The act came into force all over India except in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In Sikkim it came in to effect in 1983.
Note: (2-A) Any reference in this Act to any law which is not in force, or any functionary not in existence, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, shall, in relation to that Stat, be construed as a reference to the corresponding law in force, or to the corresponding functionary in existence, in that State.
Note: As far as the issue of granting license to exhibit cinema shows is concerned, the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 (Act 2 of 1918) are still in force in Part A and Part B States[1]. The other provisions apply to the whole of India.
Under this Act "Adult" means a person who has completed his eighteenth year, "Cinematograph" includes any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures, "film" means a cinematograph film, "regional officer" means a regional officer appointed by the Central Government and "Tribunal" means the Appellate Tribunal.
For the purpose of sanctioning films for public exhibition, the Board of Film Certification formed by the Central Government shall consist of a Chairman and 12-25 other members. The Chairman shall receive salary and allowance and the other members shall receive such allowances or fees for attending the meetings of the Board.
Examination (4) and certification (5A) of films:
Any person desiring to exhibit any film shall make an application to the Board for a certificate and after examining the film the Board may:
(i) Sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition and grant "U" certificate.
[Regarding any material in the film, if it is necessary to caution that any child below the age of twelve years may be allowed to see such a film should be considered by the parents or guardian of such child, the Board may sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition and grant a "UA" certificate.]
(ii) Sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to adults and issue “A” certificate, or
(ii) (A) sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons, having regard to the nature, content and theme of the film and issue “S” certificate; or
Note: A certificate granted by the Board under this Section shall be valid throughout India for a period of ten years.
(iii) Direct the applicant to carry out such excisions or modifications in the film as it thinks necessary before sanctioning the film for public exhibition under any of the foregoing clauses; or
(iv) Refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition.
The Board shall take any decision only after giving an opportunity to the applicant for representing his views in the matter.
Advisory panels(5):
For helping the Board efficiently discharge its functions the Central Government may establish at such regional centers advisory panels. The advisory panel when asked by the Board has to examine the film and make recommendations it thinks fit. The number of members is to be decided by the government.
Principles for guidance in certifying films (5-B):
The film or any part of it should not be against the interests of [(Ins. by Act 49 of 1981] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involve defamation or contempt of court or incite any offence.
Notes: Censorship in India has full justification in the field of the exhibition of cinema films in the interest of society. It is justified under the Constitution.
Finally, it is not elements of rape, leprosy, sexual immorality which should attract the censor's scissors but how the theme is handled by the producer.
Appeals (5C):
Any Person applying for a certificate, if not satisfied by the order of the Board, may, within thirty days from the date of such order, appeal by a petition in writing (mentioning the reasons for the order along with the prescribed fees) to the Tribunal:
Note: If the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the aforesaid period of thirty days, it may allow appeal within a further period of thirty days.
Constitution of Appellate Tribunal (5-D):
· For hearing such an appeal, the Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting of a chairman and not more than four other members.
· The Chairman of the Tribunal should be a retired Judge of a High Court, or one qualified to be a Judge of a High Court.
· The Central Government may appoint a Secretary and such other employees as it may think necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Tribunal.
· The head office of the Tribunal shall be at New Delhi or where the Central Government may specify.
· The Tribunal, after making inquiry into the matter, and after giving the appellant and the Board an opportunity of being heard, make order, it thinks fit and the Board shall dispose of the matter in conformity with such order.
Suspension and revocation of certificate (5-E):
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (2) of Section 6, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, suspend a certificate granted for a period or may revoke altogether if it is satisfied that
-The film, in respect of which the certificate was granted, was being exhibited in a form other than the one in which it was certified.
Note: No action under this section shall be taken except after giving an opportunity to the person concerned for representing his views in the matter.
Review of orders by Central Government (5-F):
If an applicant is aggrieved by any order of the Central Government under Section 5-E, he may, within sixty days of the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, make an application to the Central Government for review of the order, setting out in such application the grounds on which he considers such review to be necessary.
