In this new game of privatising public resources, media has to be an important ally. Only an insider can create a credible smoke-screen that makes the mafia look like the saviours. It is clear now that the media honchos have been willing and quintessential insiders, says PADMAJA SHAW
Posted Friday, Nov 26 16:13:29, 2010 on the website The Hoot
This post-Diwali season, the fireworks continue on media. Till now, we were witness to media sending up the likes of Raja and Chavan to come down in a shower of sparks, but now some of the greats of Indian journalism themselves have taken off too. Only, we don't see much of a shower of sparks. Their former colleagues and friends have closed ranks and are killing the story by ignoring it.
Just this week also marks the significant quotable quote from Mrs Sonia Gandhi about our “shrinking moral universe”. ‘Shrinking moral universe' is a good turn of phrase. Just look at the performance of the elite media on a range of issues. The real debates (whether about the economy, development, displacement or media content itself) are increasingly found on-line and not in the mainstream media.
The political and business interests in India have prised open the ‘license raj', promising to bring dynamism and efficiency to our polity and economy. Today, ‘license raj' that was like gully cricket is replaced by high stakes IPL ??" the new economy. The new economy has spawned new entrepreneurs who are aggressive, sure-footed and know how to tweak the system to deliver. The outrageous speed at which the politician-business nexus has systematically privatised public resources like land, water and spectrum over the last decade is unprecedented in independent India. The political class is giving away at throw away prices what does not belong to them. Land, water and spectrum are the wealth of the nation that belongs to the people. The surplus generated for the corporations from this bonanza is being systematically reinvested to further consolidate their hold over political power.
In this new game, media has to be an important ally. Only an insider can create a credible smoke-screen that makes the mafia look like the saviours. And it is clear now that the media honchos have been willing and quintessential insiders. Media persons have become mediators in this process. The Radia tapes are testimony to the extent to which the movers and shakers in the media are complicit.
One had the hunch about this complicity when looking at the coverage given to people's issues at other times. A leading ‘star' anchor (who is also the owner of a bouquet of channels) calls the Union Environment Minister arrogant when he took a stand on the Posco issue. The strategy for the channels has been to promote the corporate interests aggressively, resist regulation and when disaster strikes, do wall-to-wall bleeding-heart coverage. Claim TRPs. Claim most viewed status. Make fake stars out of dishonest journalists.
As part of their overall nexus with corporate power, the big media reduces the distress caused to the victims of this unsustainable development of the economy to a law and order issue. The prime minister's statement labelling the displaced people's protests as the single biggest threat to our democracy got the greatest play on corporate media. Barring a few like Outlook again, no media house had the courage to question it. Neither did the media houses ask the PM, how he would characterise the activities of his party, the ministerial colleagues hand-picked by him and the media mafia. Were they the harbingers of democracy? While the Barkha-Niira Radia story was breaking invisibly, while Madhu Koda was allowed to walk free, and Raja was cajoled into a temporary exile, only to be patted on the back by the PM a day later in public, one could see a fast moving scroll on news channels telling us that ‘Twenty ‘naxals' were shot dead'. The law, of course, will take its course in our idyllic democracy. The extreme structural violence of this system needs the extreme fair play only our deeply deliberative judiciary can provide. A few generations may live and die without food, shelter and education, but what the hell … The ‘new moral universe'.
Similar clever coverage is being given for the I&B Ministry's ruling for showing programming with adult content after 11pm to protect younger audiences. CNN-IBN brings serial producers, advertising people and film-makers to tell us about ‘freedom of speech' and ‘public opinion'. The debate was heavily loaded in favour of, ‘today's children are more mature, know everything from the net and therefore even pornography is ok on prime time. We must have choice'. The minor point of how many TV-viewing children have access to the net outside urban India is not worth dwelling on. And no one asked if there are other sources for objectionable content, is it necessary to provide it on prime time for children? (Years ago, when the Soviet Republic fell, one Western commentator hailed it as a victory for free speech because now all the Russians are free to buy and read ‘Playboy'). The channel is clearly telling us not to obstruct its profit run and its TRPs and telling us regulation is a threat to our democratic future. The new ‘moral universe'.
The signs were all there, but it would have been considered mean to crib about them. Take for instance the recruitment in major English channels. It has been rumoured for years that those with a good deal of social capital are preferred over others. If they belong to a well-connected political or bureaucratic family, the cocktail circuit, then they would have an established network of information that others would take years to build. They would also have the self-confidence to deal with the political and economic elites on equal terms. As for training, they could always be shipped to top j-schools abroad for tagging and for honing their skills (without really re-arranging the moral compass to suit the needs of journalism). Perfect arrangement. Dynamic journalism. Lay a thing or two on the old, unrealistic middle-class hang-ups about journalism.
But this arrangement didn't figure-in the personal ambitions of the new ‘journalists' coming unravelled. It takes a deep ‘moral universe' to resist all the opportunities that stare at you ??" the power to influence the most powerful in the land; the power to shut critics up; the power to bend policy to help friends in high places; each success adding to the sense of invincibility. Since regulation is anathema, here too, how far one can go was never really debated or defined. Just like the politician, instinctively one knew one had to brazen it out when caught. Public memory is short and forgiving in this ‘new moral universe'.
The crux of the issue is: In this much-celebrated democracy of ours, the real decision-makers are the corporations and the media who never face an election, who are not accountable to the people or any sovereign constitutional authority. The politicians are placed and replaced at the whims of the corporations and the media, not the ballot. The big media has for decades fooled people into believing that they speak for them. It stands exposed today as the ‘dalaal' helping to sell people's welfare to the lowest bidder (L1) among their corporate friends. The ‘new moral universe'.
Do they still deserve the right to invoke the constitutional guarantee of ‘freedom of speech and expression'? Ironically, it is the need to protect the rights of publications like Outlook that the freedom of the press has to be defended and protected. Should there be a regulation that separates wheat from journalistic chaff?
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Trend-spotting in print media
There’s something exciting unfolding on the print media scene. Two of the leading English language newspapers, The Hindu and The Times of India, are on a value-addition drive. PADMAJA SHAW is pleasantly surprised at the quality of the Crest edition. Padmaja Shaw
Posted Thursday, Nov 18 23:27:15, 2010 on the website THE HOOT
It is just over a year since The Times of India launched its Crest Edition (broadsheet) that comes out with Saturday dateline. The Crest edition over the past months has persistently demolished all stereotypes about the ‘popular’ strategies that The Times adopts. It is priced at Rs 6 and except for the anniversary edition (every other page carried a full page ad), has not carried much advertising. Again, except for the anniversary edition, one does not recall any sleazy bikini shots in it. But in the anniversary edition, there was a charming image of Sharmila Tagore in her ‘first bikini of Indian cinema’ on the cover page. The anniversary edition was on the whole delightful celebrating all firsts in all kinds of fields of achievement.
Somehow, over the year, one expected a loss of coherence but the edition is getting better, providing excellent in-depth reading material on diverse fields, from pharmaceutical industry, film industry, social trends and social issues. Week after week, one gets to read critical, in-depth pieces on a range of issues. The 32-page edition is a much-needed addition to weeklong reading on current issues and trends. The edition has lived up to its own promise: ‘Crest is for the curious mind; it hopes to be every intelligent reader's guide to politics and policy, art and culture, environment and education, and more’.
Of the 32 pages this week, just one and half pages are taken for advertising. One does not know the economics of how a 32-page edition with so little advertising is possible, but as a reader one would certainly welcome the effort. Earlier one had only the Outlook news magazine to bank on. Now the weekends give us something more to look forward to. That the ToI group finally acknowledges the existence of a reading public who are sorely disappointed with the mainstream media for not providing adequate depth and diversity is the real thing to celebrate here.
On the contrary, the Hyderabad Times is full of cinema and page 3. Photos and gossipy writing dominate. One wonders if there is much readership for it, except for those who are featured on it. Some useful content like science and medicine get lost in the melee of celebrity journalism.
Adding fuel to this perpetual perceived thirst for cinema news in Andhra Pradesh (the biggest producer of films in the country) is the new Cinema Plus Sunday (tabloid) supplement launched by The Hindu last week in Hyderabad. In addition to some four pages of film reviews on the weekend releases, there are ‘itsy-bitsy’ news items on the Telugu film industry, some on Hollywood. The supplement also carries the weekly TV/film listings, along with interviews with stars, curtain-raisers on under-production films. The last page carries a delightful nostalgia piece on yesteryear cinema titled ‘Blast from the past’.
The purpose of the supplement is unclear from the content so far, as except for the interviews, much of it has already been a part of its other week-day supplements. Is it to match the competition in providing fluff or is it to out-class competition by providing ‘intelligent’ stuff on cinema?
Coming from the Hindu stable, one expected the features to be meatier, with more informative write-ups on the film and television industries. There is no serious, regular critique of television fare on regional channels in the English newspapers that reach opinion-makers. The very size and weight of the Telugu film/television industry demands an informed debate about it and its social impact.
The other new trend is The Hindu carrying full front page ads under its masthead (Et tu, Hindu!). It has happened several times lately. Actually when the page is folded back it’s all back to normal, but somehow, it is dismaying to receive The Hindu this way. The same feeling one gets when one catches a Bharatantyam dancer dirty dancing in a pub!
Posted Thursday, Nov 18 23:27:15, 2010 on the website THE HOOT
It is just over a year since The Times of India launched its Crest Edition (broadsheet) that comes out with Saturday dateline. The Crest edition over the past months has persistently demolished all stereotypes about the ‘popular’ strategies that The Times adopts. It is priced at Rs 6 and except for the anniversary edition (every other page carried a full page ad), has not carried much advertising. Again, except for the anniversary edition, one does not recall any sleazy bikini shots in it. But in the anniversary edition, there was a charming image of Sharmila Tagore in her ‘first bikini of Indian cinema’ on the cover page. The anniversary edition was on the whole delightful celebrating all firsts in all kinds of fields of achievement.
Somehow, over the year, one expected a loss of coherence but the edition is getting better, providing excellent in-depth reading material on diverse fields, from pharmaceutical industry, film industry, social trends and social issues. Week after week, one gets to read critical, in-depth pieces on a range of issues. The 32-page edition is a much-needed addition to weeklong reading on current issues and trends. The edition has lived up to its own promise: ‘Crest is for the curious mind; it hopes to be every intelligent reader's guide to politics and policy, art and culture, environment and education, and more’.
Of the 32 pages this week, just one and half pages are taken for advertising. One does not know the economics of how a 32-page edition with so little advertising is possible, but as a reader one would certainly welcome the effort. Earlier one had only the Outlook news magazine to bank on. Now the weekends give us something more to look forward to. That the ToI group finally acknowledges the existence of a reading public who are sorely disappointed with the mainstream media for not providing adequate depth and diversity is the real thing to celebrate here.
On the contrary, the Hyderabad Times is full of cinema and page 3. Photos and gossipy writing dominate. One wonders if there is much readership for it, except for those who are featured on it. Some useful content like science and medicine get lost in the melee of celebrity journalism.
Adding fuel to this perpetual perceived thirst for cinema news in Andhra Pradesh (the biggest producer of films in the country) is the new Cinema Plus Sunday (tabloid) supplement launched by The Hindu last week in Hyderabad. In addition to some four pages of film reviews on the weekend releases, there are ‘itsy-bitsy’ news items on the Telugu film industry, some on Hollywood. The supplement also carries the weekly TV/film listings, along with interviews with stars, curtain-raisers on under-production films. The last page carries a delightful nostalgia piece on yesteryear cinema titled ‘Blast from the past’.
The purpose of the supplement is unclear from the content so far, as except for the interviews, much of it has already been a part of its other week-day supplements. Is it to match the competition in providing fluff or is it to out-class competition by providing ‘intelligent’ stuff on cinema?
Coming from the Hindu stable, one expected the features to be meatier, with more informative write-ups on the film and television industries. There is no serious, regular critique of television fare on regional channels in the English newspapers that reach opinion-makers. The very size and weight of the Telugu film/television industry demands an informed debate about it and its social impact.
The other new trend is The Hindu carrying full front page ads under its masthead (Et tu, Hindu!). It has happened several times lately. Actually when the page is folded back it’s all back to normal, but somehow, it is dismaying to receive The Hindu this way. The same feeling one gets when one catches a Bharatantyam dancer dirty dancing in a pub!
Reporting Ayodhya-II
In Hyderabad both Eenadu and Deccan Chronicle bent over backwards to maintain balance. One defining feature of Eenadu was the effort it took to present both the sides for almost all stories. PADMAJA SHAW and NAGAMALLIKA G examine Ayodhya coverage in the leading English and Telugu dailies. Padmaja Shaw and Nagamallika G
Posted Saturday, Oct 23 00:03:21, 2010 on the website THE HOOT
Comparative coverage
How do different parts of the country cover the news? How do English and regional language newspapers cover the same story? Over the next two months the Hoot will report the outcome of a two month qualitative and quantitative newspaper survey in five states.
In states and cities with substantial Muslim populations, handling coverage of the Ayodhya judgement before and after it was delivered was something the media paid special attention to. This series began with Gujarat, when the English newspaper studied chose to be proactive in defusing potentially communal responses, but the Gujarati newspaper monitored presented the outcome of the verdict as a triumph for the majority religion simply through presentation, and the use of the colour saffron.
In Hyderabad both Eenadu and Deccan Chronicle bent over backwards to maintain balance. Both have traditionally been the leading Telugu and English newspapers in the state, though lately Sakshi has been showing a circulation surge, overtaking Eenadu. Both are broadsheets of 18 pages or thereabouts, on an average.
The coverage in Eenadu was meticulously impartial, matching story per story and within stories taking care to balance. One defining feature of the paper was the effort it took to give both the sides for almost all stories. In every story there were side heads with the Hindu view and the Muslim view. For eg., in one of the stories pre-judgement, the views of Manmohan Singh, RSS, VHP as well as the head of the Darul Uloom, Deoband, asking for peace, were all covered equally.
Even in the special stories where there was a story on the archeological evidence about Ram Mandir there were two versions reported. One given by BB Lal and the other by D. Mandal with proof of Ram Mandir before Masjid, and as an Islamic structure respectively. Another special report gave a straight forward chronological history of the issue from the British time. Yet another story gave the Hindu Muslim debate in a table format. An edit page article also gave a detailed historical chronology of the Mandir-Masjid issue. One feature that caught the attention was that while the reports generally spoke of peace and calm, there were coloured box items with political leaders’ aggressive statements. For example, Advani, Digvijay Singh, a few RSS leaders and Owaisi gave some biting comments after the judgement. The box made it more prominent.
There were three articles on the media in Eenadu, all negative, stating that media should not broadcast provocative programs and another stating that media might be kept away from court. The third spoke of the chaos and confusion with around 600 journalists at the HC venue, with no one getting a clear picture of the verdict. Not a very flattering image of the media.
One interesting story on 2nd October declared that the paper would like to clarify the data on the actual land which is to be divided, as against the projection by the media channels and papers which were misleading by stating that the entire land was to be divided into three (2.77 acres) while the fact was that only 1500 sq yards were to be divided.
Though Deccan Chronicle did not go in for mechanical matching of stories giving the Hindu and Muslim points of view, the paper took a specifically secular stand by having more pieces critical of religious extremism, including editorials.
Both the papers in general have presented Ayodhya news in a neutral manner. Though Eenadu, with its preoccupation with local political agenda, gave less prominence to the story by way of fewer front page items and fewer editorials, Deccan Chronicle gave more prominence to the issue by giving several more front page stories and editorials. The rule of thumb is that regional language papers have more stories, and shorter ones. The Hyderabad papers conformed to the rule. On Ayodhya, Eenadu carried 103 stories a third of which (33) were briefs. DC carried 73 stories none of which were briefs. ( Note: Quantitative sampling in this study was for every alternate day. Results are indicative.)
English newspapers editorialise more than their regional language counterparts. Eenadu carried just one editorial on the issue and two special reports, two analyses, and two edit page articles. The Deccan Chronicle carried 5 editorials and 9 special stories that included a couple of edit page articles. On any given day, except the day of judgement, Eenadu had other stories on its front page, equally or sometimes more prominently. Eenadu is actively pursuing several local stories such as the Emaar-APIIC scandal, Jagan yatra and the internal dissentions in Congress party. The display and the prominence given to other stories is not matched in the case of Ayodhya issue. There were just 6 front page stories.
Though DC also did the same, there was more emphasis through display and size of news stories on the front page. There were 14 front page stories in DC.
The run up to the event had the paper emphasising the need for restraint and security issues. On 23 Sept, the originally expected dated prior to judgement, the paper gave a special full-page curtain-raiser. The page carried stories from Ayodhya with the perspectives of the local people, both Hindus and Muslims; a story critical of Hindutva politics, accompanied by a brief summary of the legal history of the issue; an interview with Kalyan Singh (“Does any one have the guts to remove the idols from there?); six boxes, one each for Uma Bharathi, LK Advani, MM Joshi, Ritambara, Vinay Katiyar, A Singhal, describing their participation in the Babri demolition and enumerating the IPC cases they are still facing.
The editorial on 19 Sept also emphasises the need for tight security measures, as the assurances give by the Sangh Parivar cannot be trusted. The editorial cites the earlier written assurance given by the Parivar before the demolition of Babri Masjid, and how they violated it.
On 28 Sept, the editorial comes up with an interesting take on the relief from bulk SMS ‘freeze’ because of Ayodhya and why it should continue. SMSes quoted: ‘get Rs 1,00,00,000 after 21 years. No risk. Pay Rs 545 daily for 11 years.’
The headlines of the news stories tried to accurately reflect the substance of the stories. For instance: Hyderabad Hypersensitive: IB (18, Sept); Advani assures BJP restraint (19 Sept); Twin towns live in uncertainty (23 Sept).
On the day of the judgement itself, the banner headline read: Judges divide land to unite India (1 Oct). Other headlines on the day followed similar vein: Uneasy queries answered; Centre wary, wants no let up in security.
On the day of the judgement there were 24 stories and one editorial. The coverage was given five full pages. There were no stories critical of either side, there were two stories with the Hindu perspective and one story with Muslim perspective. Much of the coverage on 1 Oct and 2 Oct came out of the extensive extracts from the judgement itself. However, the extracts were divided up thematically/ issue-wise into readable bits.
In the editorials on 1 and 2 October, the paper praised the judgement as the best under the circumstances and that Hindus and Muslims must share and protect their common heritage. In the editorial on 2 Oct, it praises the government for handling the issue well and has much praise for the ‘aam admi’, who it says cooperated with the administration. Citing the photograph published on page 1 on 1 October, which shows a Hindu and a Muslim sharing a happy moment in Ayodhya, it said it was the snapshot of the way Indian citizenry reacted to the verdict.
On October 2, the story titled: Congress wary of buoyant BJP, speculates about Congress party’s anxiety about BJP vote bank consolidation ahead of Bihar elections. It quotes Gadkari as saying that the masjid will be built on the banks of Sarayu. And also underlines Congress’ refusal to react to Mulayam’s statement on the judgement.
