MIGHT IS RIGHT and the DEVIL TAKE the HINDMOST? Content on Indian Television Is Nowadays Considered Hyped Or Sensational, Both for Entertainment and News Programmes
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RIND SeptemberSurvey 2018 | Volume 39| Issue 9| Rs 50 www.pressinstitute.in A Journal of the Press Institute of India - Research Institute for Newspaper Development MIGHT IS RIGHT AND THE DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST? Content on Indian television is nowadays considered hyped or sensational, both for entertainment and news programmes. The no holds barred fight for television rating points or TRPs, cut-throat competition and dependence on advertising revenue has badly muddied the sector. To make matters worse, structural inefficiencies, lack of transparency and political involvement have contributed to the cheapening of media content. And there is no independent regulator. So, who can be made responsible for broadcast content regulation in India? Nobody is really keen on the government playing a role. Can the media itself be made responsible for content regulation? Read the lead article on page 6. 1 FROM THE EDITOR Cheapening of media content – is self-regulation really working? n recent years, there’s always been an element of how they mostly operate with commercial motives. hype associated with television news programmes. Unpleasant visuals are shown on television and IThe advent of ‘breaking news’ and labelling any controversial and fundamentalist issues are raised, all bit of news as ‘breaking’ started it all. Then arrived for the sake of gaining better viewership, improving news anchors who banked on the theatrical, each TRPs and revenue. Television anchors try to hog all channel reiterating that it was the first with the news, the attention, speaking on and on, not allowing others and then prime-time news debates that often turned to speak, and, oftentimes it would seem, driving the out to be nasty little slugfests. It is not, therefore, debate in a certain direction. Although the print surprising that over time, viewers have come to media fares far better, it no longer commands the learn and understand that Indian television news respect it once did – the result of a deficit in trust and (entertainment programmes, too) and sensationalism credibility. Many journalists do not take criticism well, go hand in hand. In a cut-throat world of TRPs even constructive criticism. Like Venkataraman says, (television rating points) and the competition for it’s almost like journalists and owners of media houses advertisements, ethical standards have plummeted. do not seem to care. So, are business interests of Many do not like watching TV anymore. As P.N. utmost priority? Are not journalists accountable in Vasanti, director-general at the Centre for Media any way? Studies, says, the overall structural inefficiencies, lack of transparency and political involvement have anroland web systems and Goss International, contributed to the cheapening of media content. mboth long-time web offset printing Strange as it may seem, there is no independent manufacturers and service providers, have announced regulator for television. Channels can literally show that they have merged their businesses. The new what they want. Indeed, the general feeling (expressed company will be called manroland Goss web systems. in Parliament as well) is that broadcasters are testing Alexander Wassermann, CEO of manroland web the limits and laws of the country through provocative systems, will be CEO of the new company with programmes. The Information and Broadcasting its global headquarters in Augsburg, Germany. He Ministry is dealing with several legal cases and there is convinced that the “sustainable path to success” are court orders calling for an objective content code will be strengthened “by increasing our global reach, that can be easily implemented. The Cable Television continuing our innovative and focused R&D activities, Networks Regulation Act (1995) is seen as too vague and enhancing our market presence through targeted and subjective. To develop guidelines that were consolidation”. The goal is to support customer “clear, objective and easily implementable”, towards performance with a “best of the best” approach. the end of 2005, the Ministry of Information and Best wishes to the new entity. Broadcasting set up a committee to discuss the kind of content regulation to be adopted for the Sashi Nair broadcasting sector, mainly television. Vasanti was [email protected] part of the committee. In the lead article here, she talks about the consensus that emerged, that the media itself ought to be ultimately responsible for content regulation. n another article, N.S. Venkataraman echoes similar Iviews – about how today, in India, most sections of the media, whether print or visual, are owned by politicians, business houses or religious bodies and September 2018 3 September 2018 | Volume 39 | Issue 9 Balance of innovation, accountability needed 6 By P.N. Vasanti Are journalists in India above the law? 10 By N.S. Venkataraman All India Radio shifting to new technology 12 By Pulgurutha Chandra Sekhar VR billboards, or how to make money from 360 video 16 By Nick Tjaardstra (a World News Publishing Focus article) Calcutta – where Hindi journalism took root 20 By Mrinal Chatterjee An outstanding, brave journalist who was a reliable interpreter 28 By Shastri Ramachandran Industry Updates 32 Events Calendar 41 Cover page illustration: Arun Ramkumar C o n t e s 4 September 2018 CONTENT REGULATION DISCOURSE Balance of innovation, accountability needed The escalation of sensationalism in both news and entertainment programmes aired on Indian television has turned the spotlight on the need for regulation. Self-regulation, which does not infringe on the rights of free speech and free press, seems the most acceptable option. P.N. Vasanti discusses what it entails ndian television has become notorious for its was seen as too vague and subjective. Therefore, the sensational content, both in entertainment and purpose was to develop guidelines that were clear, Inews programmes. As a result of an inadequate objective and easily implementable. and opaque TRP (television rating point) system, However, when the discussions began, issues there has been intense competition and dependence were raised about how these guidelines would be on advertising revenue in this sector. The overall implemented, leading to the question of who would structural inefficiencies, lack of transparency and be responsible for content regulation in India. The political involvement have contributed to the ghost of the Emergency period was always present cheapening of media content. In addition, there is no at the meetings. Consequently, government’s role in independent regulator for this sector. regulation was constantly disputed. Content regulation has unpleasant connotations in The debate included ethical and moral issues. India, mostly due to the atrocities committed on the After long drawn discussions, a consensus emerged media during the Emergency period in the late 1970s. that the media itself ought to be ultimately It took numerous judicial verdicts, heated arguments in responsible for content regulation. While it was Parliament and agitations by civil society organisations acknowledged that intense competition and the against the gross, titillating and contentious content need to boost revenue lead to programmes that do on Indian television channels for the debate on the not uphold ethics and standards, especially since subject to be resumed in 2005. the entry barriers for broadcasting enterprises had Towards the end of 2005, the Ministry of been lowered, there was an understanding that an Information and Broadcasting set up a committee to independent authority could intervene in content discuss the kind of content regulation to be adopted issues if broadcasters failed to regulate themselves. for the broadcasting sector, mainly television. I was After many versions and discussions, the report a part of this committee along with more than 30 submitted by the committee to the Ministry in 2008 representatives from almost all sectors, including focused on the responsibility of broadcasters to follow industry, civil society and government. The committee the code of ethics and standards in the true spirit had six meetings over almost three years. There were of self-regulation. It was a simple 24-page document more intensive and frequent sessions within sub- (Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting group set up to draft the guidelines. Sector, 2008) divided into two sections. In line with the sentiments expressed in Parliament, Section I comprises a brief introduction, principles the general feeling was that broadcasters were of regulation and the self-regulatory system that testing the limits and laws of the country through could help ensure ethics and standards, including provocative programmes. In fact, the Information mechanisms for complaint redress. It provides and Broadcasting Ministry was dealing with several a context and purpose for the guidelines. The legal cases and there were court orders calling for an responsibility for self-regulation is on the broadcaster. objective content code that could be easily implemented. The mechanism section outlines the roles, powers and The Cable Television Networks Regulation Act (1995) jurisdiction of the three critical players: broadcasters, 6 September 2018 bodies representing the media industry and the come into the picture only when a complaint or independent regulator (the proposed Broadcasting petition was not resolved by the other two tiers. Regulatory Authority of India or BRAI mentioned This proposed system is one of ‘co-regulation’ rather