Note: If Central Government is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an application for review within the aforesaid period of sixty days, it may allow such application to be filed within a further period of sixty days.
The Central Government, may, after making further inquiry, pass such order as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or reversing its decision and the Board shall dispose of the matter in conformity with such order.
Revisional powers of the Central Government (6) (1):
The Central Government may, of its own motion, at any stage, call for the record of any proceeding in relation to any film which is pending before, or has been decided by the Board or decided by the Tribunal (but not any matter which is pending before the Tribunal) and after making inquiry, make order and the Board shall dispose of the matter accordingly.
Note: No such order shall be made, except after giving the concerned an opportunity for representing his views in the matter. Until the government decides the film will be considered uncertified.
Information and documents to be given to distributors and exhibitors with respect to certified films (6-A):
The title, the length of the film, the number and the nature of the certificate granted in and the conditions, if any, subject to which it has been so granted, and any other particulars respecting the film which may be prescribed.
Penalties for contraventions of this (7):
If any person exhibits or permits to be exhibited, in any place, any film not conforming to the conditions as in section 6(a) or alters or tampers or fails to comply with any order, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years, or with fine up to one lakh rupees, or with both. In the case of a continuing offence, a further fine up to twenty thousand rupees for each day during which the offence continues might be imposed.
Power of seizure (7-A):
If a film for which no certificate has been granted under this Act is exhibited, or if a film is exhibited in contravention of any of the other provisions of this Act or of any order made by the Central Government, the Tribunal or the Board, then any public officer may, enter any place and search it and seize the film.
Power to exempt (9):
The Central Government may, by order in writing exempt the exhibition of any film or class of films from any of the provisions of this Part or of any rules made there under.
Note: For exemption, see note in the appendix.
Cinematograph exhibitions to be licensed (10):
No person shall give an exhibition elsewhere other than in a place licensed under this Part or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such license.
The Central Government may, form time to time so that scientific films, films intended for educational purposes, films dealing with news and current events, documentary films or indigenous films secure and adequate opportunity of being exhibited. Such directions shall be deemed to be additional conditions and restrictions.
Power of Central Government or local authority to suspend exhibition of films in certain cases (13):
The Lieutenant- Governor or, as the case may be, the Chief Commissioner and the district magistrate within his jurisdiction can suspend the exhibition of the film, if he is of opinion that public exhibition is likely to cause a breach of the peace and order.
Central Government may either confirm or discharge the order.
Power to revoke licence (15):
If the licensee has been convicted of an offence the licence may be revoked by the licensing authority.
[1] Part A States Part B States Part C States
Assam Hyderabad Ajmer
Bihar Jammu and Kashmir Coorg
Bombay Madhya Bharat Bhopal
Madhya Pradesh Mysore Bilaspur
Madras Patiala and East Himachal Pradesh
Orissa Punjab States Union Cooch-Behar
Punjab Rajasthan Delhi
United Provinces Saurashtra Kutch
West Bengal Travancore-Cochin Manipur
Vindhya Pradesh Tripura
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Broadband Policy 2004
Government have finalized this policy to accelerate the growth of Broadband services recognizing its potential in growth of GDP and enhancement in quality of life through societal applications including tele-education, tele-medicine, e-governance, entertainment as well as employment generation by way of high speed access to information and web-based communication.
NOTE: The policy was announced in the backdrop of low level of Internet and Broadband access which was 0.02% and 0.4% respectively at the end of December, 2003.
Broadband connectivity:
The estimated growth for Broadband and Internet subscribers in the country, as projected in the Broadband Policy 2004, envisaged through various technologies was as follows:
Year Ending Internet Subscribers Broadband Subscribers
2005 6 million 3 million
2007 18 million 9 million
2010 40 million 20 million
NOTE: According to figures released by TRAI, the number of broadband subscribers in January 2010 is 8.03 million, way below what was projected in the Broadband Policy 2004.
Technology Options for Broadband Services:
(a) Optical Fibre Technologies:
The fibre optics technology can provide nearly unlimited bandwidth potential. The fibre based models are future proof as they are able to provide huge amounts of bandwidth in the last mile as well as provide a true IP and converged network that can deliver high quality voice, data and video. The spread of the networks of private service providers have to play an important role in bringing the fibre to homes as well as the rural areas and they are expected to focus on it.
(b) Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) on copper loop:
DSL has proved to be an important technology for provisioning of Broadband services through the copper loop. The owners of copper loop will be given a high priority because their role is critical as key drivers in the Broadband service market using DSL.
(c) Cable TV Network:
Cable TV connection as last mile infrastructure reaches more people than even the telephone copper infrastructure and could be leveraged in providing cable operators a new business model while giving a stimulus to Broadband penetration. Therefore Cable TV network can be used as franchisee network of the service provider for provisioning Broadband services. However, all responsibilities for ensuring compliance of terms & conditions of the licence shall vest with the Licensee.
(d) Satellite Media:
Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT) and Direct-to-Home (DTH) services would be encouraged for penetration of Broadband and Internet services with the added advantage to serve remote and inaccessible areas. The Government was to make available transponder capacity for VSAT services at competitive rates. Department of Telecommunications, in consultation with the concerned Ministries will propose measures in the direction of Open Sky Policy for VSAT operators.
NOTE: But despite VSAT’s ability to play a critical role in bridging the digital divide by addressing remote and rural areas, even after 6 years of the Broadband Policy announcement VSAT market remains poised for a high growth.
(e) Terrestrial Wireless:
The government, recognising that terrestrial wireless is another upcoming technology platform for Broadband, announced its intent, in principle to de-licence different spectrum bands for different set of Wi-Fi users. Alternative spectrum bands which could be deployed for Broadband services shall also to be explored and identified.
Quality of Service (QoS):
As per TRAI Act, 1997, TRAI has to prescribe QoS parameters for provisioning of broadband service.
NOTE: According to the TRAI recommendations in 2009, an Internet Service Providers should ensure that for the broadband services only 50 subscribers are accommodated in a single unit of bandwidth. For corporate subscribers, it should be a maximum of 30 users.
Simplification of SACFA / WPC clearance:
The government also announced measures to simplify installation process and to promote use of indigenously developed technologies. A transparent scheme is being announced to be outlined separately for time-bound frequency allocation, siting clearance and wireless licensing by removing the cumbersome procedures, computerization and by setting predetermined standards.
Other Issues:
Bandwidth availability including international bandwidth is a major driver for broadband services. So, the government expected service providers to take appropriate steps for making required bandwidth available even as Government and TRAI would address this issue on priority.
Government also decided to reduce the licence fee for Infrastructure Provider category-II, who provides end to end bandwidth. The bank guarantee for such service provider has been reduced to Rs.5 crores from Rs.100 crores.
Role of other Agencies:
PCs, content and applications are important constituents for overall growth of Internet and Broadband services. Broadband services will accelerate decentralised governance at Panchayat level. The government recognizes the role of other facilitators, namely electricity authorities, Departments of ITs of various State Governments, Departments of Local Self Governments, Panchayats, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Education.
Fiscal Issues:
The Department of Telecommunications shall endeavor to promote indigenous manufacture of Broadband related equipments. It will work with the concerned Ministries and Manufacturers' Associations so that the equipments are available at an affordable price. With affordability only Broadband services can reach the urban and rural consumers. DoT will work out a package in consultation with Ministry of Finance and related Departments as well as concerned service providers to achieve this.
NOTE: The policy was announced in the backdrop of low level of Internet and Broadband access which was 0.02% and 0.4% respectively at the end of December, 2003.
Broadband connectivity:
The estimated growth for Broadband and Internet subscribers in the country, as projected in the Broadband Policy 2004, envisaged through various technologies was as follows:
Year Ending Internet Subscribers Broadband Subscribers
2005 6 million 3 million
2007 18 million 9 million
2010 40 million 20 million
NOTE: According to figures released by TRAI, the number of broadband subscribers in January 2010 is 8.03 million, way below what was projected in the Broadband Policy 2004.
Technology Options for Broadband Services:
(a) Optical Fibre Technologies:
The fibre optics technology can provide nearly unlimited bandwidth potential. The fibre based models are future proof as they are able to provide huge amounts of bandwidth in the last mile as well as provide a true IP and converged network that can deliver high quality voice, data and video. The spread of the networks of private service providers have to play an important role in bringing the fibre to homes as well as the rural areas and they are expected to focus on it.
(b) Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) on copper loop:
DSL has proved to be an important technology for provisioning of Broadband services through the copper loop. The owners of copper loop will be given a high priority because their role is critical as key drivers in the Broadband service market using DSL.
(c) Cable TV Network:
Cable TV connection as last mile infrastructure reaches more people than even the telephone copper infrastructure and could be leveraged in providing cable operators a new business model while giving a stimulus to Broadband penetration. Therefore Cable TV network can be used as franchisee network of the service provider for provisioning Broadband services. However, all responsibilities for ensuring compliance of terms & conditions of the licence shall vest with the Licensee.
(d) Satellite Media:
Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT) and Direct-to-Home (DTH) services would be encouraged for penetration of Broadband and Internet services with the added advantage to serve remote and inaccessible areas. The Government was to make available transponder capacity for VSAT services at competitive rates. Department of Telecommunications, in consultation with the concerned Ministries will propose measures in the direction of Open Sky Policy for VSAT operators.
NOTE: But despite VSAT’s ability to play a critical role in bridging the digital divide by addressing remote and rural areas, even after 6 years of the Broadband Policy announcement VSAT market remains poised for a high growth.
(e) Terrestrial Wireless:
The government, recognising that terrestrial wireless is another upcoming technology platform for Broadband, announced its intent, in principle to de-licence different spectrum bands for different set of Wi-Fi users. Alternative spectrum bands which could be deployed for Broadband services shall also to be explored and identified.
Quality of Service (QoS):
As per TRAI Act, 1997, TRAI has to prescribe QoS parameters for provisioning of broadband service.
NOTE: According to the TRAI recommendations in 2009, an Internet Service Providers should ensure that for the broadband services only 50 subscribers are accommodated in a single unit of bandwidth. For corporate subscribers, it should be a maximum of 30 users.
Simplification of SACFA / WPC clearance:
The government also announced measures to simplify installation process and to promote use of indigenously developed technologies. A transparent scheme is being announced to be outlined separately for time-bound frequency allocation, siting clearance and wireless licensing by removing the cumbersome procedures, computerization and by setting predetermined standards.
Other Issues:
Bandwidth availability including international bandwidth is a major driver for broadband services. So, the government expected service providers to take appropriate steps for making required bandwidth available even as Government and TRAI would address this issue on priority.
Government also decided to reduce the licence fee for Infrastructure Provider category-II, who provides end to end bandwidth. The bank guarantee for such service provider has been reduced to Rs.5 crores from Rs.100 crores.
Role of other Agencies:
PCs, content and applications are important constituents for overall growth of Internet and Broadband services. Broadband services will accelerate decentralised governance at Panchayat level. The government recognizes the role of other facilitators, namely electricity authorities, Departments of ITs of various State Governments, Departments of Local Self Governments, Panchayats, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Education.
Fiscal Issues:
The Department of Telecommunications shall endeavor to promote indigenous manufacture of Broadband related equipments. It will work with the concerned Ministries and Manufacturers' Associations so that the equipments are available at an affordable price. With affordability only Broadband services can reach the urban and rural consumers. DoT will work out a package in consultation with Ministry of Finance and related Departments as well as concerned service providers to achieve this.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Discuss the Cable TV Network Act 1995.
When CNN first broadcast the Gulf War into India in 1991, millions of unemployed young people found that stringing wires over trees to cable connect homes was the best way to make money.
It went on till 1995 as the archaic Indian Posts and Telegraph Act defined broadcasting and it was totally unprepared for a signal coming from outside the country. There was nothing to suggest whether what was happening was legal or not. That is when a controversy broke over ESPN's attempt to uplink from India to telecast a cricket match. In the litigation that followed, the Supreme Court ruled that 'The airwaves are not a monopoly of the government'. The result was the Cable Networks Act, regularizing what was technically an illegal business.
The Act:
An Act to regulate the operation of cable television networks in the country and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The act says that no person shall operate a cable television network unless he is registered as a cable operator under this Act. The act also lays down certain guidelines for transmission:
1. Programme code: Any programme which is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code can’t be transmitted.
2. Advertisement code: Any advertisement unless such advertisement is in conformity with the prescribed advertisement code can’t be transmitted.
3. Maintenance of register: Every cable operator is to maintain a register in the prescribed form carrying details of programmes (in brief) transmitted or retransmitted during a month. Such register has to be maintained for a period of one year after the actual transmission or re-transmission of the said programmes.
4. Compulsory transmission of two Doordarshan channels:
(A) Every cable operator shall retransmit
(i) Channels operated by or on behalf of Parliament in the manner and name as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;
(ii) At least two Doordarshan terrestrial Channels and one regional language channel of a State in the Prime band, in satellite mode on frequencies other than those carrying terrestrial frequencies
(B) The Prasar Bharti may, by notification, specify the number and name of every Doordarshan channel to be retransmitted by cable operators in their cable service and the manner of reception and retransmission of such channels.
5. Use of standard equipment in cable Television network: Any equipment in cable television network can’t be used be unless it conforms to the Indian Standard in accordance with the provisions of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986.
6. Cable Television network not to interfere with any telecommunication system: - The cable Television network being operated should not interfere, in any way, with the functioning of the authorized telecommunication systems.
The act lays down provisions to seize and confiscate equipments in case of failure to follow the above rules and regulations. The cable operator has right to appeal against any such seizure or confiscation.
Finally the government retains the right to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest if it thinks that the laid provisions are being violated. It also has the power to prohibit operation of cable television network in public interest.
By an amendment bill brought in 2002 the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 became the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act 2002. By this amendment bill a new section 4A was added and section 9, 11, 16 and 22 were amended. Many amendments have been brought in the bill from time to time. Following were the main changes brought by the 2002 amendment:
(1). Transmission of programmes through addressable systems, etc:
Where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, it may make it obligatory to transmit or retransmit programme of any pay channel through an addressable system.
(2) By the same logic it may also specify one or more free to air channels to be included in the package of channels genre wise for providing a programme mix of entertainment, information, and education, and such other programmes.
(3) It may also specify the maximum amount which a cable operator may demand from the subscriber including different maximum amounts for different States, cities, towns or areas as the case may be.
(4) Every cable operator shall publicize, in the prescribed manner, to the subscribers the subscription rates and the periodic intervals after which such subscriptions are payable for receiving each pay channel provided by such cable operator.
(5) The cable operator shall not require any subscriber to have a receiver set of a particular type to receive signals of cable television network.
(6) Every cable operator shall submit a report to the Central Government in the prescribed form and manner containing the information regarding:-
(i) The number of total subscribers:
(ii) Subscription rates:
(iii) Number of subscribers receiving programmes transmitted in basic service tier or particular programme or set of programmes transmitted on pay channel.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the ad hoc broadcasting regulator —has been proposing amendment in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, and the telecom licensing agreement. This will enable viewers watch, Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), which is television that can be viewed on the computer if one has a broadband connection. Last year TRAI proposed a tariff for cable TV and DTH (direct to home) subscribers.