On 3 October, in a full-page coverage and display, two extensive stories were carried, one says: Ayodhya tempts politicians again; another says: Celebrations in Karsevakpuram is premature. The first story is severely critical of the BJP and also the motives of the various political players involved in the issue/ attempting to profit from it. The second story, despite its headlines, merely reports and quotes the activities at Karsevakpuram. One of the quotes is someone saying: bring on the bricks, as soon as they listen to the judgement.
On both 1 and 2 October, edit page and special stories raise interesting issues. Antara Dev Sen’s piece, Ram Lalla, a resident of UP, presents an incisive review of history and the ironies of Indian law and life in the context of Ayodhya judgement. On the edit page, Insaniyat over insanity on 3 October recounts historical instances of sharing disputed religious places all over the world and hails the Ayodhya judgement in that context. In Ayodhya that unites us all, Muzaffar Ali spoke of the need for architectural celebration of the common heritage in Ayodhya.
Conclusion:
Over all when one looks at the coverage of Deccan Chronicle, one gets the impression that the argument in Ayodhya judgement was not really between the Hindus and the Muslims but between secularism and fundamentalism. The fact that more attention was paid to the Hindu point of view reveals a sense that the Hindu groups have shown themselves to be aggressive enough to physically demolish a monument and continue to posture aggressively. The coverage had few stories of Muslim point of view. The stories are mainly from the ‘oldest litigant’ and leaders. Statistically, there were four stories critical of the Hindu viewpoint on the issue, but none that were critical of the Muslim viewpoint.
The paper has taken an unequivocal stand against extremist politics on religion and has played its role as market leader in providing balanced, non-provocative coverage through out the period of analysis.
To return to Eenadu, a good featurewas that it tried to give positive stories in its coverage. There was a human interest story of the conditions in Ayodhya and the common man citing a tailor, a cyber café owner and some householder all talking of being left alone and asking for peace. A clear indication of not wanting strife comes up in the story. Another story gives a rare case of a Muslim in UP who wants to read the Ramayan at the time of the verdict. Of course, all these also indicate the insecurities of the Muslims, who want to avoid trouble.
Another front page article is on the great change one has witnessed in the last two decades. A picture of school children in a tree formation accompanies the story. A positive story which talks of the change in the attitude from last time and how all political parties too are happy with the verdict of sharing the space. Then there was an article is on an atmosphere of bonhomie in AP state.
Posted Saturday, Oct 23 00:03:21, 2010 on the website THE HOOT
Comparative coverage
How do different parts of the country cover the news? How do English and regional language newspapers cover the same story? Over the next two months the Hoot will report the outcome of a two month qualitative and quantitative newspaper survey in five states.
In states and cities with substantial Muslim populations, handling coverage of the Ayodhya judgement before and after it was delivered was something the media paid special attention to. This series began with Gujarat, when the English newspaper studied chose to be proactive in defusing potentially communal responses, but the Gujarati newspaper monitored presented the outcome of the verdict as a triumph for the majority religion simply through presentation, and the use of the colour saffron.
In Hyderabad both Eenadu and Deccan Chronicle bent over backwards to maintain balance. Both have traditionally been the leading Telugu and English newspapers in the state, though lately Sakshi has been showing a circulation surge, overtaking Eenadu. Both are broadsheets of 18 pages or thereabouts, on an average.
The coverage in Eenadu was meticulously impartial, matching story per story and within stories taking care to balance. One defining feature of the paper was the effort it took to give both the sides for almost all stories. In every story there were side heads with the Hindu view and the Muslim view. For eg., in one of the stories pre-judgement, the views of Manmohan Singh, RSS, VHP as well as the head of the Darul Uloom, Deoband, asking for peace, were all covered equally.
Even in the special stories where there was a story on the archeological evidence about Ram Mandir there were two versions reported. One given by BB Lal and the other by D. Mandal with proof of Ram Mandir before Masjid, and as an Islamic structure respectively. Another special report gave a straight forward chronological history of the issue from the British time. Yet another story gave the Hindu Muslim debate in a table format. An edit page article also gave a detailed historical chronology of the Mandir-Masjid issue. One feature that caught the attention was that while the reports generally spoke of peace and calm, there were coloured box items with political leaders’ aggressive statements. For example, Advani, Digvijay Singh, a few RSS leaders and Owaisi gave some biting comments after the judgement. The box made it more prominent.
There were three articles on the media in Eenadu, all negative, stating that media should not broadcast provocative programs and another stating that media might be kept away from court. The third spoke of the chaos and confusion with around 600 journalists at the HC venue, with no one getting a clear picture of the verdict. Not a very flattering image of the media.
One interesting story on 2nd October declared that the paper would like to clarify the data on the actual land which is to be divided, as against the projection by the media channels and papers which were misleading by stating that the entire land was to be divided into three (2.77 acres) while the fact was that only 1500 sq yards were to be divided.
Though Deccan Chronicle did not go in for mechanical matching of stories giving the Hindu and Muslim points of view, the paper took a specifically secular stand by having more pieces critical of religious extremism, including editorials.
Both the papers in general have presented Ayodhya news in a neutral manner. Though Eenadu, with its preoccupation with local political agenda, gave less prominence to the story by way of fewer front page items and fewer editorials, Deccan Chronicle gave more prominence to the issue by giving several more front page stories and editorials. The rule of thumb is that regional language papers have more stories, and shorter ones. The Hyderabad papers conformed to the rule. On Ayodhya, Eenadu carried 103 stories a third of which (33) were briefs. DC carried 73 stories none of which were briefs. ( Note: Quantitative sampling in this study was for every alternate day. Results are indicative.)
English newspapers editorialise more than their regional language counterparts. Eenadu carried just one editorial on the issue and two special reports, two analyses, and two edit page articles. The Deccan Chronicle carried 5 editorials and 9 special stories that included a couple of edit page articles. On any given day, except the day of judgement, Eenadu had other stories on its front page, equally or sometimes more prominently. Eenadu is actively pursuing several local stories such as the Emaar-APIIC scandal, Jagan yatra and the internal dissentions in Congress party. The display and the prominence given to other stories is not matched in the case of Ayodhya issue. There were just 6 front page stories.
Though DC also did the same, there was more emphasis through display and size of news stories on the front page. There were 14 front page stories in DC.
The run up to the event had the paper emphasising the need for restraint and security issues. On 23 Sept, the originally expected dated prior to judgement, the paper gave a special full-page curtain-raiser. The page carried stories from Ayodhya with the perspectives of the local people, both Hindus and Muslims; a story critical of Hindutva politics, accompanied by a brief summary of the legal history of the issue; an interview with Kalyan Singh (“Does any one have the guts to remove the idols from there?); six boxes, one each for Uma Bharathi, LK Advani, MM Joshi, Ritambara, Vinay Katiyar, A Singhal, describing their participation in the Babri demolition and enumerating the IPC cases they are still facing.
The editorial on 19 Sept also emphasises the need for tight security measures, as the assurances give by the Sangh Parivar cannot be trusted. The editorial cites the earlier written assurance given by the Parivar before the demolition of Babri Masjid, and how they violated it.
On 28 Sept, the editorial comes up with an interesting take on the relief from bulk SMS ‘freeze’ because of Ayodhya and why it should continue. SMSes quoted: ‘get Rs 1,00,00,000 after 21 years. No risk. Pay Rs 545 daily for 11 years.’
The headlines of the news stories tried to accurately reflect the substance of the stories. For instance: Hyderabad Hypersensitive: IB (18, Sept); Advani assures BJP restraint (19 Sept); Twin towns live in uncertainty (23 Sept).
On the day of the judgement itself, the banner headline read: Judges divide land to unite India (1 Oct). Other headlines on the day followed similar vein: Uneasy queries answered; Centre wary, wants no let up in security.
On the day of the judgement there were 24 stories and one editorial. The coverage was given five full pages. There were no stories critical of either side, there were two stories with the Hindu perspective and one story with Muslim perspective. Much of the coverage on 1 Oct and 2 Oct came out of the extensive extracts from the judgement itself. However, the extracts were divided up thematically/ issue-wise into readable bits.
In the editorials on 1 and 2 October, the paper praised the judgement as the best under the circumstances and that Hindus and Muslims must share and protect their common heritage. In the editorial on 2 Oct, it praises the government for handling the issue well and has much praise for the ‘aam admi’, who it says cooperated with the administration. Citing the photograph published on page 1 on 1 October, which shows a Hindu and a Muslim sharing a happy moment in Ayodhya, it said it was the snapshot of the way Indian citizenry reacted to the verdict.
On October 2, the story titled: Congress wary of buoyant BJP, speculates about Congress party’s anxiety about BJP vote bank consolidation ahead of Bihar elections. It quotes Gadkari as saying that the masjid will be built on the banks of Sarayu. And also underlines Congress’ refusal to react to Mulayam’s statement on the judgement.
On 3 October, in a full-page coverage and display, two extensive stories were carried, one says: Ayodhya tempts politicians again; another says: Celebrations in Karsevakpuram is premature. The first story is severely critical of the BJP and also the motives of the various political players involved in the issue/ attempting to profit from it. The second story, despite its headlines, merely reports and quotes the activities at Karsevakpuram. One of the quotes is someone saying: bring on the bricks, as soon as they listen to the judgement.
On both 1 and 2 October, edit page and special stories raise interesting issues. Antara Dev Sen’s piece, Ram Lalla, a resident of UP, presents an incisive review of history and the ironies of Indian law and life in the context of Ayodhya judgement. On the edit page, Insaniyat over insanity on 3 October recounts historical instances of sharing disputed religious places all over the world and hails the Ayodhya judgement in that context. In Ayodhya that unites us all, Muzaffar Ali spoke of the need for architectural celebration of the common heritage in Ayodhya.
Conclusion:
Over all when one looks at the coverage of Deccan Chronicle, one gets the impression that the argument in Ayodhya judgement was not really between the Hindus and the Muslims but between secularism and fundamentalism. The fact that more attention was paid to the Hindu point of view reveals a sense that the Hindu groups have shown themselves to be aggressive enough to physically demolish a monument and continue to posture aggressively. The coverage had few stories of Muslim point of view. The stories are mainly from the ‘oldest litigant’ and leaders. Statistically, there were four stories critical of the Hindu viewpoint on the issue, but none that were critical of the Muslim viewpoint.
The paper has taken an unequivocal stand against extremist politics on religion and has played its role as market leader in providing balanced, non-provocative coverage through out the period of analysis.
To return to Eenadu, a good featurewas that it tried to give positive stories in its coverage. There was a human interest story of the conditions in Ayodhya and the common man citing a tailor, a cyber café owner and some householder all talking of being left alone and asking for peace. A clear indication of not wanting strife comes up in the story. Another story gives a rare case of a Muslim in UP who wants to read the Ramayan at the time of the verdict. Of course, all these also indicate the insecurities of the Muslims, who want to avoid trouble.
Another front page article is on the great change one has witnessed in the last two decades. A picture of school children in a tree formation accompanies the story. A positive story which talks of the change in the attitude from last time and how all political parties too are happy with the verdict of sharing the space. Then there was an article is on an atmosphere of bonhomie in AP state.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Religion without social conscience
Hyderabad has become a peculiar practitioner of religion. It all begins with the rains. First the Mahankali jaatra. Followed by Ganesh puja, followed by Durga puja.
When we were growing up in the 50s and 60s in Hyderabad, only Mahankali jaatra used to be held, the most famous one being the Ujjaini Mahankali of Secunderabad.
I do not recall loud drum beats and prolonged processions. People used to take offerings to the temples and yes, used to sacrifice animals and chickens in public. One day evening the Potharaju procession would be on, which was fun to follow around, culminating with the oracle event.
But the modern day avatars of the festivals interfere with the existence of others who may not want to participate. Take the Ganesh festival. It was a delightful family celebration, most fun for children. It was fun to pick the cutest figure and bring him home for worship. The lesson in botany would follow, as we actually used to hunt and find the leaves and flowers for the puja. Fun to hear the story of over-eating till one's tummy went bust. We would religiously get our books marked with kumkum for better grades!
Now it has taken on a monstrously polluting street avatar. It is polluting lakes; the sound pollution during the ten days of celebrations is unbearable. No one is worried about blocking traffic which may well include an ambulance or two. No one is worried about disturbing the old and the sick. They seem to be making some of the loudest drums these days. And they beat unconcerned late into the night disturbing school children, office goers, the elderly. And all this is done with money collected from you, me and the neighbourhood shopkeepers. Everyone, including the administration wait with bated breath for those days to pass. From social insesitivity, pollution of lakes, sound pollution, we also have thought pollution - leading to religious muscle flexing. One wonders whom the drums really mean to keep awake?
Now Durga puja, the latest entrant into the game of going public with what was private worship, is on in Hyderabad. It is past midnight and I can hear frenzied drumming outside. I hope Durgaji is pleased with all the energy being expended to show how much we love and revere her. Each of the processions would have several dozens of able-bodied young men, who are telling us that if society doesn't show them a better way of channelling their energies, this is what society will get from them. Sleepless nights from July to October.
When we were growing up in the 50s and 60s in Hyderabad, only Mahankali jaatra used to be held, the most famous one being the Ujjaini Mahankali of Secunderabad.
I do not recall loud drum beats and prolonged processions. People used to take offerings to the temples and yes, used to sacrifice animals and chickens in public. One day evening the Potharaju procession would be on, which was fun to follow around, culminating with the oracle event.
But the modern day avatars of the festivals interfere with the existence of others who may not want to participate. Take the Ganesh festival. It was a delightful family celebration, most fun for children. It was fun to pick the cutest figure and bring him home for worship. The lesson in botany would follow, as we actually used to hunt and find the leaves and flowers for the puja. Fun to hear the story of over-eating till one's tummy went bust. We would religiously get our books marked with kumkum for better grades!
Now it has taken on a monstrously polluting street avatar. It is polluting lakes; the sound pollution during the ten days of celebrations is unbearable. No one is worried about blocking traffic which may well include an ambulance or two. No one is worried about disturbing the old and the sick. They seem to be making some of the loudest drums these days. And they beat unconcerned late into the night disturbing school children, office goers, the elderly. And all this is done with money collected from you, me and the neighbourhood shopkeepers. Everyone, including the administration wait with bated breath for those days to pass. From social insesitivity, pollution of lakes, sound pollution, we also have thought pollution - leading to religious muscle flexing. One wonders whom the drums really mean to keep awake?
Now Durga puja, the latest entrant into the game of going public with what was private worship, is on in Hyderabad. It is past midnight and I can hear frenzied drumming outside. I hope Durgaji is pleased with all the energy being expended to show how much we love and revere her. Each of the processions would have several dozens of able-bodied young men, who are telling us that if society doesn't show them a better way of channelling their energies, this is what society will get from them. Sleepless nights from July to October.
Monday, 4 October 2010
Live TV and dubious judicial logic
Whether a self-proclaimed custodian of God can go to court claiming land in His name and whether Indian courts can endorse such ownership of land was not explored by any channel. But it is heartening to see self-restrained broadcast media and vibrant English newspapers doing a fair job of one of the most difficult news events of recent times.
Posted Monday, Oct 04 14:37:07, 2010
I have been following the relentless media coverage on the Ayodhya issue over the past few days. I must confess, mostly NDTV, CNN-IBN and occasionally, Times Now.
It was interesting to see the anchors of all the three channels earnestly assuring the viewer that this time around they are going to play it by the book and not fall for unverified information and its spin by interested parties. That was an admission of guilt in itself, and a conscious effort to ‘behave’. One caught the anchor on IBN-7 repeatedly exhorting restraint and removal of the live visuals of the chaos outside the court.
When the lawyers emerged from the court, things appeared to be thrown out of gear. The post-judgement coverage on these channels initially was completely high-jacked by the Hindutva brigade of lawyers who emerged out of the court waving victory signs. The media brethren swarmed them and transmitted live whatever they had to say without any filter. The drama of the court prohibiting people from entering the premises, putting the judgement on the website, etc., proved unnecessary in the end as the events unfolded. Restraint flew out of the window. Studio experts were compelled to give unexamined opinion before they had the time to think or read the judgement, based on the lawyers’ statements amidst jostling media persons.
The large number of politicians, academicians and more importantly, legal experts who were on various channels were perhaps as surprised by the verdict as were the anchors. But none of them, neither the experts nor the anchors, raised the two issues that are problematic in the judgement. The judgement under Issue No. 12. of its brief summary states that the ‘idols were installed in the building in the intervening night of 22/23rd December, 1949’. Every Hindutva lawyer triumphantly declared that the court accepted the thesis of the deities ‘appearing’ there. This happens to be the oldest trick in the book for religious goons of all hues. It is surprising that the High Court takes something like this to be a claim to legitimate enjoyment of a property if enough people devoutly believe it or can be mobilised to use the place for religious purposes. Does the High Court judgement set a precedent for legitimising the innumerable attempts at land-grab by planting deities in the middle of the night and claiming that they have ‘appeared’ there (virajmaan huye)?
It is also fascinating that the Indian courts actually admit cases filed on behalf of someone called ‘Ram Lala’. There are precedents to this cited in the judgement. The court, in all its seriousness, in its judgement summary on page number 18 says, ‘The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.’ The case is on behalf of God himself, he has the advantage of perpetual infancy and some laws of the land do not apply (No laws should apply, if you ask me). Ordinary petitioners must be identifiable entities.
CNN-IBN anchor, Rajdeep Sardesai, repeatedly attempted to raise some questions through the reporter on location, Bhupendra Choubey, but either the audio failed or the reporter could not hear what the anchor was asking. One could not get any substantive response from the lawyers, other than the triumphalism of the victors, once again rendering the coverage more sensational than measured. The question whether a self-proclaimed custodian of God can go to court claiming some land in His name and whether the Indian courts can endorse ownership of land based on this principle was not explored by any channel.
The judgement by Justice Sharma further says, ‘This court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also’. While the other justices did not go quite so far, this is an amazing judgement under a secular Constitution. One always believed that the courts arrived at judgements based on hard scientific/historic/forensic evidence. Now we have courts telling us that gods can go to court through ‘next friends’, and ‘holy’ places are juristic persons. Indirectly, the judgement is also endorsing the beliefs in Agni, Vayu and Kedarnath, in addition to Ram Lala, in the process effectively giving more power to the self-proclaimed representatives of the gods!
Media as neutral observers of events are expected to raise the questions that are central to any debate. But live television has its own dilemmas to face. More so, when covering incendiary issues like Ayodhya judgement. The commercial news channels have made a conscious decision to provide sober coverage and therefore seem to have treaded lightly.
When one contrasts the coverage in the next day’s newspapers, The Times of India, The Hindu and Deccan Chronicle, have all given more well-rounded coverage. The Times of India’s headline, “2 Parts to Hindus, 1 Part to Muslims” has already invited some criticism, enough for the paper to give a rejoinder asserting the accuracy of its headline. But the ToI coverage had several features, both pro and con, and opinion pieces. Notable is the piece by Dileep Padgaonkar, “The Muddle Path”, taking a critical look at the judgement and incisively addressing both the issues raised above. The Hindu also carried an accurate banner headline, much like the ToI and carried a well-argued piece, “Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case” by Siddharth Varadarajan. The Deccan Chronicle, while putting a positive spin on the judgement with its banner headline, “Judges divide land to unite India”, had the unique item that gave brief profiles of the three judges on page 2, “Men who delivered the ruling”. The profile of Justice Sharma helpfully tells us that, “The judge, who can always be spotted in a white dhoti-kurta or white shirt and trousers, is a vegetarian who cooks for himself – and occasionally for colleagues and friends. He stays with his elder sister.” All three papers carried security stories from all over the country. All the papers also carried chronology of the issue in different ways in addition to curtain-raisers all the papers ran in the run up to the judgement. The print media had the advantage of time lag to do more varied coverage. The question is, whether the coverage was fair.
And should fairness mean that the media be neutral in every news report, or should they reflect the broad spectrum of opinion in the country? If the later is true, then the print media have successfully reflected the various shades of opinion. The news reports largely gave news and the opinion pieces reflected opinion on Ayodhya judgement.
In the case of broadcast journalists, the distinction between news and opinion is constantly blurred. Broadcast newspersons are too eager to take a position, infuse emotion, express their personal opinions and worse, to exhort the viewers on how to or how not to respond to the events.
The viewers of English news channels also see other channels like the BBC and CNN and find the exhortations on Indian news channels condescending. It is an insult to the intelligence of the viewer to assume that s/he needs guidance from the anchors on issues of the day. The experts on the panels ought to be the vehicles for this. However, an impression of neutrality deficit comes from two strategies of the anchors. One is the long-winded, opinion-laden questions that are shot at the experts; the second is the cosiness of the relationship between the regulars on news channels and the anchors. These two lead the viewer to believe that the debates are an elaborate web to frame issues in a certain way. The regulars like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Swapan Dasgupta have a mind set and world view which gets a free hand on the channels. There is also a temptation among channels to bring in people of polarised opinion to create an environment of inevitability to certain arguments and ideologies. After the Ayodhya judgement, one had the renewed good fortune of seeing Uma Bharati, Shahabuddin, Sheshadri Chary and to be enlightened by their opinion on the judgement. How many Hindus and Muslims accept these figures as representatives of their community’s aspirations?
In a 21st century emerging India, the completely unscientific/theocratic framework of this case was debated by the media, the politicians and the legal community. The English print media were able to raise these issues first this time because of the admirable restraint shown by the live broadcasters. Irrespective of what else the court has used as the basis for its judgements in this case, the question of whether a court defending a secular Constitution can invoke Agni, Vayu, and Ram Lala also needed public scrutiny.
It seems somehow more incendiary for the broadcast media to debate the issues of whether the mobs who demolished the Mosque should be punished, whether it is desirable for a secular democracy if the higher courts endorse the dubious logic of faith and belief being superior to legalities. It is the nature of the beast – it has this problem of immediacy, and impulsiveness. It comes in too soon after an event. It sometimes needs to stand back and let reason take precedence over emotion.
It is heartening to see self-restrained broadcast media and vibrant English newspapers doing a fair job of one of the most difficult news events of recent times.
Posted Monday, Oct 04 14:37:07, 2010
I have been following the relentless media coverage on the Ayodhya issue over the past few days. I must confess, mostly NDTV, CNN-IBN and occasionally, Times Now.
It was interesting to see the anchors of all the three channels earnestly assuring the viewer that this time around they are going to play it by the book and not fall for unverified information and its spin by interested parties. That was an admission of guilt in itself, and a conscious effort to ‘behave’. One caught the anchor on IBN-7 repeatedly exhorting restraint and removal of the live visuals of the chaos outside the court.
When the lawyers emerged from the court, things appeared to be thrown out of gear. The post-judgement coverage on these channels initially was completely high-jacked by the Hindutva brigade of lawyers who emerged out of the court waving victory signs. The media brethren swarmed them and transmitted live whatever they had to say without any filter. The drama of the court prohibiting people from entering the premises, putting the judgement on the website, etc., proved unnecessary in the end as the events unfolded. Restraint flew out of the window. Studio experts were compelled to give unexamined opinion before they had the time to think or read the judgement, based on the lawyers’ statements amidst jostling media persons.
The large number of politicians, academicians and more importantly, legal experts who were on various channels were perhaps as surprised by the verdict as were the anchors. But none of them, neither the experts nor the anchors, raised the two issues that are problematic in the judgement. The judgement under Issue No. 12. of its brief summary states that the ‘idols were installed in the building in the intervening night of 22/23rd December, 1949’. Every Hindutva lawyer triumphantly declared that the court accepted the thesis of the deities ‘appearing’ there. This happens to be the oldest trick in the book for religious goons of all hues. It is surprising that the High Court takes something like this to be a claim to legitimate enjoyment of a property if enough people devoutly believe it or can be mobilised to use the place for religious purposes. Does the High Court judgement set a precedent for legitimising the innumerable attempts at land-grab by planting deities in the middle of the night and claiming that they have ‘appeared’ there (virajmaan huye)?
It is also fascinating that the Indian courts actually admit cases filed on behalf of someone called ‘Ram Lala’. There are precedents to this cited in the judgement. The court, in all its seriousness, in its judgement summary on page number 18 says, ‘The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.’ The case is on behalf of God himself, he has the advantage of perpetual infancy and some laws of the land do not apply (No laws should apply, if you ask me). Ordinary petitioners must be identifiable entities.
CNN-IBN anchor, Rajdeep Sardesai, repeatedly attempted to raise some questions through the reporter on location, Bhupendra Choubey, but either the audio failed or the reporter could not hear what the anchor was asking. One could not get any substantive response from the lawyers, other than the triumphalism of the victors, once again rendering the coverage more sensational than measured. The question whether a self-proclaimed custodian of God can go to court claiming some land in His name and whether the Indian courts can endorse ownership of land based on this principle was not explored by any channel.
The judgement by Justice Sharma further says, ‘This court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also’. While the other justices did not go quite so far, this is an amazing judgement under a secular Constitution. One always believed that the courts arrived at judgements based on hard scientific/historic/forensic evidence. Now we have courts telling us that gods can go to court through ‘next friends’, and ‘holy’ places are juristic persons. Indirectly, the judgement is also endorsing the beliefs in Agni, Vayu and Kedarnath, in addition to Ram Lala, in the process effectively giving more power to the self-proclaimed representatives of the gods!
Media as neutral observers of events are expected to raise the questions that are central to any debate. But live television has its own dilemmas to face. More so, when covering incendiary issues like Ayodhya judgement. The commercial news channels have made a conscious decision to provide sober coverage and therefore seem to have treaded lightly.
When one contrasts the coverage in the next day’s newspapers, The Times of India, The Hindu and Deccan Chronicle, have all given more well-rounded coverage. The Times of India’s headline, “2 Parts to Hindus, 1 Part to Muslims” has already invited some criticism, enough for the paper to give a rejoinder asserting the accuracy of its headline. But the ToI coverage had several features, both pro and con, and opinion pieces. Notable is the piece by Dileep Padgaonkar, “The Muddle Path”, taking a critical look at the judgement and incisively addressing both the issues raised above. The Hindu also carried an accurate banner headline, much like the ToI and carried a well-argued piece, “Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case” by Siddharth Varadarajan. The Deccan Chronicle, while putting a positive spin on the judgement with its banner headline, “Judges divide land to unite India”, had the unique item that gave brief profiles of the three judges on page 2, “Men who delivered the ruling”. The profile of Justice Sharma helpfully tells us that, “The judge, who can always be spotted in a white dhoti-kurta or white shirt and trousers, is a vegetarian who cooks for himself – and occasionally for colleagues and friends. He stays with his elder sister.” All three papers carried security stories from all over the country. All the papers also carried chronology of the issue in different ways in addition to curtain-raisers all the papers ran in the run up to the judgement. The print media had the advantage of time lag to do more varied coverage. The question is, whether the coverage was fair.
And should fairness mean that the media be neutral in every news report, or should they reflect the broad spectrum of opinion in the country? If the later is true, then the print media have successfully reflected the various shades of opinion. The news reports largely gave news and the opinion pieces reflected opinion on Ayodhya judgement.
In the case of broadcast journalists, the distinction between news and opinion is constantly blurred. Broadcast newspersons are too eager to take a position, infuse emotion, express their personal opinions and worse, to exhort the viewers on how to or how not to respond to the events.
The viewers of English news channels also see other channels like the BBC and CNN and find the exhortations on Indian news channels condescending. It is an insult to the intelligence of the viewer to assume that s/he needs guidance from the anchors on issues of the day. The experts on the panels ought to be the vehicles for this. However, an impression of neutrality deficit comes from two strategies of the anchors. One is the long-winded, opinion-laden questions that are shot at the experts; the second is the cosiness of the relationship between the regulars on news channels and the anchors. These two lead the viewer to believe that the debates are an elaborate web to frame issues in a certain way. The regulars like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Swapan Dasgupta have a mind set and world view which gets a free hand on the channels. There is also a temptation among channels to bring in people of polarised opinion to create an environment of inevitability to certain arguments and ideologies. After the Ayodhya judgement, one had the renewed good fortune of seeing Uma Bharati, Shahabuddin, Sheshadri Chary and to be enlightened by their opinion on the judgement. How many Hindus and Muslims accept these figures as representatives of their community’s aspirations?
In a 21st century emerging India, the completely unscientific/theocratic framework of this case was debated by the media, the politicians and the legal community. The English print media were able to raise these issues first this time because of the admirable restraint shown by the live broadcasters. Irrespective of what else the court has used as the basis for its judgements in this case, the question of whether a court defending a secular Constitution can invoke Agni, Vayu, and Ram Lala also needed public scrutiny.
It seems somehow more incendiary for the broadcast media to debate the issues of whether the mobs who demolished the Mosque should be punished, whether it is desirable for a secular democracy if the higher courts endorse the dubious logic of faith and belief being superior to legalities. It is the nature of the beast – it has this problem of immediacy, and impulsiveness. It comes in too soon after an event. It sometimes needs to stand back and let reason take precedence over emotion.
It is heartening to see self-restrained broadcast media and vibrant English newspapers doing a fair job of one of the most difficult news events of recent times.
Response to the Shoma Munshi extract
Response to the Shoma Munshi extract
I have several bones to pick with the author of the book about the Jensen and Oster study which she seems to quote with enthusiasm in this extract. PADMAJA SHAW has trouble accepting the links put forth here between soaps and development.
Posted Sunday, May 23 16:17:27, 2010
Read the excerpt from Shoma Munshi's ‘Prime Time Soap Operas on Indian Television' that's posted on The Hoot.
It is interesting to see that the much-maligned positivist tradition of research pioneered by Wilbur Schramm, Daniel Lerner, Everett Rogers and others is back with a bang (or did it ever go away?).
I have several bones to pick with the author of the book about the Jensen and Oster study (which she seems to quote with enthusiasm in this extract. I have not read the rest of the book):
Ø How is the causation established in the Jensen study? Since it is an empirical survey, was there pre-soap and post-soap exposure data on ‘women's empowerment' that was compared?
Ø Since it was between 2001 and 2003, what were the sizes of the families where men were helping women? What was the geographic location of the respondents? Close to major cities like Delhi and Chandigarh? Were women in this sample wage earners in the outside world?
Ø Was there already a declining trend in fertility (as is the case in a large number of Indian states since the 1990s), specially in states like Tamil Nadu?
Ø Also, since these are cable households, the sample has to be from the rural upper and middle classes with disposable incomes and with already established interactions with the outside world ' in 2001, certainly innovators and early adopters as the diffusion model would tell us. Women from such households are more likely to be educated and therefore more autonomous in some respects?
Ø Social researchers have established the link between women's education and decline in fertility rates ' also women with better SES (socio economic status) profile will do better. Women can be better educated where there are schools accessible. Where a conducive social environment exists for women's education. Of the states chosen for the Jensen study, Tamil Nadu, Delhi and Haryana also happen to be three of the top five Education Development Index states in India, the other two being Kerala and Gujarat, according to the data provided by National University for Educational Planning and Development. Several states in India have failed to provide for basic educational infrastructure. Then, how much of female education and empowerment can be credited to the soaps? Or are we happy with the innovators and early adopters among the audiences?
Ø There may be intervening variables like expanding urbanization, migration of men, changes in social and economic equations within the family structure that could well have given the findings, even without the intervention of the soaps. Were these considered in the study as a significant factor?
Ø How can the analysis glibly imply introduction of cable TV has resulted in decreases in fertility and increases in the enrolment of girls into schools? Taking both Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu as an example, both AP and TN are high on cable density and fertility is declining in both but AP has performed the worst as far as education is concerned. It stands 28 among the states in literacy (with the BIMARU states). It is also performing quite poorly in other indices of women's empowerment. Education infrastructure like schools in the neighbourhood for girl children is obviously a prerequisite for literacy than introduction of cable television.
Ø “Smriti Irani [Tulsi] and Sakshi Tanwar [Paravti] as drivers of long term economic growth. Now, that's a thought!”, says a channel boss. One would like to thank one's luck that soaps seem to have a natural ‘novelty life cycle' and disappear from screens as soon as the audience figure out the game plan at work. Even within their ‘life', for a year or so the soaps are dragged on while the producers try to keep the audience interest up.
Ø One of the most insidious things about the passages is the assertion that only satellite television is capable of delivering transformation, (while citing Hum Log as a success!). There is no need for public service advertising, no need for state television. They cannot match the pull of a bedecked Smriti Irani. We have forgotten ‘Udaan' and several other shows on Doordarshan that were avidly watched and provided role models for women to get educated and live a life of dignity.
Ø The advent of satellite television has taught some Indian women to lose sensitivity to what's fashion and what's trashy dressing; taught some to think that doing well is to be ostentatious; taught some that to be traditional is to be clannish; taught some others to navel gaze and become body-centric when what's needed is a humane understanding of society and the happenings in our surroundings. In a three year soap, there may be an ‘empowering' dialogue or two that we can all quote with conviction. But exceptions don't prove the rule. It's the garish sets, jewellery, inherent lack of social goodwill and intrigue that are ever present in a subliminal way.
Ø It is unfortunate that AK Ramanujan is invoked to support something that has very little to do with what he was talking about ' he was talking about women's stories in folk tales, we are talking about synthetic media kitsch that is concocted week after week, not always based on lived and inclusive experience of a society.
Ø Back in mid 20th century, the mainstream media messiahs came up with the media formula for development: 10 newspapers, 5 radio receivers, 2 television receivers, 2 cinema seats for 100 population. UNESCO, which was greatly influenced by the scholars, also promoted the formula. Of course, now per capita telephones and ICTs are added to the list of ‘media minima' recommended by UNESCO since 1960.
Ø This ‘input orientation' carried over by the structural-functionalist school into media theory without acknowledging the social/economic structural issues in development has been much debated and discredited over the years. The scholars asserted that the media through ‘modernising' content form everywhere would be the trigger for development. The assumption being that it's the lack of imagination that keeps a population poor, not the systemic constraints.
Ø The media market in India has seen an extraordinary expansion, with foreign players thrown in for spice. But the last two decades have seen an extraordinary growth also in poverty, crime, religious fundamentalism, and corruption. Can media research afford to gloss over the existential reality and ask only questions about media's role in some nebulously defined social ‘transformation'?
Ø What really amazes one is, when it comes to impact of violent programmes on impressionable young minds, the scholars from the positivist tradition would dismiss the link citing the impossibility of establishing a causal relationship between violent behaviour and viewership with the existing tools of research, and invoking genetic propensity, impact of family and environment (anything but media!) as the possible reasons. But for ‘women's empowerment' here, a giant leap of faith is being attempted to sell soaps shown exclusively on satellite/cable television (and not on state TV) as the panacea for the emancipation of women in the backwaters of India.
Ø In Telugu, we have a saying ' trying to tie the bald head and the knee cap together …. Not going to work!
I have several bones to pick with the author of the book about the Jensen and Oster study which she seems to quote with enthusiasm in this extract. PADMAJA SHAW has trouble accepting the links put forth here between soaps and development.
Posted Sunday, May 23 16:17:27, 2010
Read the excerpt from Shoma Munshi's ‘Prime Time Soap Operas on Indian Television' that's posted on The Hoot.
It is interesting to see that the much-maligned positivist tradition of research pioneered by Wilbur Schramm, Daniel Lerner, Everett Rogers and others is back with a bang (or did it ever go away?).
I have several bones to pick with the author of the book about the Jensen and Oster study (which she seems to quote with enthusiasm in this extract. I have not read the rest of the book):
Ø How is the causation established in the Jensen study? Since it is an empirical survey, was there pre-soap and post-soap exposure data on ‘women's empowerment' that was compared?
Ø Since it was between 2001 and 2003, what were the sizes of the families where men were helping women? What was the geographic location of the respondents? Close to major cities like Delhi and Chandigarh? Were women in this sample wage earners in the outside world?
Ø Was there already a declining trend in fertility (as is the case in a large number of Indian states since the 1990s), specially in states like Tamil Nadu?
Ø Also, since these are cable households, the sample has to be from the rural upper and middle classes with disposable incomes and with already established interactions with the outside world ' in 2001, certainly innovators and early adopters as the diffusion model would tell us. Women from such households are more likely to be educated and therefore more autonomous in some respects?
Ø Social researchers have established the link between women's education and decline in fertility rates ' also women with better SES (socio economic status) profile will do better. Women can be better educated where there are schools accessible. Where a conducive social environment exists for women's education. Of the states chosen for the Jensen study, Tamil Nadu, Delhi and Haryana also happen to be three of the top five Education Development Index states in India, the other two being Kerala and Gujarat, according to the data provided by National University for Educational Planning and Development. Several states in India have failed to provide for basic educational infrastructure. Then, how much of female education and empowerment can be credited to the soaps? Or are we happy with the innovators and early adopters among the audiences?
Ø There may be intervening variables like expanding urbanization, migration of men, changes in social and economic equations within the family structure that could well have given the findings, even without the intervention of the soaps. Were these considered in the study as a significant factor?
Ø How can the analysis glibly imply introduction of cable TV has resulted in decreases in fertility and increases in the enrolment of girls into schools? Taking both Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu as an example, both AP and TN are high on cable density and fertility is declining in both but AP has performed the worst as far as education is concerned. It stands 28 among the states in literacy (with the BIMARU states). It is also performing quite poorly in other indices of women's empowerment. Education infrastructure like schools in the neighbourhood for girl children is obviously a prerequisite for literacy than introduction of cable television.
Ø “Smriti Irani [Tulsi] and Sakshi Tanwar [Paravti] as drivers of long term economic growth. Now, that's a thought!”, says a channel boss. One would like to thank one's luck that soaps seem to have a natural ‘novelty life cycle' and disappear from screens as soon as the audience figure out the game plan at work. Even within their ‘life', for a year or so the soaps are dragged on while the producers try to keep the audience interest up.
Ø One of the most insidious things about the passages is the assertion that only satellite television is capable of delivering transformation, (while citing Hum Log as a success!). There is no need for public service advertising, no need for state television. They cannot match the pull of a bedecked Smriti Irani. We have forgotten ‘Udaan' and several other shows on Doordarshan that were avidly watched and provided role models for women to get educated and live a life of dignity.
Ø The advent of satellite television has taught some Indian women to lose sensitivity to what's fashion and what's trashy dressing; taught some to think that doing well is to be ostentatious; taught some that to be traditional is to be clannish; taught some others to navel gaze and become body-centric when what's needed is a humane understanding of society and the happenings in our surroundings. In a three year soap, there may be an ‘empowering' dialogue or two that we can all quote with conviction. But exceptions don't prove the rule. It's the garish sets, jewellery, inherent lack of social goodwill and intrigue that are ever present in a subliminal way.
Ø It is unfortunate that AK Ramanujan is invoked to support something that has very little to do with what he was talking about ' he was talking about women's stories in folk tales, we are talking about synthetic media kitsch that is concocted week after week, not always based on lived and inclusive experience of a society.
Ø Back in mid 20th century, the mainstream media messiahs came up with the media formula for development: 10 newspapers, 5 radio receivers, 2 television receivers, 2 cinema seats for 100 population. UNESCO, which was greatly influenced by the scholars, also promoted the formula. Of course, now per capita telephones and ICTs are added to the list of ‘media minima' recommended by UNESCO since 1960.
Ø This ‘input orientation' carried over by the structural-functionalist school into media theory without acknowledging the social/economic structural issues in development has been much debated and discredited over the years. The scholars asserted that the media through ‘modernising' content form everywhere would be the trigger for development. The assumption being that it's the lack of imagination that keeps a population poor, not the systemic constraints.
Ø The media market in India has seen an extraordinary expansion, with foreign players thrown in for spice. But the last two decades have seen an extraordinary growth also in poverty, crime, religious fundamentalism, and corruption. Can media research afford to gloss over the existential reality and ask only questions about media's role in some nebulously defined social ‘transformation'?
Ø What really amazes one is, when it comes to impact of violent programmes on impressionable young minds, the scholars from the positivist tradition would dismiss the link citing the impossibility of establishing a causal relationship between violent behaviour and viewership with the existing tools of research, and invoking genetic propensity, impact of family and environment (anything but media!) as the possible reasons. But for ‘women's empowerment' here, a giant leap of faith is being attempted to sell soaps shown exclusively on satellite/cable television (and not on state TV) as the panacea for the emancipation of women in the backwaters of India.
Ø In Telugu, we have a saying ' trying to tie the bald head and the knee cap together …. Not going to work!
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Women Against Violent Entertainment (WAVE)
Many ideas and the original inspiration for the WAVE campaign are from my brother, who is, surprisingly, a senior corporate executive.
The title WAVE (Women Against Violent Entertainment) is really to create a mexican wave across civil society against violent programming that targets women. Let's look at what the Mexican wave is all about from Wikipedia:
"The wave (British English: Mexican wave; also stadium wave) is achieved in a packed stadium when successive groups of spectators briefly stand and raise their arms. Each spectator is required to rise at the same time as those straight in front and behind, and slightly after the person immediately to either the right (for a clockwise wave) or the left (for a counterclockwise wave). Immediately upon stretching to full height, the spectator returns to the usual seated position.
The result is a "wave" of standing spectators that travels through the crowd, even though individual spectators never move away from their seats. In many large arenas the crowd is seated in a contiguous circuit all the way around the sport field, and so the wave is able to travel continuously around the arena; in discontiguous seating arrangements, the wave can instead reflect back and forth through the crowd. When the gap in seating is narrow, the wave can sometimes pass through it. Usually only one wave crest will be present at any given time in an arena. Simultaneous, counter-rotating waves have been produced."
We take this strategy and build a movement against violent programming on media that targets women. When I announced this campaign at a film festival yesterday morning, a young student came to pin me down angrily saying 'How can you stop such programming? It helps high light how women are victims of violence'. All of us understand dramatic, thematic necessity and the need to show violence to high light social problems. But the problem comes when in the name of social problems, violence is packaged to entertain or serve prurient interest. In soaps and long running serials, the drive for TRPs compels the channels and production houses to invent bizarre techniques for victimizing women. This is entirely gratuitous.
The broadcast code in India prescribes some dos and donts which the channels either do not know about or do not care enough about to implement. The Cable Networks Regulation Act provides for a system of monitoring programmes on private television channels, that includes district and state monitoring committees with significant civil society participation. A recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Andhra Pradesh High Court has however made the Police Commissioner specially responsible. The PC is now attempting to constitute a monitoring committee to comply with the court directives. Any citizen who believes in democracy also knows that the police force cannot be an instrument for control of media. The problem went to the courts and then to the police because firstly, the state government did not take the trouble of implementing the Cable Regulation Act, secondly, the civil society complains in the private domain but does not seem to have a coherent strategy to crystallise public opinion. WAVE campaign is a strategy to rectify that.
The objective of WAVE campaign is to:
1. make people watch entertainment with more critical awareness
2. build social consesnus against violent behaviour
3. make people aware that being entertained by violence is perverse
4. make people aware of the connection between the TRPs and ad revenue
5. make people object to TV channels and production houses against violent programming that targets women
6. make people object to advertising and corporate support that makes violent programming that targets women possible in the name of TRPS
7. develop a Corporate Social Irresponsibility Index against corporations that support violent programming against women
What you need to do:
1. Whenever you wince at a gratuitously violent shot, scene, sequence, don't just forget it. Write to us at: violententertainment@gmail.com
2. When you write, mention the show, the channel, the time, the products being advertised
3. The last item is crucial. We need to know who is financing violence against women.
The email ID is violententertainment@gmail.com
What we propose to do:
1. First, we will write to the channel with your objections
2. We will also write to the production house
3. We will alert the Corporation that is advertising on the show.
4. We will inform the regulators
DO NOT LET VIOLECE AGAINST WOMEN ENTERTAIN YOU
DO NOT LET VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BE PROFITABLE
CREATE A WAVE OF RESPONCE AGAINST VIOLENT PROGRAMMING THAT TARGETS WOMEN
The title WAVE (Women Against Violent Entertainment) is really to create a mexican wave across civil society against violent programming that targets women. Let's look at what the Mexican wave is all about from Wikipedia:
"The wave (British English: Mexican wave; also stadium wave) is achieved in a packed stadium when successive groups of spectators briefly stand and raise their arms. Each spectator is required to rise at the same time as those straight in front and behind, and slightly after the person immediately to either the right (for a clockwise wave) or the left (for a counterclockwise wave). Immediately upon stretching to full height, the spectator returns to the usual seated position.
The result is a "wave" of standing spectators that travels through the crowd, even though individual spectators never move away from their seats. In many large arenas the crowd is seated in a contiguous circuit all the way around the sport field, and so the wave is able to travel continuously around the arena; in discontiguous seating arrangements, the wave can instead reflect back and forth through the crowd. When the gap in seating is narrow, the wave can sometimes pass through it. Usually only one wave crest will be present at any given time in an arena. Simultaneous, counter-rotating waves have been produced."
We take this strategy and build a movement against violent programming on media that targets women. When I announced this campaign at a film festival yesterday morning, a young student came to pin me down angrily saying 'How can you stop such programming? It helps high light how women are victims of violence'. All of us understand dramatic, thematic necessity and the need to show violence to high light social problems. But the problem comes when in the name of social problems, violence is packaged to entertain or serve prurient interest. In soaps and long running serials, the drive for TRPs compels the channels and production houses to invent bizarre techniques for victimizing women. This is entirely gratuitous.
The broadcast code in India prescribes some dos and donts which the channels either do not know about or do not care enough about to implement. The Cable Networks Regulation Act provides for a system of monitoring programmes on private television channels, that includes district and state monitoring committees with significant civil society participation. A recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Andhra Pradesh High Court has however made the Police Commissioner specially responsible. The PC is now attempting to constitute a monitoring committee to comply with the court directives. Any citizen who believes in democracy also knows that the police force cannot be an instrument for control of media. The problem went to the courts and then to the police because firstly, the state government did not take the trouble of implementing the Cable Regulation Act, secondly, the civil society complains in the private domain but does not seem to have a coherent strategy to crystallise public opinion. WAVE campaign is a strategy to rectify that.
The objective of WAVE campaign is to:
1. make people watch entertainment with more critical awareness
2. build social consesnus against violent behaviour
3. make people aware that being entertained by violence is perverse
4. make people aware of the connection between the TRPs and ad revenue
5. make people object to TV channels and production houses against violent programming that targets women
6. make people object to advertising and corporate support that makes violent programming that targets women possible in the name of TRPS
7. develop a Corporate Social Irresponsibility Index against corporations that support violent programming against women
What you need to do:
1. Whenever you wince at a gratuitously violent shot, scene, sequence, don't just forget it. Write to us at: violententertainment@gmail.com
2. When you write, mention the show, the channel, the time, the products being advertised
3. The last item is crucial. We need to know who is financing violence against women.
The email ID is violententertainment@gmail.com
What we propose to do:
1. First, we will write to the channel with your objections
2. We will also write to the production house
3. We will alert the Corporation that is advertising on the show.
4. We will inform the regulators
DO NOT LET VIOLECE AGAINST WOMEN ENTERTAIN YOU
DO NOT LET VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BE PROFITABLE
CREATE A WAVE OF RESPONCE AGAINST VIOLENT PROGRAMMING THAT TARGETS WOMEN
Saturday, 27 February 2010
A new approach to TV debate
Posted Monday, Mar 01 10:30:22, 2010 on the Hoot
The public information scene in Andhra Pradesh in these days of big expansion of media in the private sector could be a copybook example of what Habermas considered the ‘structural transformation of the bourgeois public sphere’. In this transformation brought about by corporate media, instead of being shaped from critical rational debate and reflection, public opinion has become the manufactured opinion of polls and media experts. According to Habermas, the link between the debate in public sphere and people’s participation in the political process is broken, making the citizen a spectator/consumer of politically manipulated news and entertainment.
However, on a reverse trend, while all of us addicted to the English news channels were plumbing the depths of the earth-shattering controversies like the one around the release of MY NAME IS KHAN, a quiet but significant change in strategy was being tried out by a relatively new Telugu news channel, HMTV.
The demand for a separate state for Telangana is one of the biggest issues to hit media headlines in Andhra Pradesh since the demise of YS Rajasekhar Reddy. The frenzied live coverage of events during the last two months has inspired public interest litigations against the media.
In a significant second judgment that escaped much media scrutiny, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed restraining orders on 10 January against several Telugu TV news channels, preventing them from showing repetitive footage of controversial acts and statements that whip up hatred between Andhra and Telangana regions (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/HC-warns-TV-news-channels-against-crossing-the-line/articleshow/5431741.cms). The judge invoked Rule 6 of the Cable TV Networks Rules 1994 punishable under Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The judge put several Telugu news channels on notice for 6 weeks. He directed “the channels not to transmit programmes which create panic in the minds of the people of this state, programmes which are not verified properly or the speculative ones and also not to hold such debates which are of no use to the public.”
Amid all this, a new kind of programme took shape on HMTV, a 24x7 news channel. The channel first aired the programme called Andhra Pradesh Dasa, Disa on 20 December 2009 at prime time in the evening, when the issue of statehood for Telangana was at its most controversial. Each of the shows (running into its tenth edition) telecast on weekends ran for over 4 to 6 hours at a stretch. The channel received overwhelming public response and viewership, encouraging it to continue the experiment. The first edition was telecast live from Hyderabad, but the later nine shows have been from various major district centres of Andhra, Telangana and Rayalaseema areas. Each of the episodes drew intellectuals, students, community members, labour representatives and others.
The channel gives airtime to any speaker who wishes to express her/his views on the show. The central theme is the political future of Andhra Pradesh state. The show begins with the anchor introducing the theme with the latest developments, and the Chief Editor, Mr Ramachandra Murthy, setting the context and explaining the rules of engagement in the show. Each speaker is invited by the Chief Editor by name and asked to speak for a defined length of time. The speaker gets uninterrupted time. In Telangana area, a person advocating united Andhra Pradesh is given time to speak in detail first. In other regions, a person from Telangana is allowed to present the argument in support of separate state for Telangana.
At a time when opposing points of view are shouted down, whether on a TV show, at a public meeting or in our legislatures (sometimes resulting in physical assaults), the participating audience of the heavily attended shows listen intently and wait for their turn to rebut. The anchor and chief editor intervene firmly, only if any one resorts to personal attacks or digresses from the issue at hand. There is no attempt to cut short, interrupt or provide distorted summaries of the speakers. No famous last words of the anchors reasserting their own views on the issue. The show is for the viewer and without insulting the intelligence of the viewer, the whole spectrum of views is aired.
For a TV audience tired of listening to bickering politicians, wannabe intellectuals and self-important anchors who feel they are steering the fortunes of the nation, it was a revelation to hear the ordinary people’s take on the issue. The clarity of thought, articulation and confidence with which each speaker presented the ideas and the decency with which others listened helped reaffirm one’s faith in democracy. It is a lesson for our worthy legislators that the search for a solution is possible through discussion. The viewers got to know both the complexity of the issue and the historical background to it.
The show is in some senses a conventional talk show but has broken many conventions of the standard ratings-driven talk shows with much success. The show has opened the possibility for television to
• become a public access medium, providing a forum for democratic debate
• facilitate a genuine, critical rational debate even in the present media scene
• provide truly useful information and perspectives on issues of importance
• facilitate informed decision-making by citizens
The show also debunks the myth that today’s audiences have a short attention span and have no appetite for serious information. The show goes to prove that audience is thirsty for useful information that helps them understand contentious political issues. They also respect well-founded views with which they may not agree, following the Aristotelian dictum: It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Whatever the final outcome of the movement for separate Telangana state, the maturity of Indian democracy was demonstrated time and again on many occasions in the past few months in Telangana.
One such event that deserves mention is the Vidyarthi Garjana rally held at Osmania University on 3 January 2010. The High Court, after much hesitation, gave permission for the rally to be held from 4 pm to 6.30 pm. Only after the leaders gave written assurances the High Court allowed it. Over1,50,000 students from all over Telangana converged on Osmania campus. They were allowed in only after verifying their identity cards. The sea of students listened to speeches, shouted slogans, sang, danced and dispersed by 6.30 pm without a single untoward incident. It was an extraordinary demonstration of the democratic spirit of the educated youth in India that media forgot to celebrate because there were no clashes to report.
The Andhra Pradesh Dasa, Disa programme of HMTV provides one more cause for the celebration of the democratic spirit, as far as media scene is concerned.
The public information scene in Andhra Pradesh in these days of big expansion of media in the private sector could be a copybook example of what Habermas considered the ‘structural transformation of the bourgeois public sphere’. In this transformation brought about by corporate media, instead of being shaped from critical rational debate and reflection, public opinion has become the manufactured opinion of polls and media experts. According to Habermas, the link between the debate in public sphere and people’s participation in the political process is broken, making the citizen a spectator/consumer of politically manipulated news and entertainment.
However, on a reverse trend, while all of us addicted to the English news channels were plumbing the depths of the earth-shattering controversies like the one around the release of MY NAME IS KHAN, a quiet but significant change in strategy was being tried out by a relatively new Telugu news channel, HMTV.
The demand for a separate state for Telangana is one of the biggest issues to hit media headlines in Andhra Pradesh since the demise of YS Rajasekhar Reddy. The frenzied live coverage of events during the last two months has inspired public interest litigations against the media.
In a significant second judgment that escaped much media scrutiny, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed restraining orders on 10 January against several Telugu TV news channels, preventing them from showing repetitive footage of controversial acts and statements that whip up hatred between Andhra and Telangana regions (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/HC-warns-TV-news-channels-against-crossing-the-line/articleshow/5431741.cms). The judge invoked Rule 6 of the Cable TV Networks Rules 1994 punishable under Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The judge put several Telugu news channels on notice for 6 weeks. He directed “the channels not to transmit programmes which create panic in the minds of the people of this state, programmes which are not verified properly or the speculative ones and also not to hold such debates which are of no use to the public.”
Amid all this, a new kind of programme took shape on HMTV, a 24x7 news channel. The channel first aired the programme called Andhra Pradesh Dasa, Disa on 20 December 2009 at prime time in the evening, when the issue of statehood for Telangana was at its most controversial. Each of the shows (running into its tenth edition) telecast on weekends ran for over 4 to 6 hours at a stretch. The channel received overwhelming public response and viewership, encouraging it to continue the experiment. The first edition was telecast live from Hyderabad, but the later nine shows have been from various major district centres of Andhra, Telangana and Rayalaseema areas. Each of the episodes drew intellectuals, students, community members, labour representatives and others.
The channel gives airtime to any speaker who wishes to express her/his views on the show. The central theme is the political future of Andhra Pradesh state. The show begins with the anchor introducing the theme with the latest developments, and the Chief Editor, Mr Ramachandra Murthy, setting the context and explaining the rules of engagement in the show. Each speaker is invited by the Chief Editor by name and asked to speak for a defined length of time. The speaker gets uninterrupted time. In Telangana area, a person advocating united Andhra Pradesh is given time to speak in detail first. In other regions, a person from Telangana is allowed to present the argument in support of separate state for Telangana.
At a time when opposing points of view are shouted down, whether on a TV show, at a public meeting or in our legislatures (sometimes resulting in physical assaults), the participating audience of the heavily attended shows listen intently and wait for their turn to rebut. The anchor and chief editor intervene firmly, only if any one resorts to personal attacks or digresses from the issue at hand. There is no attempt to cut short, interrupt or provide distorted summaries of the speakers. No famous last words of the anchors reasserting their own views on the issue. The show is for the viewer and without insulting the intelligence of the viewer, the whole spectrum of views is aired.
For a TV audience tired of listening to bickering politicians, wannabe intellectuals and self-important anchors who feel they are steering the fortunes of the nation, it was a revelation to hear the ordinary people’s take on the issue. The clarity of thought, articulation and confidence with which each speaker presented the ideas and the decency with which others listened helped reaffirm one’s faith in democracy. It is a lesson for our worthy legislators that the search for a solution is possible through discussion. The viewers got to know both the complexity of the issue and the historical background to it.
The show is in some senses a conventional talk show but has broken many conventions of the standard ratings-driven talk shows with much success. The show has opened the possibility for television to
• become a public access medium, providing a forum for democratic debate
• facilitate a genuine, critical rational debate even in the present media scene
• provide truly useful information and perspectives on issues of importance
• facilitate informed decision-making by citizens
The show also debunks the myth that today’s audiences have a short attention span and have no appetite for serious information. The show goes to prove that audience is thirsty for useful information that helps them understand contentious political issues. They also respect well-founded views with which they may not agree, following the Aristotelian dictum: It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Whatever the final outcome of the movement for separate Telangana state, the maturity of Indian democracy was demonstrated time and again on many occasions in the past few months in Telangana.
One such event that deserves mention is the Vidyarthi Garjana rally held at Osmania University on 3 January 2010. The High Court, after much hesitation, gave permission for the rally to be held from 4 pm to 6.30 pm. Only after the leaders gave written assurances the High Court allowed it. Over1,50,000 students from all over Telangana converged on Osmania campus. They were allowed in only after verifying their identity cards. The sea of students listened to speeches, shouted slogans, sang, danced and dispersed by 6.30 pm without a single untoward incident. It was an extraordinary demonstration of the democratic spirit of the educated youth in India that media forgot to celebrate because there were no clashes to report.
The Andhra Pradesh Dasa, Disa programme of HMTV provides one more cause for the celebration of the democratic spirit, as far as media scene is concerned.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Future of Public Broadcasting in India
Published in The Broadvision,souvenir brought out on the 27th National Convention of the Programme Staff of All India Radio and Doordarshan, 10,11 December 2009, New Delhi
Unless one is Rupert Murdoch, very few people have serious objections to the idea of public broadcasting. It’s almost like motherhood and apple pie. But both the high priest of commercial broadcasting, Rupert Murdoch, and the disappointed votaries of public broadcasting have some serious bone to pick with the shape public broadcasting takes in various socio-political contexts.
Even as it was struggling with colonialism and its brutal impact on its society, India got an early entry into the annals of broadcast history. The early influence of BBC gave it a head start both by way of technology and understanding about what social purpose broadcasting could serve. All India Radio evolved as a self-confident medium uninterrupted for about thirty years after Independence up until 1977. All major cultural talent in India passed through its portals and found its initial moorings there.
Partly from the time television arrived on the scene in a big way in the mid-seventies and much more so with the expansion of electronic media in the commercial sector, the public broadcasters in India feel more and more compelled to be defensive about what they stand for, to be apologetic. The commercialization of the media market was accompanied by strident attacks on the state-run broadcaster. Some popular arguments for attack being, ‘it is not the job of the government to run electronic media’, or ‘Why should public pay for programming that they don’t watch’. While some of the arguments may sound true, it is important to examine what lead to this popular perception.
In this paper, I would like to address these perceptions and the need for clarity on these issues:
a. Not the job of the government to run broadcasting:
This wisdom dawned on the third world intellectuals after President Reagan popularised deregulation in the overall economy and more specifically in the media industries in United States of America. The mid-80s and 90s saw a spate of regulatory fiats which opened up the markets for private sector media players all over the world. The argument was that the private sector is more responsive and will cater to the needs of the market with greater efficiency, while ensuring diversity.
The advent of private broadcasters was greeted with great excitement and anticipation. But soon, the private enterprises’ business priorities made it clear to the consumer/audience that diversity and innovation are not a priority to the private operators. Unlike the state-run broadcasting, neither did private enterprise privilege the cultural and national goals.
The reality of private sector’s actual performance in the marketplace is unfolding before us every day much to the chagrin of parents, teachers and civil society in general. The private sector not only failed to cater to the needs of the people, it chases success formulas, without diversity and without much creativity. It is frenetic, market driven and is changing the cultural landscape of the country into a quagmire of immorality, corruption and violence.
With this experience of what the private sector broadcasting is capable of, there is little doubt that a large section of the population is looking for an alternative. Broadcasting being technology intensive and capital intensive, it is well understood that it is either the deep pockets of big business or the state that can set up broadcasting enterprises.
The Indian state built up a formidable terrestrial broadcasting network over the last 62 years after Independence. The network continues to be the most watched in term of sheer reach to all nooks and corners of the country and cutting across all classes of audience. The miniscule ratings that the satellite channels boast of are no competition to the extraordinary access Prasar Bharati has to its audience. It also serves the interests of a vast rural, poor audience who do not have disposable income and who are not valued as consumers by the commercial media. This in itself is an important contribution.
But the impact of rapid and successful expansion of commercial media industry on Prasar Bharati has been adverse over the years, not so much in loss of commercial revenue but in loss of policy direction. The public broadcaster began to convince itself that to fight this market, it is necessary to lose its essence and to mimic the competition. The successful public broadcasters across the globe have cautiously avoided this and strengthened their programming strategies instead to provide a high quality alternative to the commercial product. It is for Prasar Bharati to rediscover its former clarity of vision and provide healthy entertainment and information to the audience. More than ever, it is necessary for the state to strengthen its broadcast set up to provide a credible alternative to the commercial broadcasting.
The answer to the statement, ‘it is not the job of the government to run electronic media’ is, it is the job of the government to protect the public from the onslaught of commercial media by providing alternate cultural products. India is known to be a very different kind of market. It is well known that subscription channels like the BBC and Discovery are doing well in India. There is a fairly good chunk of audience that is willing to support good programming. Only the larger publicly funded systems (BBC of UK and PBS/NPR of USA) will have the wherewithal to take on the commercial channels. The public broadcaster must revive its faith in its audience and address their cultural needs.
b. ‘Why should public pay for programming that they don’t watch?’
The implication of such a statement is: Commercial broadcasting is providing what the public wants and therefore gets ratings and advertisements. Advertising supported media is free. Expensive media products are generated and delivered to the audience free of cost. This is a myth that has been actively promoted by the media industry and the advertisers. The issue really is what is being watched and in which context and who is paying for what.
Advertising-driven content has many peculiarities to it. Firstly, it assumes much about what the viewer/listener wants and by repeatedly promoting some products and ideas, normalises them. For instance, the newly launched FM stations do not have access to much of high quality music that AIR has. However, by repeatedly playing what is available and presentation couched in bantering conversation with the listener is insidiously making the listening experience ‘interesting’. It is this poor quality product attractively packaged that makes money quickly and moves on to something new, which is the primary characteristic of commercial media business. Some kind of hit and run strategy.
The other is, if any charge is associated with the experience of media products, the scenario will be different, as is evident from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire grappling with the idea of charging for its products. Respected establishments like the BBC (domestic and online, not the world service) are providing very high quality product free AND without the support of advertising, News Corporation is hesitating to charge as it may lose a large segment of its current ‘patrons’. This more or less leads us to the point that the news and entertainment consumer will not pay for what he is supposed to be wanting from his media house if it is to be paid for. Crime, sensationalism and disaster news and mindless entertainment that is advertiser-supported and free to the consumer, will have far lesser chance when the consumer begins to play the role of a ‘rational being’ in the economy and spends only on products he perceives as Value-for-Money. This already operates in the film industry. Films that don’t make the cut fail at the box office. The film-goer will not spend his hard-earned money on a poorly made film. However, he may well see it when it is shown on television ‘free’. This does not give us the liberty to claim that that’s what the audience really wants. Much poor quality programming gets by because it’s there, and it’s free.
There is a need to make the audience aware of the enormous material and cultural cost of advertising to the consumer. By perpetuating the myth that advertiser supported programming is free, we are not just helping to cover up the hidden social and cultural costs of advertising, we are also getting the audience to accept a much poorer standard of programming ... (we cannot be too demanding about what we don’t even pay for, can we? Even if we are, who’s listening?).
Delivering his acceptance speech at the International Press Institute Award 2007, the eminent editor-in-chief of Outlook group of publications, Mr Vinod Mehta* said, “…. content is a mix of what the reader wants and what he does not want. The trick is to marry the two and make money.” More importantly, he concluded, “Really great journalism must do more than merely give people what they want. There has to be room for the unexpected, for stories the public has no idea it wants until it sees them….. “ Ideally, this would be a fitting motto for good public broadcasting too. A good broadcaster also leads audience tastes, doesn’t always follow them.
Common belief about public broadcasting is that it guzzles public money. When public money is invested, it also carries the onus of providing programming that is of use. But in the case of AIR and Doordarshan, the licensing revenues and advertising revenues that they earn are not always available for improving programming. Historically, there has been an obsession with technological expansion at the cost of programming. Added to this, the new mantra of all public enterprises, self-sufficiency.
No public broadcasting enterprise can be expected to survive merely as a profit centre. Expenditure on public broadcasting is an investment in the future of a community. Leaving the cultural landscape entirely to the private enterprise is to abdicate the responsibility of the state in protecting the cultural diversity and integrity of the nation (just as the state is also responsible for the unity and integrity of the country).
Looking to the future….
There is a world-wide debate today to reclaim the cultural space usurped by commercial interests much to the degradation of social life. While there are some reservations on how effective state-run broadcasting can be in doing this, it is an opportune time to ride the public sentiment and regain the lost ground. A public broadcaster’s identity is closely tied to the kind of programmes it can deliver and the value-for money it can create in public perception. For this, the public broadcaster needs firstly to be proud of its achievements; while boasting of a proud legacy, it also needs to get young and speak to a 21st century nation of young people. Be present on the net - on Facebook, Twitter and other sites to create a buzz on important issues that the broadcasters are focusing on. Interestingly, All India Radio is already on Facebook … but wait a minute... it’s not our Aakashvani… it is an Australian music band!
Unless one is Rupert Murdoch, very few people have serious objections to the idea of public broadcasting. It’s almost like motherhood and apple pie. But both the high priest of commercial broadcasting, Rupert Murdoch, and the disappointed votaries of public broadcasting have some serious bone to pick with the shape public broadcasting takes in various socio-political contexts.
Even as it was struggling with colonialism and its brutal impact on its society, India got an early entry into the annals of broadcast history. The early influence of BBC gave it a head start both by way of technology and understanding about what social purpose broadcasting could serve. All India Radio evolved as a self-confident medium uninterrupted for about thirty years after Independence up until 1977. All major cultural talent in India passed through its portals and found its initial moorings there.
Partly from the time television arrived on the scene in a big way in the mid-seventies and much more so with the expansion of electronic media in the commercial sector, the public broadcasters in India feel more and more compelled to be defensive about what they stand for, to be apologetic. The commercialization of the media market was accompanied by strident attacks on the state-run broadcaster. Some popular arguments for attack being, ‘it is not the job of the government to run electronic media’, or ‘Why should public pay for programming that they don’t watch’. While some of the arguments may sound true, it is important to examine what lead to this popular perception.
In this paper, I would like to address these perceptions and the need for clarity on these issues:
a. Not the job of the government to run broadcasting:
This wisdom dawned on the third world intellectuals after President Reagan popularised deregulation in the overall economy and more specifically in the media industries in United States of America. The mid-80s and 90s saw a spate of regulatory fiats which opened up the markets for private sector media players all over the world. The argument was that the private sector is more responsive and will cater to the needs of the market with greater efficiency, while ensuring diversity.
The advent of private broadcasters was greeted with great excitement and anticipation. But soon, the private enterprises’ business priorities made it clear to the consumer/audience that diversity and innovation are not a priority to the private operators. Unlike the state-run broadcasting, neither did private enterprise privilege the cultural and national goals.
The reality of private sector’s actual performance in the marketplace is unfolding before us every day much to the chagrin of parents, teachers and civil society in general. The private sector not only failed to cater to the needs of the people, it chases success formulas, without diversity and without much creativity. It is frenetic, market driven and is changing the cultural landscape of the country into a quagmire of immorality, corruption and violence.
With this experience of what the private sector broadcasting is capable of, there is little doubt that a large section of the population is looking for an alternative. Broadcasting being technology intensive and capital intensive, it is well understood that it is either the deep pockets of big business or the state that can set up broadcasting enterprises.
The Indian state built up a formidable terrestrial broadcasting network over the last 62 years after Independence. The network continues to be the most watched in term of sheer reach to all nooks and corners of the country and cutting across all classes of audience. The miniscule ratings that the satellite channels boast of are no competition to the extraordinary access Prasar Bharati has to its audience. It also serves the interests of a vast rural, poor audience who do not have disposable income and who are not valued as consumers by the commercial media. This in itself is an important contribution.
But the impact of rapid and successful expansion of commercial media industry on Prasar Bharati has been adverse over the years, not so much in loss of commercial revenue but in loss of policy direction. The public broadcaster began to convince itself that to fight this market, it is necessary to lose its essence and to mimic the competition. The successful public broadcasters across the globe have cautiously avoided this and strengthened their programming strategies instead to provide a high quality alternative to the commercial product. It is for Prasar Bharati to rediscover its former clarity of vision and provide healthy entertainment and information to the audience. More than ever, it is necessary for the state to strengthen its broadcast set up to provide a credible alternative to the commercial broadcasting.
The answer to the statement, ‘it is not the job of the government to run electronic media’ is, it is the job of the government to protect the public from the onslaught of commercial media by providing alternate cultural products. India is known to be a very different kind of market. It is well known that subscription channels like the BBC and Discovery are doing well in India. There is a fairly good chunk of audience that is willing to support good programming. Only the larger publicly funded systems (BBC of UK and PBS/NPR of USA) will have the wherewithal to take on the commercial channels. The public broadcaster must revive its faith in its audience and address their cultural needs.
b. ‘Why should public pay for programming that they don’t watch?’
The implication of such a statement is: Commercial broadcasting is providing what the public wants and therefore gets ratings and advertisements. Advertising supported media is free. Expensive media products are generated and delivered to the audience free of cost. This is a myth that has been actively promoted by the media industry and the advertisers. The issue really is what is being watched and in which context and who is paying for what.
Advertising-driven content has many peculiarities to it. Firstly, it assumes much about what the viewer/listener wants and by repeatedly promoting some products and ideas, normalises them. For instance, the newly launched FM stations do not have access to much of high quality music that AIR has. However, by repeatedly playing what is available and presentation couched in bantering conversation with the listener is insidiously making the listening experience ‘interesting’. It is this poor quality product attractively packaged that makes money quickly and moves on to something new, which is the primary characteristic of commercial media business. Some kind of hit and run strategy.
The other is, if any charge is associated with the experience of media products, the scenario will be different, as is evident from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire grappling with the idea of charging for its products. Respected establishments like the BBC (domestic and online, not the world service) are providing very high quality product free AND without the support of advertising, News Corporation is hesitating to charge as it may lose a large segment of its current ‘patrons’. This more or less leads us to the point that the news and entertainment consumer will not pay for what he is supposed to be wanting from his media house if it is to be paid for. Crime, sensationalism and disaster news and mindless entertainment that is advertiser-supported and free to the consumer, will have far lesser chance when the consumer begins to play the role of a ‘rational being’ in the economy and spends only on products he perceives as Value-for-Money. This already operates in the film industry. Films that don’t make the cut fail at the box office. The film-goer will not spend his hard-earned money on a poorly made film. However, he may well see it when it is shown on television ‘free’. This does not give us the liberty to claim that that’s what the audience really wants. Much poor quality programming gets by because it’s there, and it’s free.
There is a need to make the audience aware of the enormous material and cultural cost of advertising to the consumer. By perpetuating the myth that advertiser supported programming is free, we are not just helping to cover up the hidden social and cultural costs of advertising, we are also getting the audience to accept a much poorer standard of programming ... (we cannot be too demanding about what we don’t even pay for, can we? Even if we are, who’s listening?).
Delivering his acceptance speech at the International Press Institute Award 2007, the eminent editor-in-chief of Outlook group of publications, Mr Vinod Mehta* said, “…. content is a mix of what the reader wants and what he does not want. The trick is to marry the two and make money.” More importantly, he concluded, “Really great journalism must do more than merely give people what they want. There has to be room for the unexpected, for stories the public has no idea it wants until it sees them….. “ Ideally, this would be a fitting motto for good public broadcasting too. A good broadcaster also leads audience tastes, doesn’t always follow them.
Common belief about public broadcasting is that it guzzles public money. When public money is invested, it also carries the onus of providing programming that is of use. But in the case of AIR and Doordarshan, the licensing revenues and advertising revenues that they earn are not always available for improving programming. Historically, there has been an obsession with technological expansion at the cost of programming. Added to this, the new mantra of all public enterprises, self-sufficiency.
No public broadcasting enterprise can be expected to survive merely as a profit centre. Expenditure on public broadcasting is an investment in the future of a community. Leaving the cultural landscape entirely to the private enterprise is to abdicate the responsibility of the state in protecting the cultural diversity and integrity of the nation (just as the state is also responsible for the unity and integrity of the country).
Looking to the future….
There is a world-wide debate today to reclaim the cultural space usurped by commercial interests much to the degradation of social life. While there are some reservations on how effective state-run broadcasting can be in doing this, it is an opportune time to ride the public sentiment and regain the lost ground. A public broadcaster’s identity is closely tied to the kind of programmes it can deliver and the value-for money it can create in public perception. For this, the public broadcaster needs firstly to be proud of its achievements; while boasting of a proud legacy, it also needs to get young and speak to a 21st century nation of young people. Be present on the net - on Facebook, Twitter and other sites to create a buzz on important issues that the broadcasters are focusing on. Interestingly, All India Radio is already on Facebook … but wait a minute... it’s not our Aakashvani… it is an Australian music band!
Sunday, 7 February 2010
India is ignoring its citizens
Eric Randolph's thought provoking piece on the free press in India
India is ignoring its citizens
Despite criticism by civil society and the free press, the state is continuing its violent campaigns against Maoists unchecked
o Eric Randolph
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 February 2010 09.00 GMT
Alongside the great internet firewall of China, the vicious paranoia of Burma's ruling junta, and the lists of murdered journalists in Sri Lanka, India appears as a beacon of free speech and open-minded self-criticism. And yet, for all the vociferous passion of its journalists and activists in calling the powerful to account, the overall impression is of voices screaming into a vacuum.
Nowhere is this feeling more evident right now than on the issue of the left-wing insurgency raging through India's poorest regions. Under the broadbrush moniker of Maoists or Naxalites, these insurgents represent one of the few forms of resistance for villagers and hill tribes against the inequities of continuing feudal structures and the encroachment of global corporations – backed by the state – who treat them as awkward impediments to mining plans.
The Naxalites can be brutal, and the villagers under their control often find themselves unwillingly cut off from health services, education and development. But they have held on to the moral high ground thanks largely to a state response that has been unremittingly heavy-handed: special forces operations, the arming of vigilante groups, the dispossession of land, forced encampment – all accompanied by tales of extrajudicial killings, rapes and, for some godforsaken reason, the chopping off of children's fingers.
India's civil society looks on in abhorrence at what is widely seen as a full-blown war against the poor. Even the government-appointed Council of Experts had to conclude that: "Often any individual who speaks out against the powerful is dubbed a Naxalite and jailed or otherwise silenced. The search for Naxalite cadre leads to severe harassment and torture of its supporters and sympathisers."
Those who try to report these crimes find themselves bundled away to police custody "for their own protection". This has been happening to Sodi Sambo, a 28-year-old woman from Gompar village in Chattisgarh who says she witnessed security forces murder nine of her neighbours in October 2009, and was herself shot in the foot in front of her two small children. She tried to file a complaint, only to find herself under armed guard in a nearby hospital with no visitors allowed and denied the right to travel to Delhi for treatment.
With Amnesty International and the supreme court wading in, her case might just be heard. A couple of troops might even be reprimanded. In the meantime, the operations will continue. Just a fortnight ago, home minister Palaniappan Chidambaram announced another massive offensive across five states, confidently claiming it would target only insurgent leaders. Since no journalists are allowed anywhere near these war zones, we have to take his word for it.
Which brings us back to the issue of free speech, and also its implications for military strategy. One of the key lessons of modern counter-insurgency is that you have to take the voters – and therefore the media – with you. Militaries have long struggled to balance the rights of a free press with the risk that they might record something that damages its credibility. In the west, this took centre stage in Vietnam, which many in the US military felt was a war fought and lost on the evening news and in the pages of Time magazine.
