23 Jul 13 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features, Politics and Society
As talk in India turns to media plurality and regulation, attention is turning to murky ownership structures and monopolistic practices. But some see the government’s moves as attempts to muzzle the press.
In May 2012, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India got a new boss – a retired bureaucrat named Rahul Khullar, who has the unenviable job of not just sorting out 2011’s 2G scam that hit Indian telecom sector hard, but also trying to ensure that the growth of the Indian media is “plural and diverse”.
In what has become a controversial interview, Khullar suggested bringing regulation to control cross-media ownership in India, suggesting that a single entity should be restricted to owning only one or two types of media carriage. “We are not talking about content but carriage.” he said in an interview to The Hindu.
India’s largest media houses, including Sun TV, Star India and the Essel Group, own multiple media platforms. In fact some media houses are so huge, with complicated and largely hidden ownership structures, that it can be unclear who really owns the company. The Indian media has been covering this subject heavily since the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting asked channels to disclose their equity structures as a results of the Saradha scam in West Bengal where businessmen were running news channels at the behest of politicians. Independent news portals have been trying to disclose ownership details on their sites, revealing that many politicians partly own the news channels/papers that report on them, as do big industrial houses, mostly unknown to citizens.
Khullar’s suggestion has been drawn from telecom regulator TRAI’s recent consultation paper on cross media ownership which has suggested that media houses investing in all forms — television, print, and radio — has led to “horizontal integration,” and asked whether there ought to be safeguards to curb this monopolistic growth. The lack of these checks, it believes, is the reason why broadcasters have become “politically backed entities for distribution of their channels in that region.”
Overwhelmingly, the media industry has reacted negatively at the suggestion of being regulated. In an passionate argument, the Times of India’s Executive Editor, suggests that this latest move by TRAI is part of a larger play by the government of India to muzzle the media following its active role in exposing many scams in the last few years – some which have ended with cabinet ministers in jail. Drawing a line between regulating ownership and accountability, the article points out that India has over 80,000 plus publications and 800 channels, thereby showing extreme plurality already.
Others, such as the opinionated online magazine Firspost – owned by Network18 which is partly funded by the corporate giant, Reliance Group – has argued against this move from a media freedom point of view. It argues that corporate houses have the constitutional right to own media houses and that, “one reason why corporate houses enter the picture relates to the non-viability of many traditional media houses. If they didn’t bankroll the media, many journalists would lose their jobs. So to label corporates as villains when they are actually white knights in some cases is wrong.”
In another interview with Mint, the TRAI chairman clarified that, “in many countries you have absolute bans. Some people just cannot own a newspaper, for instance, an advertising agency cannot own a newspaper. There are pure entry issues. Then there are safeguards—like the 2×3 rule. In virtually all jurisdictions, if you own a newspaper and a TV station, you cannot own radio stations.”
However, the most compelling argument against this suggestion, made by Firstpost, but also others, is the question of the internet; that TV and print are fast merging with the internet, and in that in reality, it would be tough to restrict media ownership to only two platforms. While TRAI has no ready answers, its consultation paper on cross media ownership stipulates that any future rules on the subject must include broadcasting, print and new media.
At the same time, the crux of the matter — “It is, therefore, important that an arm‘s length distance is ensured between the media and organs of governance, political institutions and other entities which have a profound sway over public opinion” – is addressed in the paper, by suggesting that political bodies, religious bodies, government departments and ministries, urban and local bodies and state governments should not be permitted to enter the business of broadcasting and/or distribution of TV channels.
There can be no doubt that in India, corporate and political interests have invested heavily in the media. The Economist carried a story in June 2013 about the condition of TV news in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, stating – “every large party in the state now has an affiliated station, often owned or co-owned by the party leader’s followers or relatives.” It talks of the Sun Group, a Chennai-based conglomerate with 32 TV channels and 45 radio stations. Sun, which is run by former Tamil Nadu chief minister M. Karunanidhi’s grand-nephew, and also owns one of the more lucrative parts of the television industry—a cable-distribution network. This is exactly the kind of media monopoly TRAI is looking to break, or at the very least, limit.
However, is the way forward to diverse news to limit the growth of media empires, even if they do tend to be monopolistic? How does the state broadcaster, both over TV and radio, fit into this model? Is it better to focus on regulating ownership or content to ensure citizens get a plurality of voices? There is already a parallel debate on media regulation in the country to ensure that the content reaching Indians is not paid for by vested interests and is clearly identified when it is. And finally, is TRAI’s solution take away corporate control and hand it over to the State?