As of now there are 60,000 cable operators, 6,000 multi-system operators, 173 channels and seven DTH operators. There has been a growing chorus that the highly fractionalized cable TV distribution market in particular and the broadcasting industry, in general, needs a dedicated regulation regime, not only to quickly form regulations and settle disputes but also to save interest of the viewers.
It went on till 1995 as the archaic Indian Posts and Telegraph Act defined broadcasting and it was totally unprepared for a signal coming from outside the country. There was nothing to suggest whether what was happening was legal or not. That is when a controversy broke over ESPN's attempt to uplink from India to telecast a cricket match. In the litigation that followed, the Supreme Court ruled that 'The airwaves are not a monopoly of the government'. The result was the Cable Networks Act, regularizing what was technically an illegal business.
The Act:
An Act to regulate the operation of cable television networks in the country and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The act says that no person shall operate a cable television network unless he is registered as a cable operator under this Act. The act also lays down certain guidelines for transmission:
1. Programme code: Any programme which is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code can’t be transmitted.
2. Advertisement code: Any advertisement unless such advertisement is in conformity with the prescribed advertisement code can’t be transmitted.
3. Maintenance of register: Every cable operator is to maintain a register in the prescribed form carrying details of programmes (in brief) transmitted or retransmitted during a month. Such register has to be maintained for a period of one year after the actual transmission or re-transmission of the said programmes.
4. Compulsory transmission of two Doordarshan channels:
(A) Every cable operator shall retransmit
(i) Channels operated by or on behalf of Parliament in the manner and name as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;
(ii) At least two Doordarshan terrestrial Channels and one regional language channel of a State in the Prime band, in satellite mode on frequencies other than those carrying terrestrial frequencies
(B) The Prasar Bharti may, by notification, specify the number and name of every Doordarshan channel to be retransmitted by cable operators in their cable service and the manner of reception and retransmission of such channels.
5. Use of standard equipment in cable Television network: Any equipment in cable television network can’t be used be unless it conforms to the Indian Standard in accordance with the provisions of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986.
6. Cable Television network not to interfere with any telecommunication system: - The cable Television network being operated should not interfere, in any way, with the functioning of the authorized telecommunication systems.
The act lays down provisions to seize and confiscate equipments in case of failure to follow the above rules and regulations. The cable operator has right to appeal against any such seizure or confiscation.
Finally the government retains the right to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest if it thinks that the laid provisions are being violated. It also has the power to prohibit operation of cable television network in public interest.
By an amendment bill brought in 2002 the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 became the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act 2002. By this amendment bill a new section 4A was added and section 9, 11, 16 and 22 were amended. Many amendments have been brought in the bill from time to time. Following were the main changes brought by the 2002 amendment:
(1). Transmission of programmes through addressable systems, etc:
Where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, it may make it obligatory to transmit or retransmit programme of any pay channel through an addressable system.
(2) By the same logic it may also specify one or more free to air channels to be included in the package of channels genre wise for providing a programme mix of entertainment, information, and education, and such other programmes.
(3) It may also specify the maximum amount which a cable operator may demand from the subscriber including different maximum amounts for different States, cities, towns or areas as the case may be.
(4) Every cable operator shall publicize, in the prescribed manner, to the subscribers the subscription rates and the periodic intervals after which such subscriptions are payable for receiving each pay channel provided by such cable operator.
(5) The cable operator shall not require any subscriber to have a receiver set of a particular type to receive signals of cable television network.
(6) Every cable operator shall submit a report to the Central Government in the prescribed form and manner containing the information regarding:-
(i) The number of total subscribers:
(ii) Subscription rates:
(iii) Number of subscribers receiving programmes transmitted in basic service tier or particular programme or set of programmes transmitted on pay channel.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the ad hoc broadcasting regulator —has been proposing amendment in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, and the telecom licensing agreement. This will enable viewers watch, Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), which is television that can be viewed on the computer if one has a broadband connection. Last year TRAI proposed a tariff for cable TV and DTH (direct to home) subscribers.
