for
|
againts
|
Broadcasting
media is a
dominant
factor in the
formulation of
views and in
Influencing
people at large. It is
therefore
essential that the
viewers and
listeners have the
possibility of
getting an objective presentation of news
and
views.
|
It is
difficult to support the recommendations of TRAI
that
government or its companies, local bodies, and
political
parties be barred from owning or controlling
broadcast
channels or infrastructure.
|
The Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has
recently come
up with recommendations which, among
other things,
categorically suggest that no State
government or
State-controlled body may be permitted to
have ownership
of broadcasting or broadcast distribution
facilities.
|
Broadcasting
is a key instrument for sharing information,
opinion and
debate -- vital to governance and lives of
citizens. A
monopoly in sector, whether public or private,
goes against
public interest in information or
entertainment.
|
Government
owned media like All India Radio (AIR) and
Doordarshan (DD) is known to act as mouthpiece of the
government in
power. The presence of private news
channels, with
the advent of cable TV and DTH, has
provided the
viewer a plurality of views but even today
its reach is
limited. The reach of DD and AIR is
unmatched. Now
even state governments are launching
their own
channels. They are unlikely to ensure fair
reporting and
plurality of views. This trend should be
discouraged
and TRAI recommendations are appropriate.
|
However,
government’s monopoly in this sector is as bad
as its
deliberate exclusion. While the former suggests a
misplaced
primacy of government in today’s complex
world of
information, the latter questions its legitimacy as
even
a possible source.
|
Other
comparable democracies like the US do not have
government-owned
media. Private channels there have
not only
ensured diversity of views but also upheld the
national
interest. The picture becomes even clearer when
one compares
it with the situation prevailing in China
where
government-controlled media presents totally
biased
view of news events
|
Private
players, however good, cannot possibly exhaust
all options
that a truly informed citizen might need.
Indeed, it is
both acceptable and desirable that
government and
private sources of information compete
vigorously.
Also private channels are driven by
advertising
revenues and are not known to carry messages
of public
interest like promotion of literacy, welfare of
the girl
child, highlighting social evils like dowry and
various
welfare schemes being run for the benefit of the
poor
|
The Supreme
Court has warned against monopoly of
information
and views. Ensuring plurality of views,
opinions and a
fair and balanced presentation of news and
public issues
requires the regulator to make sure that
adequate
competition exists, while minimising misuse
possibilities.
In this regard, the Supreme Court further
implied that ‘government
control’ of a broadcast media
was bound to
colour and may even distort news, views
and
opinions.
|
While private
channels have proven their utility in
exposing
corruption and other shortcomings in
governance and
functioning of the government, they are
not beyond the
kind of media misuse government-owned
broadcasting
facilities are accused of. Pervasive
editorialising
and mobilising, by private TV channels, is
not that far
from propaganda, even if it is well-meaning.
The sector’s
own self-regulatory body has reprimanded
several
channels for inaccurate and irresponsible
broadcasts.
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment