What is more important: in media Self-regulation or government regulation?

The uproar over media coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 was only one in a series of media-related controversies that have surfaced with remarkable regularity through the past couple of years, with much of the criticism directed at the broadcast media in general and television news channels in 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.

International Humanitarian Laws and Conflict Reporting

How do we keep ourselves not on the side of activist, not on the side of the relief workers, not on the side of the parties who are fighting the war or the state we ourselves come from? The professional and the personal comes under serious scanner by various stakeholders when we go on reporting war. Nor is it an easy task to be accomplished on an individual level as a sensitive human being especially as the Press plays an increasingly important role in such conflicts.


The news media have long been players in the drama of war. The Spanish–American War of 1898 was provoked in part by a jingoistic press in the United States. Seventy years later, the lack of public support for the U.S. effort in Vietnam was blamed in part on correspondents who looked skeptically at Pentagon war claims. But rarely has the work of war correspondents come under the kind of scrutiny it does today. It is no longer enough for journalists not to aggravate conflicts; now we should help end them . . . or so argue the "conflict resolution" experts.


Advances in information technology have made it possible for journalists to report instantaneously from remote locations. In 1984, television pictures shaped the international response to the war and famine in Ethiopia. During the Haiti intervention that year, the U.S. Atlantic Command "Operation Room" was dominated not by maps and charts, but by four television sets. Officers tracking and coordinating military operations wanted to monitor in real time all broadcasts concerning the intervention, so they could react accordingly.


                                                            ****

The diplomats, military officers, policymakers, and aid workers who examine the performance of the news media are increasingly critical in their assessment. Humanitarian aid agencies, finding their own activities increasingly affected by news coverage, complain that we in we the media focus too much on tragedy and misery, that sensationalize the news, and that we oversimplify complicated stories. People working on programs and strategies to prevent or resolve conflicts recommend that we think more about the impact our reporting may have on a conflict's development. Human rights monitoring organizations insist that we be aggressive in uncovering atrocities and injustice.


Advocates of a free press are wary of calls for journalists to steer their reporting deliberately toward some broader social good. Journalists cannot always anticipate the consequences a story may have—and those consequences should not be our chief concern. Our obligation is to report the news as we see it, not as diplomats or government leaders or aid workers would prefer to have it reported. Our guiding principle should be to tell the truth, without trying first to identify what news is helpful or harmful.


A journalist’s responsibility is to understand the interaction between all the parties in a conflict or crisis situation, the news media included. While this is not a time for journalists to re-imagine their profession, one does need to be more diligent in reporting, more sophisticated in description of world events, more thoughtful in analysis, and more clear about the role journalists play. In short, journalists need to be more professional.


Quite complex!


War in many cases now a day is provoked by local demagogues who, in a time of rising social and economic discontent, see benefits to be gained by turning people against their neighbors. State disintegration is an increasingly common phenomenon. Old ethnic rivalries are rekindled, even when linguistic and cultural differences between groups are slight. Much of the fighting takes place between and among civilians, and it is especially brutal. Rules of war and international humanitarian conventions are often ignored.

The conflicts create enormous problems for neighboring states; the outside world is not sure whether, when, or how to intervene. In case of warring parties, to mobilize his people, a leader must portray a conflict as a fight for collective survival, and this means getting people to identify with an exclusive group, defined perhaps by religion or ethnicity.


                                                                   ****

The media presentation of the conflicts at the international level becomes just as important, because it influences the response of the external players. Governments and international agencies increasingly rely to a greater extent on the information provided by international news agencies. At times press reports may be the only information available to the outside world. The more unfamiliar the locale, the more important the media's role may be.

Policy decisions may well be influenced by the pattern of news coverage that the crisis receives. Pictures of starving children shamed the Bush administration into sending American forces to Mogadishu to help distribute food aid. Months later, pictures of a dead U.S. Army Ranger being dragged down a Mogadishu street prompted the Clinton administration to bring the troops back home.

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once argued that television's influence is so profound that CNN could be seen as "the sixteenth member" of the UN Security Council. This "CNN effect" on policy-making, of course, can be overstated but news reports are most likely to prompt a government response when no one knows what is happening on the ground, except the journalist!


Whose Truth?


To the extent that news reports do influence public attitudes, the effect can be subtle. The negative reporting when television images of human tragedy add to the viewer's frustration and cynicism about the ability of his or her government to do anything about the world's seemingly unsolvable and ever present problems. If government officials are more likely to be influenced by news coverage when they are uncertain what to do about an overseas crisis, the same is probably true for the general public. Local leaders even manipulate news coverage to suit their ends.


Responsible news coverage in crisis or conflict situations requires that the competing agendas of all the interested parties be kept constantly in mind. If news coverage is unduly influenced by any of the interested parties, portrayals of the conflict will be distorted and could lead to misguided policies and avoidable tragedies.

The competing agendas mean that all the involved parties are regularly in conflict. A complete story of the war, for example, has to include an explanation of the antagonism. It is only in the context of that troubled relationship that pronouncements by either side can be fully understood.


Impartiality:


The media must not get drawn into these conflicts and it should not be inclined toward. Every stakeholder has a propaganda machine and while reporting one should not become part of that machine. Mischievous distortion of reality can only undermine the work of those who are pursuing the path towards peace. At times the news media and the one of the stakeholders can have conflicting responsibilities. Journalists, with no aid to deliver or roads to keep open, better will have a more abstract notion of impartiality, based on facts and principles. For us, reporting impartially should be telling the truth, without regard for who was most affected by our reporting or who would be most angered by it.


Disinterested Reporting:


As professional journalists one should be able to report developments in Bosnia more objectively and accurately than military officers because a journalist is trained to do so and because they not have competing responsibilities. They do not have to deliver aid across front lines, and no "discussions" to maintain. They need not worry whether their reports might "complicate" their relations with the opposing sides.

For the sake of accuracy and fairness, journalists might need to challenge any interpretation of events there that reflected the agenda of an interested party rather than the reality on the ground. They need not to worry about the consequences of readers or listeners underestimating or overestimating the war. Our concern was to report truthfully.


As a world citizen and as a concerned human being it is natural for a journalist to have some concerns but it is not for him to play favour to such or any other concerns and do reporting in a half-hearted manner or to suspend it or not to do it. In an ideal world, journalists would adopt the same disciplined perspective in their work.


Moral Responsibility:


The question of what constitutes moral and responsible war reporting is especially complicated when we are dealing with atrocities and preventable human suffering. Whether professional ethics require that we care about the people we cover or remain indifferent to their plight?  The arguments can be many.


A journalist should have faith that good journalism intrinsically serves the public interest. But we need to think more carefully about the responsibilities we have, individually and professionally, when we find ourselves in a place where crimes of war are occurring and where our actions as journalists and as people may change the course of events.

Most journalists want their reporting to make a difference in the world. A journalist who witnesses the commission of a crime is not absolved of the responsibility to report the crime to the proper legal authorities.


Roy Gutman, who won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing the existence of Serb-run concentration camps in Bosnia, hoped his stories would save lives. "You've got to do everything in your power to stop these things," Gutman said, "and exposing it is one of the best ways to do it." Gutman is careful, however, to limit the journalist's role: "Our job is to supply the facts so other people can make the judgments. The worst thing is to step across the line and recommend what should be done."


Some media analysts argue that journalists should maintain total moral detachment. If reporters are now to adopt a moral attitude toward their stories, then the public is almost certain to be shortchanged.


 “You never did it for money, because you knew it was the poorest paying job in the world. . ... . . you can try to work for what is presumed to be good, if nothing else, by bringing accurate information to people", a journalist should always remember this.


Reporters can demonstrate moral and social responsibility without becoming proactively involved in their own stories. Finally journalists do not need to "re-imagine" their overseas work in order to contribute more to the prevention or resolution of conflicts around the world. We simply need to do our job better, by the traditional standards of our profession.

DTH guidelines

Guidelines for obtaining license for providing Direct-to-Home (DTH) broadcasting services in India:

DTH Broadcasting Service refers to distribution of multi-channel TV programmes in Ku Band by using a satellite system by providing TV signals direct to subscribers’ premises without passing through an intermediary such as cable operator.

Eligibility Criteria: 

 Applicant Company to be an Indian Company registered under Indian Company’s Act, 1956.

 Total foreign equity holding including FDI/NRI/OCB/FII in the applicant company can not to exceed 49%.

 Within the foreign equity, the FDI component can not to exceed 20%.

 The applicant company must have Indian Management Control with majority representatives on the board. The Chief Executive of the company should be a resident Indian.

 Broadcasting companies and/or cable network companies shall not be eligible to collectively own more than 20% of the total equity of Applicant Company at any time during the license period. Similarly, the Applicant Company not to have more than 20% equity shares in a broadcasting and/or cable network company.

Number of Licensees:

There is no restrictions on the total number of DTH licenses and any person who fulfils the necessary terms and conditions and subject to the security and technical clearances by the appropriate authorities of the Govt. can be issued a DTH license.

Period of license:

License validity is for a period of 10 years from the date of issue of wireless operational license. The license can be cancelled/suspended by the Licensor at any time in the interest of Union of India.

Basic conditions/obligations:

 After clearances are obtained, the applicant needs to pay an initial non-refundable entry-fee of Rs.10 crores to the MIB. After such payment of entry-fee, the applicant would be informed of intent of Min. of I & B to issue license and requested to approach Wireless planning and Coordination (WPC) Wing for Standing Advisory Committee on (Radio) Frequency Allocation (SACFA) clearance. WPC and SACFA– both are wings of the Dept. of Telecommunications.

 Within one month of the SACFA clearance, the Licensee will have to submit a Bank guarantee (Form-C) from any Scheduled Bank to the MIB for an amount of Rs.40 crores valid for the duration of the license.

 The Licensee has to pay an annual fee equivalent to 10% of its gross revenue as reflected in the audited accounts of the Company for that particular financial year, within one month of the end of that financial year.

 The Licensee also has to pay the license fee and royalty for the spectrum used as prescribed by WPC Authority.

Arbitration Clause:

Incase of any dispute, the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India or his nominee will act as sole Arbitrator, for adjudication. The award of the Arbitrator is binding on the parties.