That thinking has led to embedded journalism, military PR departments – even dedicated YouTube channels – which seek to "sell" the campaign back home and abroad. It has made governments acutely conscious of legitimacy, if not for moral reasons, then at least for its impact on operational effectiveness.
In India, however, there seems to be scant concern for legitimacy in the anti-Naxal campaign beyond flagrant attempts to silence witnesses and bar journalists and activists from affected areas. When it does try to justify itself, the government hides behind the argument that the Maoists are impeding economic development that could improve the lives of the poor – ignoring studies that show this model of development may have actually increased the number of poor by 100 million.
The Naxalite issue shows up a yawning chasm between what civil society says and what government does. The failure to listen means the government is losing not just the battle for hearts and minds, but even the physical fight on which it has focused its efforts. Last year, 319 security forces were killed compared with 219 Maoists – an extraordinary tally given the discrepancy in each side's resources.
The fact is that any number of exposés on the wrongs of this campaign has little or no impact on voters with so many other issues and allegiances to consider. Nor does the government fear the opprobrium of the international community, which is preoccupied with winning India's support in Afghanistan and salivating over her enormous defence budgets. The editor of one leading news publication admitted last week that the media's efforts were having "no political impact".
The most pessimistic conclusion to draw is that free speech in India only serves to strengthen those who flout other articles in the constitution. "How can we be authoritarian," the government can protest, "when we allow the media such freedom to criticise us?" Too often, however, the only victory of expression is its freedom to exist, rather than its power to effect change.
Or we can be more optimistic, and take heart in the strength of ideas to gradually permeate through society and perhaps enthuse a future generation of leaders, tired of a system that stands so apart from the moral conscience embodied in its academics, activists, journalists and ordinary citizens, in whose name the brutal price of progress is paid. The superiority of India's civil society must surely, in time, earn it the influence it deserves.
India is ignoring its citizens
Despite criticism by civil society and the free press, the state is continuing its violent campaigns against Maoists unchecked
o Eric Randolph
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 February 2010 09.00 GMT
Alongside the great internet firewall of China, the vicious paranoia of Burma's ruling junta, and the lists of murdered journalists in Sri Lanka, India appears as a beacon of free speech and open-minded self-criticism. And yet, for all the vociferous passion of its journalists and activists in calling the powerful to account, the overall impression is of voices screaming into a vacuum.
Nowhere is this feeling more evident right now than on the issue of the left-wing insurgency raging through India's poorest regions. Under the broadbrush moniker of Maoists or Naxalites, these insurgents represent one of the few forms of resistance for villagers and hill tribes against the inequities of continuing feudal structures and the encroachment of global corporations – backed by the state – who treat them as awkward impediments to mining plans.
The Naxalites can be brutal, and the villagers under their control often find themselves unwillingly cut off from health services, education and development. But they have held on to the moral high ground thanks largely to a state response that has been unremittingly heavy-handed: special forces operations, the arming of vigilante groups, the dispossession of land, forced encampment – all accompanied by tales of extrajudicial killings, rapes and, for some godforsaken reason, the chopping off of children's fingers.
India's civil society looks on in abhorrence at what is widely seen as a full-blown war against the poor. Even the government-appointed Council of Experts had to conclude that: "Often any individual who speaks out against the powerful is dubbed a Naxalite and jailed or otherwise silenced. The search for Naxalite cadre leads to severe harassment and torture of its supporters and sympathisers."
Those who try to report these crimes find themselves bundled away to police custody "for their own protection". This has been happening to Sodi Sambo, a 28-year-old woman from Gompar village in Chattisgarh who says she witnessed security forces murder nine of her neighbours in October 2009, and was herself shot in the foot in front of her two small children. She tried to file a complaint, only to find herself under armed guard in a nearby hospital with no visitors allowed and denied the right to travel to Delhi for treatment.
With Amnesty International and the supreme court wading in, her case might just be heard. A couple of troops might even be reprimanded. In the meantime, the operations will continue. Just a fortnight ago, home minister Palaniappan Chidambaram announced another massive offensive across five states, confidently claiming it would target only insurgent leaders. Since no journalists are allowed anywhere near these war zones, we have to take his word for it.
Which brings us back to the issue of free speech, and also its implications for military strategy. One of the key lessons of modern counter-insurgency is that you have to take the voters – and therefore the media – with you. Militaries have long struggled to balance the rights of a free press with the risk that they might record something that damages its credibility. In the west, this took centre stage in Vietnam, which many in the US military felt was a war fought and lost on the evening news and in the pages of Time magazine.
That thinking has led to embedded journalism, military PR departments – even dedicated YouTube channels – which seek to "sell" the campaign back home and abroad. It has made governments acutely conscious of legitimacy, if not for moral reasons, then at least for its impact on operational effectiveness.
In India, however, there seems to be scant concern for legitimacy in the anti-Naxal campaign beyond flagrant attempts to silence witnesses and bar journalists and activists from affected areas. When it does try to justify itself, the government hides behind the argument that the Maoists are impeding economic development that could improve the lives of the poor – ignoring studies that show this model of development may have actually increased the number of poor by 100 million.
The Naxalite issue shows up a yawning chasm between what civil society says and what government does. The failure to listen means the government is losing not just the battle for hearts and minds, but even the physical fight on which it has focused its efforts. Last year, 319 security forces were killed compared with 219 Maoists – an extraordinary tally given the discrepancy in each side's resources.
The fact is that any number of exposés on the wrongs of this campaign has little or no impact on voters with so many other issues and allegiances to consider. Nor does the government fear the opprobrium of the international community, which is preoccupied with winning India's support in Afghanistan and salivating over her enormous defence budgets. The editor of one leading news publication admitted last week that the media's efforts were having "no political impact".
The most pessimistic conclusion to draw is that free speech in India only serves to strengthen those who flout other articles in the constitution. "How can we be authoritarian," the government can protest, "when we allow the media such freedom to criticise us?" Too often, however, the only victory of expression is its freedom to exist, rather than its power to effect change.
Or we can be more optimistic, and take heart in the strength of ideas to gradually permeate through society and perhaps enthuse a future generation of leaders, tired of a system that stands so apart from the moral conscience embodied in its academics, activists, journalists and ordinary citizens, in whose name the brutal price of progress is paid. The superiority of India's civil society must surely, in time, earn it the influence it deserves.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Free Foxes Among Free Chickens
Free foxes among free chickens?
The commercial media operate like hardcore businesses, but when it comes to regulation, they wish to be treated with kid gloves as they claim to serve the values of free speech. What should the moral authority of the state protect - the right of the citizen to ethical journalism or the right of the media to sell its soul?
Posted Friday, Dec 18 09:59:27, 2009 on The Hoot
One of the major recommendations of Akash Bharati, the comprehensive report that laid out the road map for the future of Indian broadcasting immediately after the Emergency, was to scrap the Broadcasting wing of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The report argued that such a wing is anomalous in a democracy where media must operate as autonomous institutions, autonomous both from the market and the state. The report of course, emphasised the importance of a Broadcasting Council to regulate and to redress grievances.
When one looks at the planned inertia of the I&B Ministry that surpasses the moral inertia of the media industry, one is compelled to think that no ministry would have been better than a ministry that chooses to abdicate all its crucial regulatory obligations.
What are the regulatory obligations?
One, ownership: From the days of the First Press Commission, the ownership of media has been a matter of debate. Several commissions and expert groups have raised the problem of money from other businesses financing media enterprises primarily to generate a favourable policy environment and to promote friendly political actors to serve this purpose. Today, with the phenomenal and haphazard expansion of the media industry, it is clear that a large part of the investment into media is not just from the real economy as in the earlier phase, but from dubious sources - speculative finance, real estate and other parts of the ‘parallel’ economy. There is also a strong enmeshing of political interests in this. When a newspaper is started or when a television channel is started, is it not the responsibility of the licensing authority to examine the sources of finance and the antecedents of the promoters?
The state is constantly juggling with the FDI figures, is it 20%, should it be 26%, or is it better if it is 100%? Perhaps it is time to define what the colour of this money is, in addition to the percentage or whether it is from internal or external sources (is it ok if the investment comes from Indian mafia and not from overseas?). Is this like a ‘Christie’s auction?’ (or a Swiss bank account) that the state chooses to accept known fronts acting on behalf of ‘unknown’ backers? The recent statements of the Minister for I&B promising greater scrutiny of applications for news channel licenses should have been policy rather than an afterthought. And then, what about those licensees who are already ruling the airwaves? Media licenses are given to dubious business/political interests who are already under a cloud.
Two, advertising: Advertising has always been seen as a legitimate source of revenue for media. News to advertisement ratio/ price-page schedule is a dead idea, maligned and killed by the media industry. Today, glossies, newspapers, some news channels and movie channels, all carry disproportionate number of advertisements and without adequate gap between spells. Shouldn’t there be specific rules to define the amount of advertising, kind of advertising and the manner in which it is shown?
In the entertainment sector, channels routinely show paid promotional programming for building hype about some films, often by way of discussion programmes on the issues in a film with the stars from the films participating. The half an hour slots that promote hotels, stores and other commercial establishments that are obviously sponsored by the owners are shown without clarifying that the programming is paid for. The problem in such cases is, the viewer does not know that the praise heaped on the films or establishments is not neutral/fair judgement of the channel. Shouldn’t there be mandatory disclaimer next to the station logo that the programme is paid for?
Today, the arena for product and corporate promotion is not confined to advertising space alone, but has infiltrated the news columns. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon is the rampant virus of ?paid news’ during elections. But the malaise is so wide spread that news gathering in normal times over the last several years is also being done for some monetary or other consideration and rarely ever on the merit of the event or issue. This is widely known and managed by those who seek publicity. Manufactured celebrities and dubious talent abound on the best channels and newspapers. A politician’s mediocre poetry here, a pathetic designer line from a celebrity there, is all part of the fare. There is a conspiracy of silence about this as well, as it was about ‘paid news’. The Unions of Journalists are helpless in dealing with this as the culprits are from among their own ranks. Should there be some form of registration of practitioners by an independent, professional Media Council (like the Bar Council or the Medical Council) with the threat of deregistration for unethical practices?
As far as the pay channels are concerned, two other important issues need to be debated:
1. Some paid entertainment channels earn subscription revenues and go on to advertise on the channels far in excess of the 12 minutes per hour limit (an unwritten rule followed by channels in general). The movie watching experience of the viewer is of no particular concern to the channels. The viewer is paying directly (through subscription) and indirectly (by watching ads) for the same content and is forced to accept poor quality viewing experience to accommodate the channels’ desire to make more money. Any one who has attempted to watch a two and a half hour feature film on TV will vouch for this. It would take nothing less than four hours or more to watch.
The Television Without Frontiers Directive adopted by EEC and the UK limit advertising to 20% or (12 minutes) in any clock hour. The Directive also defines the number and nature of breaks in programmes: a) in films, news and current affairs programmes, and documentaries breaks should be limited to one for every period of 30 minutes; b) and children’s programmes, one break is allowed only in a programme of more than 30 minutes duration. The TWF states that ?in order that the interests of the consumers and TV viewers are fully protected, it is essential for television advertising to be subject to a certain number of minimum rules and standards?? Since 1950s UK also has the system of pre-viewing and approving all advertising shown on broadcast television. No such worldview seems to prevail in India.
2. The channels promote magic remedies like lucky stones and astrological solutions that clearly violate the Cable Act and also the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Some of these ads run close to five minutes at a time and are being routinely shown on television channels.
‘In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India the Supreme Court was faced with the question as to whether the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, which put restrictions on the advertisements of drugs in certain cases and prohibited advertisements of drugs having magic qualities for curing diseases, was valid as it curbed the freedom of speech and expression of a person by imposing restrictions on advertisements. The Supreme Court held that, an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech and expression but every advertisement is not a matter dealing with the expression of ideas and hence advertisement of a commercial nature cannot fall within the concept of Article 19(1)(a)’.
(cited from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/media.htm)
The major paradox of this game of course is, there is no content code in place for the channels (which are threatening to self-regulate), while the Cable Act has all the necessary clauses about superstitious content and promotion of magic remedies. Are the channels free to air objectionable material, but it’s the cable guy who gets the stick for showing it (of course, right now it is one big unregulated delinquency fest for both the carriers and the channels)?
The Ministry of I&B has made specific efforts to implement the Cable Act by asking the state governments to constitute state and district level monitoring committees. It is not clear whether such committees are constituted, how often they meet and what transpires at the meetings. The Information wings are also required to give wide publicity to the existence of the committees to get feedback from the public. A crucial requirement however is left out - the need to conduct meetings regularly, to put the complaints received and detailed minutes of the meetings on the I&B Ministry’s web site.
Three, news content: During political crises, such as the Andhra/ Telangana protests, the electronic media loop the most disturbing bits of footage and repeat them several hundred times in the span of a single day, often without masking the ‘LIVE’ legend on the corner of the screen. Some of the most provocative statements from both sides of the argument are taken and run repeatedly. In the context of the lumpenised, criminalised politics of Andhra Pradesh, this is completely irresponsible as the lower level activists of all parties are on the streets to provoke and drive passions up rather than to engage in rational debate. As part of content regulation, this must be stopped. If the channels are short of fresh footage, it should be their problem to make the news interesting by other means and not by repeating a ‘two second’ act into a 24 hour event. The frenetic unthinking verbal onslaught of ‘live reports’ by untrained and combative reporters speeds up the befuddlement. ‘Live’ reports sound like the running commentary at the Deccan Derby without the language skills or the sense of purpose! Channels must also be prohibited from packaging news footage with music and sentimental songs and repeating the footage ad nauseum. Violation of the rules must be penalised with fines.
There are some regional channels which have specialised in lighting fires of conflict in league with the political vested interests, and then once the events take on a life of their own on the street, cash-in on it further. Some media houses no longer just report news. They make it happen, much of it by speculating about future actions (predicting violence; falsely attributing deaths to causes/events; anticipating and goading suicides).
The case in point is the much-publicised event of K Chandrasekhar Rao visiting TV9 to donate for their flood relief work. KCR was in political wilderness after the Lok Sabha elections. After his public donation, TV9 took the opportunity of putting him live on air (three anchors took turns) to hold forth on a range of issues from his personal habits to national politics. This coup on one channel was followed by other channels, each giving KCR the opportunity to answer phone-in queries and clarify his stand on matters public and private. The channels began giving extensive coverage to his proposed fast unto death and the rest, as they say, is history. Should the media houses be allowed to raise funds for relief? Not just TV9 but other channels and newspapers also did the same. What is the accountability and repercussions of this, and primarily is it the role of the media houses?
According to TV9’s own mission statement:
The news is a very powerful source of communication and during times of need it is necessary that the channel be a source of crucial information for those in need. Therefore, our disaster coverage will be designed to help people in distress, and all criticism and negative commentary will be withheld until after the incident has been sufficiently resolved.
Every word of the mission was violated during recent coverage of floods in Andhra Pradesh.
Electronic media today appear to be the ‘single biggest threat’ to the internal security of the country (to borrow a phrase from the PM) and its democratic traditions, by whipping up passions around issues that require sensitive handling. After 26/11 one would have thought the state would have gotten its act together and come up with an independent media regulator to take charge of the media industry and bring it back on track. That was reason enough.
The commercial media operate and behave like hardcore businesses, but when it comes to regulation, they wish to be treated with kid gloves as they claim to serve the values of free speech. The legendary Mexican peasant leader Emiliano Zapata described free market as ‘free foxes among free chickens.’ If those with economic muscle buy up advertising and news space for their own promotion and deliberately falsify the public discourse with media as willing vehicles profiteering from this process, does the media industry still believe it has the right to seek special privileges under the freedom of speech clause? More importantly, what should the moral authority of the state protect - the citizen’s right to ethical journalism or the media’s right to sell its soul?
The recent ‘will they, won’t they?’ saga of content regulation by I&B Ministry and the nervous response to the need for an independent regulator for broadcast industry that has teeth (unlike the Press Council of India) is a telling example of the state’s abdication of its moral responsibility to enforce a cleaner media environment. If you want to protect a modicum of the freedom of the chickens to a safe existence, you will need to restrain some freedoms of the foxes, especially since we are not in a jungle but claim to be a part of a ‘civilized democracy’.
The commercial media operate like hardcore businesses, but when it comes to regulation, they wish to be treated with kid gloves as they claim to serve the values of free speech. What should the moral authority of the state protect - the right of the citizen to ethical journalism or the right of the media to sell its soul?
Posted Friday, Dec 18 09:59:27, 2009 on The Hoot
One of the major recommendations of Akash Bharati, the comprehensive report that laid out the road map for the future of Indian broadcasting immediately after the Emergency, was to scrap the Broadcasting wing of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The report argued that such a wing is anomalous in a democracy where media must operate as autonomous institutions, autonomous both from the market and the state. The report of course, emphasised the importance of a Broadcasting Council to regulate and to redress grievances.
When one looks at the planned inertia of the I&B Ministry that surpasses the moral inertia of the media industry, one is compelled to think that no ministry would have been better than a ministry that chooses to abdicate all its crucial regulatory obligations.
What are the regulatory obligations?
One, ownership: From the days of the First Press Commission, the ownership of media has been a matter of debate. Several commissions and expert groups have raised the problem of money from other businesses financing media enterprises primarily to generate a favourable policy environment and to promote friendly political actors to serve this purpose. Today, with the phenomenal and haphazard expansion of the media industry, it is clear that a large part of the investment into media is not just from the real economy as in the earlier phase, but from dubious sources - speculative finance, real estate and other parts of the ‘parallel’ economy. There is also a strong enmeshing of political interests in this. When a newspaper is started or when a television channel is started, is it not the responsibility of the licensing authority to examine the sources of finance and the antecedents of the promoters?
The state is constantly juggling with the FDI figures, is it 20%, should it be 26%, or is it better if it is 100%? Perhaps it is time to define what the colour of this money is, in addition to the percentage or whether it is from internal or external sources (is it ok if the investment comes from Indian mafia and not from overseas?). Is this like a ‘Christie’s auction?’ (or a Swiss bank account) that the state chooses to accept known fronts acting on behalf of ‘unknown’ backers? The recent statements of the Minister for I&B promising greater scrutiny of applications for news channel licenses should have been policy rather than an afterthought. And then, what about those licensees who are already ruling the airwaves? Media licenses are given to dubious business/political interests who are already under a cloud.
Two, advertising: Advertising has always been seen as a legitimate source of revenue for media. News to advertisement ratio/ price-page schedule is a dead idea, maligned and killed by the media industry. Today, glossies, newspapers, some news channels and movie channels, all carry disproportionate number of advertisements and without adequate gap between spells. Shouldn’t there be specific rules to define the amount of advertising, kind of advertising and the manner in which it is shown?
In the entertainment sector, channels routinely show paid promotional programming for building hype about some films, often by way of discussion programmes on the issues in a film with the stars from the films participating. The half an hour slots that promote hotels, stores and other commercial establishments that are obviously sponsored by the owners are shown without clarifying that the programming is paid for. The problem in such cases is, the viewer does not know that the praise heaped on the films or establishments is not neutral/fair judgement of the channel. Shouldn’t there be mandatory disclaimer next to the station logo that the programme is paid for?
