bodies to look into these issues.
The broadcasters say that groups such as Newspaper Broadcasters Association (NBA) have been able to exercise self-restraint and that the quality of content and news coverage has improved over the past one year. But NBA represent roughly less than one-tenth of all broadcasters in the country. What about smaller, local and regional news channels? What about other genres of broadcasters, who also violate codes and push the envelope to cut through the clutter?
NBA’s argument is that the very attempt to put in place statutory norms will stifle attempts at self-regulation. The idea of a regulator to be set up by an act of Parliament has not been welcomed and media organizations have sought more time be given for NBA self-regulatory authority to evolve.
While bodies such as NBA can come up with codes, will they be able to exert pressure on members (who compete with each other) to comply? Can a self-regulating mechanism ensure compliance by members and enforce sanctions and penalties in the case of non-compliance?
NBA’s second annual report (2008-09) reports that its self-regulatory body considered 20 complaints against members for violations of the code of ethics. In two cases, the authority sent a show-cause notice to the broadcasters. Earlier, one of the penalties had resulted in India TV walking out and later rejoining NBA with permanent membership of the board.
Even though news broadcasters have set up the regulatory mechanism, it doesn’t take away the relevance or urgency of any of the three main contentions before the nation.
The first is the Broadcast Bill—the overarching regulation that looks into contentious issues such as cross-media regulation, foreign investment and public service obligations, besides the setting up of statutory bodies like an independent media commission to address the various issues thrown up by an ever-evolving industry. There have thus far been three variations of the Bill that have sought to be unsuccessfully introduced in Parliament since 1997.
Secondly, the regulatory setup or independent commission always got wrapped up with the Bill and has never been discussed extensively as a separate entity. Currently, the ministry of information and broadcasting looks at all licensing, policy and content issues while the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India oversees tariff issues. There are enough examples of such independent bodies both in India (such as the Election Commission) and outside (such as British media regulator Ofcom), but this has remained buried in the still-elusive Bill.
The third critical issue is a content code. Based on self-regulatory principles, an inter-sectoral committee set up by the ministry did frame draft guidelines, but these did not go down too well with the broadcasters, especially news channels.
All these critical issues are inter-related, but each has a clearly defined role and relevance in our media landscape. Self-regulation by the broadcasters and peer bodies such as NBA will always be required and will play an important role, but it won’t be sufficient to address the interests of all stakeholders in this chaotic media ecosystem.
No comments:
Post a Comment