Blind faith or Blind fold : Indian Media Laws

News broadcasters have recently criticised the government for putting conditions of good behaviour for renewal of licences to TV channels, saying it was an attempt to "control" the independent media and demanded withdrawal of the new regulations.

With new norms, government is trying to control an otherwise independent electronic media by sending a subtle message that their permission to uplink can be withdrawn should they not behave,"

It seems that the net result of the new norms would be that an officer of the government can question an individual channel on content for four times on one pretext or the other and finally threaten that channel of non-renewal.

Actually there are two media traditions in India. One relates to the broadcast media, television and radio, which have been traditionally government owned and run, and therefore government controlled. They're basically supervised by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and obviously subject to some degree of control by the government in power, which means the political party wielding power at any given time.

The other tradition is that of the independent print media, most of them privately owned. Even now, there is considerable diversity in ownership patterns, with most Indian newspaper organizations still predominantly family-owned. “The press,” as we call our print media, has always been fairly liberal, partly because a significant proportion of it was involved in and influenced by the freedom movement. Many leaders of the movement for independence from colonial rule, from Mahatma Gandhi onwards, edited their own publications, using the media to disseminate their ideas.

So, even though newspapers and magazines in India were almost always part of the private sector, they were very much informed by public spiritedness. Traditionally, most of those who ran them saw the media as playing a public service role and not being entirely driven by commerce and profits. So, we’ve had a fairly good press tradition from that point of view.

But recently a lot of things have changed in the media in India. For instance the emergence of  satellite television, a large number of private channels, from both inside and outside the country, have entered Indian homes. As a result, even broadcasting is no longer completely within the control of the government.

Television is, admittedly, a relatively young medium in India, restricted until the early 1990s to the State-owned broadcaster, Doordarshan (DD).  Even DD began national telecasts only in the mid-1980s, when indigenous satellite technology made it possible. Private television channels relying on satellites for transmission and on cable networks for dissemination began to make their presence felt by the mid- to late 1990s.  It was only towards the end of the 1990s that 24-hour news channels catering specifically to Indian audiences – in English, Hindi and other languages – emerged at the national as well as regional levels. The subsequent proliferation of channels has naturally led to intense competition, which is widely believed to be the root cause of controversies. 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 are waiting for approval.  

The government appears to have been taken unawares by the sudden emergence and upsurge of television channels and cable networks. The sudden onslaught of satellite television, initially through the so-called “invasion from the skies” by international TV networks in the early 1990s, changed the situation quite dramatically but the official response to the altered circumstances has been slow, hesitant and somewhat confused.   

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, framed after the government reached an understanding at the all-India level with the Cable Operators Federation of India in 1993. The new law was an attempt to regulate the burgeoning cable market that had emerged a few years earlier by enabling some control of the cable system 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 and there is talk every now and again of further amendments.  

The setting up of an Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (EMMC) by the government to monitor the content of all news channels and FM radio stations was also wideAly reported in the media in mid-June 2008.  Much of the coverage conveyed the impression that the EMMC was linked to the deferred Broadcast Bill and Content Code and implied that its establishment was proof of the government’s lack of commitment to self-regulation.   

Meanwhile, following up on their undertaking to institute self-regulation, 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 of life.

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai occurred less than two months later. The controversial, continuous, live television coverage of the three-day ordeal, which was avidly watched by audiences across the country, generated considerable criticism and thereby revived the debate on media regulation. However, once again, much of the discussion sidestepped the idea of an autonomous regulatory body for the media as a whole or at least the broadcast sector.  

Is it necessary that  citizens should be informed about and participate in debates about media policy and regulation? The news media play a vital role in democratic societies as the Fourth Estate, one of the four pillars of democracy alongside the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It stands to reason that the watchdog of the other three Estates, and of society as a whole, must also, ultimately, be accountable to the public.   

we do  not  deny that the mass media enjoy enormous power in today's world.  They are increasingly playing the role once played by family, community, religion and formal education:  not only disseminating information and knowledge, but also shaping values and norms, moulding attitudes and behaviour, and influencing the very process of living.   

The media set the public agenda in a number of ways:  for example, they more or less determine which wars and conflicts citizens should know about and what they should know about them, which disasters and diseases are worthy of public attention, which scams and scandals people must get hot and bothered about, what issues and developments they should be informed and concerned about, which events in a city residents need to be aware of, and so on.   

The media are also in a position to pressurise the State to act; and they enjoy this privilege because they are supposed to represent the public interest. The news media in particular have traditionally played a key role in democracy by creating what is known as the “public sphere”, where information essential to citizen participation in national and community life is supposed to be presented and where issues of importance to the public are meant to be discussed and debated. Such a public sphere is indispensable to democratic society because democracy critically depends upon an informed populace making political choices.    

So citizens of a democracy do have a stake in the media and, consequently, they have the right to be heard on media-related matters – not only issues relating to media content but also those concerning media policy.(10) Indeed, the democratisation of the media is one of the important challenges of the future.   

A growing number of people in different parts of the world are becoming aware of the need for citizens to be critically aware of the media, not just in terms of programming, but also with regard to various determinants of policy, such as institutional structure, funding and regulation. Broadcast audiences, long presumed to be passive consumers, are beginning to turn active, and increasingly seeking recognition as stake-holders who have a right to be heard on all issues relating to the media. 

Unfortunately, in India, even sections of civil society that are vigorous and vocal on a wide range of important issues have yet to intervene actively in media matters. 

The crux of the discussion on the matter is that undoubtedly media (specially TV and Radio) must act  in  self-disciplined manner but it is not possible to allow them to behave like a free kite in the sky.  To control the whims and fancies of  private channels, Govt”s intervention is desirable.  Fashion TV, for example telecasted some international fashion shows which did not match with our traditions and culture.  Inspite of  repeated warnings the channel did not stop screening the objectionable contents .  Ultimately the Ministry of I&B banned the channel for a certain period and allowed its retelecast only after getting an assurance from the channel to be more cautious in future.  So we can say of course the broadcaster be given indepenency, but Govt must have a legal power in some form to regulate the working of broadcasters.