Today, the arena for product and corporate promotion is not confined to advertising space alone, but has infiltrated the news columns. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon is the rampant virus of ?paid news’ during elections. But the malaise is so wide spread that news gathering in normal times over the last several years is also being done for some monetary or other consideration and rarely ever on the merit of the event or issue. This is widely known and managed by those who seek publicity. Manufactured celebrities and dubious talent abound on the best channels and newspapers. A politician’s mediocre poetry here, a pathetic designer line from a celebrity there, is all part of the fare. There is a conspiracy of silence about this as well, as it was about ‘paid news’. The Unions of Journalists are helpless in dealing with this as the culprits are from among their own ranks. Should there be some form of registration of practitioners by an independent, professional Media Council (like the Bar Council or the Medical Council) with the threat of deregistration for unethical practices?
As far as the pay channels are concerned, two other important issues need to be debated:
1. Some paid entertainment channels earn subscription revenues and go on to advertise on the channels far in excess of the 12 minutes per hour limit (an unwritten rule followed by channels in general). The movie watching experience of the viewer is of no particular concern to the channels. The viewer is paying directly (through subscription) and indirectly (by watching ads) for the same content and is forced to accept poor quality viewing experience to accommodate the channels’ desire to make more money. Any one who has attempted to watch a two and a half hour feature film on TV will vouch for this. It would take nothing less than four hours or more to watch.
The Television Without Frontiers Directive adopted by EEC and the UK limit advertising to 20% or (12 minutes) in any clock hour. The Directive also defines the number and nature of breaks in programmes: a) in films, news and current affairs programmes, and documentaries breaks should be limited to one for every period of 30 minutes; b) and children’s programmes, one break is allowed only in a programme of more than 30 minutes duration. The TWF states that ?in order that the interests of the consumers and TV viewers are fully protected, it is essential for television advertising to be subject to a certain number of minimum rules and standards?? Since 1950s UK also has the system of pre-viewing and approving all advertising shown on broadcast television. No such worldview seems to prevail in India.
2. The channels promote magic remedies like lucky stones and astrological solutions that clearly violate the Cable Act and also the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Some of these ads run close to five minutes at a time and are being routinely shown on television channels.
‘In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India the Supreme Court was faced with the question as to whether the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, which put restrictions on the advertisements of drugs in certain cases and prohibited advertisements of drugs having magic qualities for curing diseases, was valid as it curbed the freedom of speech and expression of a person by imposing restrictions on advertisements. The Supreme Court held that, an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech and expression but every advertisement is not a matter dealing with the expression of ideas and hence advertisement of a commercial nature cannot fall within the concept of Article 19(1)(a)’.
(cited from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/media.htm)
The major paradox of this game of course is, there is no content code in place for the channels (which are threatening to self-regulate), while the Cable Act has all the necessary clauses about superstitious content and promotion of magic remedies. Are the channels free to air objectionable material, but it’s the cable guy who gets the stick for showing it (of course, right now it is one big unregulated delinquency fest for both the carriers and the channels)?
The Ministry of I&B has made specific efforts to implement the Cable Act by asking the state governments to constitute state and district level monitoring committees. It is not clear whether such committees are constituted, how often they meet and what transpires at the meetings. The Information wings are also required to give wide publicity to the existence of the committees to get feedback from the public. A crucial requirement however is left out - the need to conduct meetings regularly, to put the complaints received and detailed minutes of the meetings on the I&B Ministry’s web site.
Three, news content: During political crises, such as the Andhra/ Telangana protests, the electronic media loop the most disturbing bits of footage and repeat them several hundred times in the span of a single day, often without masking the ‘LIVE’ legend on the corner of the screen. Some of the most provocative statements from both sides of the argument are taken and run repeatedly. In the context of the lumpenised, criminalised politics of Andhra Pradesh, this is completely irresponsible as the lower level activists of all parties are on the streets to provoke and drive passions up rather than to engage in rational debate. As part of content regulation, this must be stopped. If the channels are short of fresh footage, it should be their problem to make the news interesting by other means and not by repeating a ‘two second’ act into a 24 hour event. The frenetic unthinking verbal onslaught of ‘live reports’ by untrained and combative reporters speeds up the befuddlement. ‘Live’ reports sound like the running commentary at the Deccan Derby without the language skills or the sense of purpose! Channels must also be prohibited from packaging news footage with music and sentimental songs and repeating the footage ad nauseum. Violation of the rules must be penalised with fines.
There are some regional channels which have specialised in lighting fires of conflict in league with the political vested interests, and then once the events take on a life of their own on the street, cash-in on it further. Some media houses no longer just report news. They make it happen, much of it by speculating about future actions (predicting violence; falsely attributing deaths to causes/events; anticipating and goading suicides).
The case in point is the much-publicised event of K Chandrasekhar Rao visiting TV9 to donate for their flood relief work. KCR was in political wilderness after the Lok Sabha elections. After his public donation, TV9 took the opportunity of putting him live on air (three anchors took turns) to hold forth on a range of issues from his personal habits to national politics. This coup on one channel was followed by other channels, each giving KCR the opportunity to answer phone-in queries and clarify his stand on matters public and private. The channels began giving extensive coverage to his proposed fast unto death and the rest, as they say, is history. Should the media houses be allowed to raise funds for relief? Not just TV9 but other channels and newspapers also did the same. What is the accountability and repercussions of this, and primarily is it the role of the media houses?
According to TV9’s own mission statement:
The news is a very powerful source of communication and during times of need it is necessary that the channel be a source of crucial information for those in need. Therefore, our disaster coverage will be designed to help people in distress, and all criticism and negative commentary will be withheld until after the incident has been sufficiently resolved.
Every word of the mission was violated during recent coverage of floods in Andhra Pradesh.
Electronic media today appear to be the ‘single biggest threat’ to the internal security of the country (to borrow a phrase from the PM) and its democratic traditions, by whipping up passions around issues that require sensitive handling. After 26/11 one would have thought the state would have gotten its act together and come up with an independent media regulator to take charge of the media industry and bring it back on track. That was reason enough.
The commercial media operate and behave like hardcore businesses, but when it comes to regulation, they wish to be treated with kid gloves as they claim to serve the values of free speech. The legendary Mexican peasant leader Emiliano Zapata described free market as ‘free foxes among free chickens.’ If those with economic muscle buy up advertising and news space for their own promotion and deliberately falsify the public discourse with media as willing vehicles profiteering from this process, does the media industry still believe it has the right to seek special privileges under the freedom of speech clause? More importantly, what should the moral authority of the state protect - the citizen’s right to ethical journalism or the media’s right to sell its soul?
The recent ‘will they, won’t they?’ saga of content regulation by I&B Ministry and the nervous response to the need for an independent regulator for broadcast industry that has teeth (unlike the Press Council of India) is a telling example of the state’s abdication of its moral responsibility to enforce a cleaner media environment. If you want to protect a modicum of the freedom of the chickens to a safe existence, you will need to restrain some freedoms of the foxes, especially since we are not in a jungle but claim to be a part of a ‘civilized democracy’.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Strange experience
We've lived in this flat for over 17 years without any problem. The security system has been non-exitent, but somehow everyone felt recklessly safe. Two weeks ago, a posse of police personnel arrived with some friendly advice about safety in flats and what we should be doing. A days later, there's this 20 something youngster who began prowling around our flat. He's been opening securely closed windows to survey the house in the glow of night lamp when everyone's asleep. He is well dressed and speaks well in English. Claims to be a student of a local engineering college. He hangs around on the dark deck and suddenly shows up at the door to ask for water. When confronted, he says he's looking for a friend who's supposed to live in the same flat. He does not go away when told no such person lives here. He comes back the next day.
We lost patience yesterday after some five days of this and cornered him on the deck. Made him wait there and called the police. He remained unperturbed. The police also quite brusquely took down our details and took the youngman away....
This incident has been troubling me. We've handed over a seemingly educated but in many ways a 'clever' guy to the police. The police have not reported to us about his fate. Knowing how the law works, perceived threat is no ground for punishment. So far, he has not done anything. Having handed him over, I do not feel any safer or freer. Has he lost liberty and freedom in jail and do we have freedom and liberty outside? His presence somewhere in an unknown way has changed our existence... I feel there's more to this story, somewhere down the line...
We lost patience yesterday after some five days of this and cornered him on the deck. Made him wait there and called the police. He remained unperturbed. The police also quite brusquely took down our details and took the youngman away....
This incident has been troubling me. We've handed over a seemingly educated but in many ways a 'clever' guy to the police. The police have not reported to us about his fate. Knowing how the law works, perceived threat is no ground for punishment. So far, he has not done anything. Having handed him over, I do not feel any safer or freer. Has he lost liberty and freedom in jail and do we have freedom and liberty outside? His presence somewhere in an unknown way has changed our existence... I feel there's more to this story, somewhere down the line...
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Hospitals and the Political Farce in Andhra Pradesh
Hospitals and the Political Farce in Andhra Pradesh
Out here in Andhra Pradesh, we are living through life changing times. From the 9th of December 2009, when the central government announced its decision to initiate the process for the formation of Telangana state, neither the politicians nor the media have had a breather.
While the Telangana protests subsided instantly, several of the political parties that have openly promised Telangana during the recent Lok Sabha elections have burnt their boats and are hitching their political fortunes to the integration bandwagon. The political parties like Telugu Desam and Prajarayam do not see their long-term future wholly in Telangana as their social base is in Andhra but their economic interests are in Telangana. The social base is essential for their electoral fortunes which they cannot afford to alienate. Some of the Congress bigwigs are not immune to this either. This political dilemma and the desperation to secure their investments in Telangana is manifesting in a political farce that has not been witnessed in the state in a long time.
The latest is the antics of the Congress MP from Vijayawada, Lagadapati Rajagopal (LR), whose family enterprise Lanco runs power projects, infrastructure projects and owns hundreds of acres of land around Hyderabad. He has been vociferous in his opposition to the demand for separate state for Telangana and had run-ins with the activists before the latest series of incidents. After the central Home Minister’s announcement of statehood for Telangana, Lagadapati threatened to go on hunger strike a la K Chadrasekhar Rao (KCR). LR sat on fast, was put in a hospital in Vijayawada, but insisted on being treated at NIMS in Hyderabad, the same hospital where KCR was kept under arrest while on fast. When the state refused, anticipating trouble, he walked out of the Vijayawada hospital in full view of the 200-odd policemen and disappeared for several hours in a SUV to surface at NIMS in an auto rickshaw. He sprinted into the hospital with the police and TV cameras chasing him and got into a bed in the ICU!
Through out this ridiculous drama, the television channels were looping the footage of the man running into the hospital and lying in the ICU, without really asking the questions that arise in the minds of the public – there was utter chaos at the Vijayawada hospital, then at NIMS with activists and politicians descending on the place unmindful of the ordinary patients who are there for treatment. What happens to the other patients and emergency services when such gross misuse of a public utility is not only tolerated but found entertaining both by politicians and the media? Every celebrity scamster, politician, accused, today checks in to a hospital to avoid arrest. In the process, the medical profession appears to be deeply complicit in entertaining this gross abuse. What is the integrity of a doctor who shields an accused and gives false medical reports? Is the job of the media over, by just reporting what the doctors say …. Not just reporting but repeatedly scrolling alarmist reports about the condition of some politician or the other who is leveraging this as a strategy? Is this not also a medical ethics issue?
For instance, NIMS sheltered actor Balakrishna when he shot and injured two people in his house. His fans arrived from all over the state, daring the state to take any action. The doctors went on air giving health updates to the media, all the time sheltering the actor. NIMS had several celebrity patients like Ramalinga Raju of Satyam and KCR himself. There are several politicians on fast unto death in the Andhra region today, whose health the doctors are characterising as deteriorating to the media. In this process, is the medical profession being deeply politicised to give politically correct medical assessments? The other fall out is on the ordinary patient who has difficulty getting fair services at normal times, and can hope for very little in such chaotic times.
The media instead of questioning the misuse of hospitals as political battlegrounds descend on the hospitals to get exclusive footage for their channels. The extreme inconvenience caused by the presence of both the media and the politicians remains unaddressed. How essential is it to chase Lagadapati into the ICU? One did not see a single channel question why a man who can sprint into the hospital needs intensive care. Intensive care signifies life and death for anxious families. How can someone get into a hospital bypassing the security (which was nowhere to be seen - in a Hyderabad which saw serial bombings by terrorists), without being examined by a doctor and being formally admitted to ICU? Can an ordinary person sprint into the ICU of a hospital without the intervention of the medical experts? Under whose care was he admitted? What tests were recommended? The channels kept looping the footage and the anchors went on to discuss the antics of the politician with an indulgent smile, while the impact of this on people who are at the hospital for genuine reasons is not even an issue. The presence of the media, instead of making the hospital administration watch its step, seems to encourage it to host ‘celebrities’.
The net result of this rash of fasts by sundry politicians across the state, and the uncritical media reports about them, appears to have completely trivialised the issue of statehood to Telangana. The issue has been on a slow burn for over 50 years with several genuine problems that need addressing. It is a historic occasion that needs a critical and rational debate about how best to take it forward. The only channel that appears to have caught the mood of the moment is HMTV which brought together activists and intellectuals from all walks of life for an extensive debate on the issue. TV9 too has been airing longish interviews/call-in programmes with politicians like KCR, Undavalli Arun Kumar and Jayaprakash Narayan. The really entertaining programme continues to be the political spoof run by TV9 called ‘Evari gola varidi”
Looking at the political scenario in Andhra Pradesh, one wonders what would happen if there is no coverage for some of the political activities that are cropping up across the state. One has repeatedly seen a handful of people burning effigies and screaming into the cameras on tight shots and creating a false picture of the public mood. Five minutes after the event, there is no one at the scene of action. This convenience of television coverage that magnifies small events has made long-term, sustained building up of grass roots opinion unnecessary. Today it is ‘hit and run’ activism that suffices and gets the maximum mileage and instant public and policy responses. The new politician seems to understand this game too well. Now it is for the media to resist this, if it wishes to serve public interest.
Out here in Andhra Pradesh, we are living through life changing times. From the 9th of December 2009, when the central government announced its decision to initiate the process for the formation of Telangana state, neither the politicians nor the media have had a breather.
While the Telangana protests subsided instantly, several of the political parties that have openly promised Telangana during the recent Lok Sabha elections have burnt their boats and are hitching their political fortunes to the integration bandwagon. The political parties like Telugu Desam and Prajarayam do not see their long-term future wholly in Telangana as their social base is in Andhra but their economic interests are in Telangana. The social base is essential for their electoral fortunes which they cannot afford to alienate. Some of the Congress bigwigs are not immune to this either. This political dilemma and the desperation to secure their investments in Telangana is manifesting in a political farce that has not been witnessed in the state in a long time.
The latest is the antics of the Congress MP from Vijayawada, Lagadapati Rajagopal (LR), whose family enterprise Lanco runs power projects, infrastructure projects and owns hundreds of acres of land around Hyderabad. He has been vociferous in his opposition to the demand for separate state for Telangana and had run-ins with the activists before the latest series of incidents. After the central Home Minister’s announcement of statehood for Telangana, Lagadapati threatened to go on hunger strike a la K Chadrasekhar Rao (KCR). LR sat on fast, was put in a hospital in Vijayawada, but insisted on being treated at NIMS in Hyderabad, the same hospital where KCR was kept under arrest while on fast. When the state refused, anticipating trouble, he walked out of the Vijayawada hospital in full view of the 200-odd policemen and disappeared for several hours in a SUV to surface at NIMS in an auto rickshaw. He sprinted into the hospital with the police and TV cameras chasing him and got into a bed in the ICU!
Through out this ridiculous drama, the television channels were looping the footage of the man running into the hospital and lying in the ICU, without really asking the questions that arise in the minds of the public – there was utter chaos at the Vijayawada hospital, then at NIMS with activists and politicians descending on the place unmindful of the ordinary patients who are there for treatment. What happens to the other patients and emergency services when such gross misuse of a public utility is not only tolerated but found entertaining both by politicians and the media? Every celebrity scamster, politician, accused, today checks in to a hospital to avoid arrest. In the process, the medical profession appears to be deeply complicit in entertaining this gross abuse. What is the integrity of a doctor who shields an accused and gives false medical reports? Is the job of the media over, by just reporting what the doctors say …. Not just reporting but repeatedly scrolling alarmist reports about the condition of some politician or the other who is leveraging this as a strategy? Is this not also a medical ethics issue?
For instance, NIMS sheltered actor Balakrishna when he shot and injured two people in his house. His fans arrived from all over the state, daring the state to take any action. The doctors went on air giving health updates to the media, all the time sheltering the actor. NIMS had several celebrity patients like Ramalinga Raju of Satyam and KCR himself. There are several politicians on fast unto death in the Andhra region today, whose health the doctors are characterising as deteriorating to the media. In this process, is the medical profession being deeply politicised to give politically correct medical assessments? The other fall out is on the ordinary patient who has difficulty getting fair services at normal times, and can hope for very little in such chaotic times.
The media instead of questioning the misuse of hospitals as political battlegrounds descend on the hospitals to get exclusive footage for their channels. The extreme inconvenience caused by the presence of both the media and the politicians remains unaddressed. How essential is it to chase Lagadapati into the ICU? One did not see a single channel question why a man who can sprint into the hospital needs intensive care. Intensive care signifies life and death for anxious families. How can someone get into a hospital bypassing the security (which was nowhere to be seen - in a Hyderabad which saw serial bombings by terrorists), without being examined by a doctor and being formally admitted to ICU? Can an ordinary person sprint into the ICU of a hospital without the intervention of the medical experts? Under whose care was he admitted? What tests were recommended? The channels kept looping the footage and the anchors went on to discuss the antics of the politician with an indulgent smile, while the impact of this on people who are at the hospital for genuine reasons is not even an issue. The presence of the media, instead of making the hospital administration watch its step, seems to encourage it to host ‘celebrities’.
The net result of this rash of fasts by sundry politicians across the state, and the uncritical media reports about them, appears to have completely trivialised the issue of statehood to Telangana. The issue has been on a slow burn for over 50 years with several genuine problems that need addressing. It is a historic occasion that needs a critical and rational debate about how best to take it forward. The only channel that appears to have caught the mood of the moment is HMTV which brought together activists and intellectuals from all walks of life for an extensive debate on the issue. TV9 too has been airing longish interviews/call-in programmes with politicians like KCR, Undavalli Arun Kumar and Jayaprakash Narayan. The really entertaining programme continues to be the political spoof run by TV9 called ‘Evari gola varidi”
Looking at the political scenario in Andhra Pradesh, one wonders what would happen if there is no coverage for some of the political activities that are cropping up across the state. One has repeatedly seen a handful of people burning effigies and screaming into the cameras on tight shots and creating a false picture of the public mood. Five minutes after the event, there is no one at the scene of action. This convenience of television coverage that magnifies small events has made long-term, sustained building up of grass roots opinion unnecessary. Today it is ‘hit and run’ activism that suffices and gets the maximum mileage and instant public and policy responses. The new politician seems to understand this game too well. Now it is for the media to resist this, if it wishes to serve public interest.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Planned Inertia
Planned Inertia
One of the major recommendations of Akash Bharati, the comprehensive report that laid out the road map for the future of Indian broadcasting immediately after the Emergency, is to scrap the Broadcasting wing of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The report argued that such a wing is anomalous in a democracy where media must operate as autonomous institutions, autonomous both from the market and the state. The report of course, emphasised the importance of a Broadcasting Council to regulate and to redress grievances.