As of now there are 60,000 cable operators, 6,000 multi-system operators, 173 channels and seven DTH operators. There has been a growing chorus that the highly fractionalized cable TV distribution market in particular and the broadcasting industry, in general, needs a dedicated regulation regime, not only to quickly form regulations and settle disputes but also to save interest of the viewers.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 22, 2010
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.
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.
Uplinking Guidelines
Setting up of Uplinking hub/ teleport
A company seeking permission to set up an uplinking hub/teleport or uplink a TV channel or uplink facility by a News Agency should be a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956.
The foreign equity holding including NRI/OCB/PIO should not exceed 49%
The company should meet prescribed minimum Net Worth criteria:
Item Required Net Worth
Teleport for single channel capacity Rs. 1.00 Crore
Teleport for 6 channel capacity Rs. 1.50 Crore
Teleport for 10 channel capacity Rs. 2.50 Crore
Teleport for 15 channel capacity Rs. 3.00 Crore
Period of Permission and Fee:
Permission is granted for a period of 10 years. The applicant has to pay an amount of Rs. Ten thousands as processing fee and after being held eligible a permission fee @ of Rs. Five Lakhs per teleport.
Uplinking of non-news and current affairs channel
The applicant company, irrespective of its ownership, equity structure or management control, would be eligible to seek permission if it meets the above criteria.
Special Conditions/ Obligations:
The sports channels/sports rights management companies having TV broadcasting rights will have to share their feed with Prasar Bharati for national and international sporting events of national importance, held in India or aboard, for terrestrial transmission and DTH broadcasting (free-to-air). The event will be determined by the MIB in consultation with Ministry of Sports & Youth Affairs, Prasar Bharati and the concerned sports channels/sports rights management companies.
Uplinking of news and current affairs channel
Foreign Equity holding including FDI/FII/NRI investments should not exceed 26% of the Paid Up equity of the applicant company. The criteria regarding minimum Net Worth and fee as per number of channels remain same.
The equity held by the largest Indian shareholder should be at least 51% of the total equity, excluding the equity held by Public Sector Banks and Public Financial Institutions as defined in Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956.
At least 3/4th of the Directors on the Board of Directors of the company and all key Executives and Editorial staff shall be resident Indians.
A company seeking permission to set up an uplinking hub/teleport or uplink a TV channel or uplink facility by a News Agency should be a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956.
The foreign equity holding including NRI/OCB/PIO should not exceed 49%
The company should meet prescribed minimum Net Worth criteria:
Item Required Net Worth
Teleport for single channel capacity Rs. 1.00 Crore
Teleport for 6 channel capacity Rs. 1.50 Crore
Teleport for 10 channel capacity Rs. 2.50 Crore
Teleport for 15 channel capacity Rs. 3.00 Crore
Period of Permission and Fee:
Permission is granted for a period of 10 years. The applicant has to pay an amount of Rs. Ten thousands as processing fee and after being held eligible a permission fee @ of Rs. Five Lakhs per teleport.
Uplinking of non-news and current affairs channel
The applicant company, irrespective of its ownership, equity structure or management control, would be eligible to seek permission if it meets the above criteria.
Special Conditions/ Obligations:
The sports channels/sports rights management companies having TV broadcasting rights will have to share their feed with Prasar Bharati for national and international sporting events of national importance, held in India or aboard, for terrestrial transmission and DTH broadcasting (free-to-air). The event will be determined by the MIB in consultation with Ministry of Sports & Youth Affairs, Prasar Bharati and the concerned sports channels/sports rights management companies.
Uplinking of news and current affairs channel
Foreign Equity holding including FDI/FII/NRI investments should not exceed 26% of the Paid Up equity of the applicant company. The criteria regarding minimum Net Worth and fee as per number of channels remain same.
The equity held by the largest Indian shareholder should be at least 51% of the total equity, excluding the equity held by Public Sector Banks and Public Financial Institutions as defined in Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956.
At least 3/4th of the Directors on the Board of Directors of the company and all key Executives and Editorial staff shall be resident Indians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)