When one looks at the planned inertia of the I&B Ministry that surpasses the moral inertia of the media industry, one is compelled to think that no ministry would have been better than a ministry that chooses to abdicate all its crucial regulatory obligations.
What are the regulatory obligations?
One, ownership: From the days of the First Press Commission, the ownership of media has been a matter of debate. Several commissions and expert groups have raised the problem of money from other businesses financing media enterprises primarily to generate a favourable policy environment and to promote friendly political actors to serve this purpose. Today, with the phenomenal and haphazard expansion of the media industry, it is clear that a large part of the investment into media is not just from the real economy as in the earlier phase, but from dubious sources – speculative finance, real estate and other parts of the ‘parallel’ economy. There is also a strong enmeshing of political interests in this. When a newspaper is started or when a television channel is started, is it not the responsibility of the licensing authority to examine the sources of finance and the antecedents of the promoters?
The state is constantly juggling with the FDI figures, is it 20%, should it be 26%, or is it better if it is 100%? Perhaps it is time to define what the colour of this money is, in addition to the percentage or whether it is from internal or external sources (is it ok if the investment comes from Indian mafia and not from overseas?). Is this like a ‘Christie’s auction’ (or a Swiss bank account) that the state chooses to accept known fronts acting on behalf of ‘unknown’ backers? The recent statements of the Minister for I&B promising greater scrutiny of applications for news channel licenses should have been policy rather than an after thought. And then, what about those licensees who are already ruling the airwaves? Media licenses are given to dubious business/political interests who are already under a cloud.
Two, advertising: Advertising has always been seen as a legitimate source of revenue for media. News to advertisement ratio/ price-page schedule is a dead idea, maligned and killed by the media industry. Today, glossies, newspapers, some news channels and movie channels, all carry disproportionate number of advertisements and without adequate gap between spells. Shouldn’t there be specific rules to define the amount of advertising, kind of advertising and the manner in which it is shown?
In the entertainment sector, channels routinely show paid promotional programming for building hype about some films, often by way of discussion programmes on the issues in a film with the stars from the films participating. The half an hour slots that promote hotels, stores and other commercial establishments that are obviously sponsored by the owners are shown without clarifying that the programming is paid for. The problem in such cases is, the viewer does not know that the praise heaped on the films or establishments is not neutral/fair judgement of the channel. Shouldn’t there be mandatory disclaimer next to the station logo that the programme is paid for?
Today, the arena for product and corporate promotion is not confined to advertising space alone, but has infiltrated the news columns. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon is the rampant virus of ‘paid news’ during elections. But the malaise is so wide spread that news gathering in normal times over the last several years is also being done for some monetary or other consideration and rarely ever on the merit of the event or issue. This is widely known and managed by those who seek publicity. False celebrities and dubious talent abound on the best channels and newspapers. A politician’s mediocre poetry here, a pathetic designer line from a celebrity there, is all part of the fare. There is a conspiracy of silence about this as well, as it was about ‘paid news’. The Unions of Journalists are helpless in dealing with this as the culprits are from among their own ranks. Should there be some form of registration of practitioners by an independent, professional Media Council (like the Bar Council or the Medical Council) with the threat of deregistration for unethical practices?
As far as the pay channels are concerned, two other important issues need to be debated:
1. Some paid entertainment channels earn subscription revenues and go on to advertise on the channels far in excess of the 12 minutes per hour limit (an unwritten rule followed by channels in general). The movie watching experience of the viewer is of no particular concern to the channels. The viewer is paying directly (through subscription) and indirectly (by watching ads) for the same content and is forced to accept poor quality viewing experience to accommodate the channels’ desire to make more money. Any one who has attempted to watch a two and a half hour feature film on TV will vouch for this. It would take nothing less than four hours or more to watch.
The Television Without Frontiers Directive adopted by EEC and the UK limit advertising to 20% or (12 minutes) in any clock hour. The Directive also defines the number and nature of breaks in programmes – a) in films, news and current affairs programmes, and documentaries breaks should be limited to one for every period of 30 minutes; b) and children’s programmes, one break is allowed only in a programme of more than 30 minutes duration. The TWF states that ‘in order that the interests of the consumers and TV viewers are fully protected, it is essential for television advertising to be subject to a certain number of minimum rules and standards…’ Since 1950s UK also has the system of pre-viewing and approving all advertising shown on broadcast television. No such worldview seems to prevail in India.
2. The channels promote magic remedies like lucky stones and astrological solutions that clearly violate the Cable Act and also the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Some of these ads run close to five minutes at a time and are being routinely shown on television channels.
“In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India the Supreme Court was faced with the question as to whether the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, which put restrictions on the advertisements of drugs in certain cases and prohibited advertisements of drugs having magic qualities for curing diseases, was valid as it curbed the freedom of speech and expression of a person by imposing restrictions on advertisements. The Supreme Court held that, an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech and expression but every advertisement is not a matter dealing with the expression of ideas and hence advertisement of a commercial nature cannot fall within the concept of Article 19(1)(a)”. (cited from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/media.htm)
The major paradox of this game of course is, there is no content code in place for the channels (which are threatening to self-regulate), while the Cable Act has all the necessary clauses about superstitious content and promotion of magic remedies. Are the channels free to air objectionable material, but it’s the cable guy who gets the stick for showing it (of course, right now it is one big unregulated delinquency fest for both the carriers and the channels)?.
The Ministry of I&B has made specific efforts to implement the Cable Act by asking the state governments to constitute state and district level monitoring committees. It is not clear whether such committees are constituted, how often they meet and what transpires at the meetings. The Information wings are also required to give wide publicity to the existence of the committees to get feedback from the public. A crucial requirement however is left out – the need to conduct meetings regularly, to put the complaints received and detailed minutes of the meetings on the I&B Ministry’s web site.
Three, news content: During political crises, such as the Andhra/ Telangana protests, the electronic media loop the most disturbing bits of footage and repeat them several hundred times in the span of a single day, often without masking the “LIVE” legend on the corner of the screen. Some of the most provocative statements from both sides of the argument are taken and run repeatedly. In the context of the lumpenised, criminalised politics of Andhra Pradesh, this is completely irresponsible as the lower level activists of all parties are on the streets to provoke and drive passions up rather than to engage in rational debate. As part of content regulation, this must be stopped. If the channels are short of fresh footage, it should be their problem to make the news interesting by other means and not by repeating a ‘two second’ act into a 24 hour event. The frenetic unthinking verbal onslaught of ‘live reports’ by untrained and combative reporters speeds up the befuddlement. ‘Live’ reports sound like the running commentary at the Deccan Derby without the language skills or the sense of purpose! Channels must also be prohibited from packaging news footage with music and sentimental songs and repeating the footage ad nauseum. Violation of the rules must be penalised with fines.
There are some regional channels which have specialised in lighting fires of conflict in league with the political vested interests, and then once the events take on a life of their own on the street, cash-in on it further. Some media houses no longer just report news. They make it happen, much of it by speculating about future actions (predicting violence; falsely attributing deaths to causes/events; anticipating and goading suicides).
The case in point is the much-publicised event of K Chandrasekhar Rao visiting TV9 to donate for their flood relief work. KCR was in political wilderness after the Lok Sabha elections. After his public donation, TV9 took the opportunity of putting him live on air (three anchors took turns) to hold forth on a range of issues from his personal habits to national politics. This coup on one channel was followed by other channels, each giving KCR the opportunity to answer phone-in queries and clarify his stand on matters public and private. The channels began giving extensive coverage to his proposed fast unto death and the rest, as they say, is history. Should the media houses be allowed to raise funds and relief? Not just TV9 but other channels and newspapers also did the same. What is the accountability and repercussions of this, and primarily is it the role of the media houses?
According to TV9’s own mission statement:
Electronic media today appear to be the ‘single biggest threat’ to the internal security of the country (to borrow a phrase from the PM) and its democratic traditions, by whipping up passions around issues that require sensitive handling.
After 26/11 one would have thought the state would have gotten its act together and come up with an independent media regulator to take charge of the media industry and bring it back on track. That was reason enough.
The commercial media operate and behave like hardcore businesses, but when it comes to regulation, they wish to be treated with kid gloves as they claim to serve the values of free speech. The legendary Mexican peasant leader Emiliano Zapata described free market as ‘free foxes among free chickens.’ If those with economic muscle buy up advertising and news space for their own promotion and deliberately falsify the public discourse with media as willing vehicles profiteering from this process, does the media industry still believe it has the right to seek special privileges under the freedom of speech clause? More importantly, what should the moral authority of the state protect - the citizen’s right to ethical journalism or the media’s right to sell its soul?
The recent ‘will they, won’t they’ saga of content regulation by I&B Ministry and the nervous response to the need for an independent regulator for broadcast industry that has teeth (unlike the Press Council of India) is a telling example of the state’s abdication of its moral responsibility to enforce a cleaner media environment. If you want to protect a modicum of the freedom of the chickens to a safe existence, you will need to restrain some freedoms of the foxes, especially since we are not in a jungle but claim to be a part of a ‘civilized democracy’.
One of the major recommendations of Akash Bharati, the comprehensive report that laid out the road map for the future of Indian broadcasting immediately after the Emergency, is to scrap the Broadcasting wing of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The report argued that such a wing is anomalous in a democracy where media must operate as autonomous institutions, autonomous both from the market and the state. The report of course, emphasised the importance of a Broadcasting Council to regulate and to redress grievances.
When one looks at the planned inertia of the I&B Ministry that surpasses the moral inertia of the media industry, one is compelled to think that no ministry would have been better than a ministry that chooses to abdicate all its crucial regulatory obligations.
What are the regulatory obligations?
One, ownership: From the days of the First Press Commission, the ownership of media has been a matter of debate. Several commissions and expert groups have raised the problem of money from other businesses financing media enterprises primarily to generate a favourable policy environment and to promote friendly political actors to serve this purpose. Today, with the phenomenal and haphazard expansion of the media industry, it is clear that a large part of the investment into media is not just from the real economy as in the earlier phase, but from dubious sources – speculative finance, real estate and other parts of the ‘parallel’ economy. There is also a strong enmeshing of political interests in this. When a newspaper is started or when a television channel is started, is it not the responsibility of the licensing authority to examine the sources of finance and the antecedents of the promoters?
The state is constantly juggling with the FDI figures, is it 20%, should it be 26%, or is it better if it is 100%? Perhaps it is time to define what the colour of this money is, in addition to the percentage or whether it is from internal or external sources (is it ok if the investment comes from Indian mafia and not from overseas?). Is this like a ‘Christie’s auction’ (or a Swiss bank account) that the state chooses to accept known fronts acting on behalf of ‘unknown’ backers? The recent statements of the Minister for I&B promising greater scrutiny of applications for news channel licenses should have been policy rather than an after thought. And then, what about those licensees who are already ruling the airwaves? Media licenses are given to dubious business/political interests who are already under a cloud.
Two, advertising: Advertising has always been seen as a legitimate source of revenue for media. News to advertisement ratio/ price-page schedule is a dead idea, maligned and killed by the media industry. Today, glossies, newspapers, some news channels and movie channels, all carry disproportionate number of advertisements and without adequate gap between spells. Shouldn’t there be specific rules to define the amount of advertising, kind of advertising and the manner in which it is shown?
In the entertainment sector, channels routinely show paid promotional programming for building hype about some films, often by way of discussion programmes on the issues in a film with the stars from the films participating. The half an hour slots that promote hotels, stores and other commercial establishments that are obviously sponsored by the owners are shown without clarifying that the programming is paid for. The problem in such cases is, the viewer does not know that the praise heaped on the films or establishments is not neutral/fair judgement of the channel. Shouldn’t there be mandatory disclaimer next to the station logo that the programme is paid for?
Today, the arena for product and corporate promotion is not confined to advertising space alone, but has infiltrated the news columns. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon is the rampant virus of ‘paid news’ during elections. But the malaise is so wide spread that news gathering in normal times over the last several years is also being done for some monetary or other consideration and rarely ever on the merit of the event or issue. This is widely known and managed by those who seek publicity. False celebrities and dubious talent abound on the best channels and newspapers. A politician’s mediocre poetry here, a pathetic designer line from a celebrity there, is all part of the fare. There is a conspiracy of silence about this as well, as it was about ‘paid news’. The Unions of Journalists are helpless in dealing with this as the culprits are from among their own ranks. Should there be some form of registration of practitioners by an independent, professional Media Council (like the Bar Council or the Medical Council) with the threat of deregistration for unethical practices?
As far as the pay channels are concerned, two other important issues need to be debated:
1. Some paid entertainment channels earn subscription revenues and go on to advertise on the channels far in excess of the 12 minutes per hour limit (an unwritten rule followed by channels in general). The movie watching experience of the viewer is of no particular concern to the channels. The viewer is paying directly (through subscription) and indirectly (by watching ads) for the same content and is forced to accept poor quality viewing experience to accommodate the channels’ desire to make more money. Any one who has attempted to watch a two and a half hour feature film on TV will vouch for this. It would take nothing less than four hours or more to watch.
The Television Without Frontiers Directive adopted by EEC and the UK limit advertising to 20% or (12 minutes) in any clock hour. The Directive also defines the number and nature of breaks in programmes – a) in films, news and current affairs programmes, and documentaries breaks should be limited to one for every period of 30 minutes; b) and children’s programmes, one break is allowed only in a programme of more than 30 minutes duration. The TWF states that ‘in order that the interests of the consumers and TV viewers are fully protected, it is essential for television advertising to be subject to a certain number of minimum rules and standards…’ Since 1950s UK also has the system of pre-viewing and approving all advertising shown on broadcast television. No such worldview seems to prevail in India.
2. The channels promote magic remedies like lucky stones and astrological solutions that clearly violate the Cable Act and also the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Some of these ads run close to five minutes at a time and are being routinely shown on television channels.
“In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India the Supreme Court was faced with the question as to whether the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, which put restrictions on the advertisements of drugs in certain cases and prohibited advertisements of drugs having magic qualities for curing diseases, was valid as it curbed the freedom of speech and expression of a person by imposing restrictions on advertisements. The Supreme Court held that, an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech and expression but every advertisement is not a matter dealing with the expression of ideas and hence advertisement of a commercial nature cannot fall within the concept of Article 19(1)(a)”. (cited from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/media.htm)
The major paradox of this game of course is, there is no content code in place for the channels (which are threatening to self-regulate), while the Cable Act has all the necessary clauses about superstitious content and promotion of magic remedies. Are the channels free to air objectionable material, but it’s the cable guy who gets the stick for showing it (of course, right now it is one big unregulated delinquency fest for both the carriers and the channels)?.
The Ministry of I&B has made specific efforts to implement the Cable Act by asking the state governments to constitute state and district level monitoring committees. It is not clear whether such committees are constituted, how often they meet and what transpires at the meetings. The Information wings are also required to give wide publicity to the existence of the committees to get feedback from the public. A crucial requirement however is left out – the need to conduct meetings regularly, to put the complaints received and detailed minutes of the meetings on the I&B Ministry’s web site.
Three, news content: During political crises, such as the Andhra/ Telangana protests, the electronic media loop the most disturbing bits of footage and repeat them several hundred times in the span of a single day, often without masking the “LIVE” legend on the corner of the screen. Some of the most provocative statements from both sides of the argument are taken and run repeatedly. In the context of the lumpenised, criminalised politics of Andhra Pradesh, this is completely irresponsible as the lower level activists of all parties are on the streets to provoke and drive passions up rather than to engage in rational debate. As part of content regulation, this must be stopped. If the channels are short of fresh footage, it should be their problem to make the news interesting by other means and not by repeating a ‘two second’ act into a 24 hour event. The frenetic unthinking verbal onslaught of ‘live reports’ by untrained and combative reporters speeds up the befuddlement. ‘Live’ reports sound like the running commentary at the Deccan Derby without the language skills or the sense of purpose! Channels must also be prohibited from packaging news footage with music and sentimental songs and repeating the footage ad nauseum. Violation of the rules must be penalised with fines.
There are some regional channels which have specialised in lighting fires of conflict in league with the political vested interests, and then once the events take on a life of their own on the street, cash-in on it further. Some media houses no longer just report news. They make it happen, much of it by speculating about future actions (predicting violence; falsely attributing deaths to causes/events; anticipating and goading suicides).
The case in point is the much-publicised event of K Chandrasekhar Rao visiting TV9 to donate for their flood relief work. KCR was in political wilderness after the Lok Sabha elections. After his public donation, TV9 took the opportunity of putting him live on air (three anchors took turns) to hold forth on a range of issues from his personal habits to national politics. This coup on one channel was followed by other channels, each giving KCR the opportunity to answer phone-in queries and clarify his stand on matters public and private. The channels began giving extensive coverage to his proposed fast unto death and the rest, as they say, is history. Should the media houses be allowed to raise funds and relief? Not just TV9 but other channels and newspapers also did the same. What is the accountability and repercussions of this, and primarily is it the role of the media houses?
According to TV9’s own mission statement:
The news is a very powerful source of communication and during times of need it is necessary that the channel be a source of crucial information for those in need. Therefore, our disaster coverage will be designed to help people in distress, and all criticism and negative commentary will be withheld until after the incident has been sufficiently resolved.Every word of the mission was violated during recent coverage of floods in Andhra Pradesh.
Electronic media today appear to be the ‘single biggest threat’ to the internal security of the country (to borrow a phrase from the PM) and its democratic traditions, by whipping up passions around issues that require sensitive handling.
After 26/11 one would have thought the state would have gotten its act together and come up with an independent media regulator to take charge of the media industry and bring it back on track. That was reason enough.
The commercial media operate and behave like hardcore businesses, but when it comes to regulation, they wish to be treated with kid gloves as they claim to serve the values of free speech. The legendary Mexican peasant leader Emiliano Zapata described free market as ‘free foxes among free chickens.’ If those with economic muscle buy up advertising and news space for their own promotion and deliberately falsify the public discourse with media as willing vehicles profiteering from this process, does the media industry still believe it has the right to seek special privileges under the freedom of speech clause? More importantly, what should the moral authority of the state protect - the citizen’s right to ethical journalism or the media’s right to sell its soul?
The recent ‘will they, won’t they’ saga of content regulation by I&B Ministry and the nervous response to the need for an independent regulator for broadcast industry that has teeth (unlike the Press Council of India) is a telling example of the state’s abdication of its moral responsibility to enforce a cleaner media environment. If you want to protect a modicum of the freedom of the chickens to a safe existence, you will need to restrain some freedoms of the foxes, especially since we are not in a jungle but claim to be a part of a ‘civilized democracy’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)