These are questions India must grapple with very carefully, if it aims to retain press freedom – already perilously at 140 on the Press Freedom Index, 2013.
Mahima Kaul is a New Delhi-based writer and a Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, India. She tweets @misskaul
04 Jun 13 | India
Recent decisions by India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting have raised questions about the country’s approach to broadcasting regulation. Mahima Kaul reports
Comedy Central ran afoul of India’s Ministry of Information for broadcasting content considered obscene.
Both Comedy Central India and Fashion TV were slapped with 10-day suspension notices for violating the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995. The reasons for the ban – listed in a detailed letter by a ministry official – included offending good taste, obscenity, injuring public morality and denigrating women.
Two Comedy Central programs in particular drew the government action. French prank show, Popcorn, and a stand-up comedy showcase. The French program featured simulated sex with a dummy. The suspension began on 25 May and was appealed by the station’s operator, joint venture Viacom 18 Media. The ban was initially upheld, but lift after a second appeal on 28 May.
Fashion TV drew a 10-day ban after it aired obscene content that included models in lingerie with their buttocks fully exposed.
In appealing its ban, Comedy Central pointed out it is a niche channel catering to a sliver of the English speaking public in India. The broadcaster believes that its viewers will not be offended by the programming it airs.
The government says it is trying to walk a fine line between freedom of expression and vulgarity. Finding that line is difficult in a country that has gone so far as to ban mannequins dressed in underwear in Mumbai shops because the displays lead to a “pollution of minds in today’s generation.”
India’s broadcasters see self-regulation as the way forward, and as a result, interference from the government is met with a harsh backlash. Currently, public complaints against general entertainment channels are funneled to the channels through avenues such as the industry-led Broadcast Content Complaints Council. In fact, the BCCC has a list of published “self-regulation guidelines” on its site which are open to the public. The list of topics that people can complain includes kissing, nudity and sex. In fact, a look at BCCC’s action-taken documents show the body has evenly protected channels as much as it has taken them to task for their content. This includes Comedy Central in the past. However, experts believe that the body has been lenient on its members because their interest lies in letting their programming go unopposed — as it stands today. Self regulation in India is under scrutiny, with even the judiciary asking the BCCC to pull up its socks in the past.
In the present case of the Comedy Central ban, the government had issued a notice to Comedy Central last June to which the channel responded a month later, saying it had taken a “serious note of all concerns”. However, with repeated offenses, an Inter-Ministerial Committee decided to impose the ban as punishment. The government believes the channel has failed to self regulate and follow applicable programme codes, and therefore the penalty must be imposed.
Comedy Central believes the government should have gone through the BCCC instead of direct action from the ministry.
Three things emerge in this case. The first is that the nature of the complaints as well as the public backlash at any action against channels reveals the very contradictory nature of India’s viewing public right now. The second is that if, as most channels agree, self-regulation is the best way forward, then the government might want to rely on the industry for disciplinary action, even though it has the power to impose bans. The third is that the industry should hear the government loud and clear: if self regulation is not working, it intends to step in.
21 May 13 | Asia and Pacific, Digital Freedom
The Indian government has been implementing a system to track and access calls, texts, and online activities. Mahima Kaul reports from Delhi that the Central Monitoring System (CMS) will be used by tax authorities and India’s National Investigation Authority to fight terror-related crimes.
Opposition to the surveillance system have now launched an online petition against it. Opponents say that while the system can be used to halt terror attacks and other violence, the government will primarily use it to police hate speech and criticism of authorities. They point to the government’s track record of arresting its online critics under Section 66A of the IT Act.
As with any conversation on state policing, cyber terrorism and warfare, there is extreme nervousness about institutional frameworks, as they should be built for protection of civil liberties as much as for national security. India’s CMS was established in the aftermath of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and according to information released at the time its purpose was to provide “central and regional databases to help central and state-level enforcement agencies intercept and monitor communications” as well as “direct electronic provisioning of target numbers by government agencies without any intervention from telecom service providers.” The government is spending about $75 million to build the system. The minister for information and technology, Milind Deora, reassured the parliament that the system would “lawfully intercept Internet and phone services.”
This claim needs to be further examined. In India, phone tapping laws come under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It was amended in 2007 after a high profile court case giving only the Union and State Home Secretaries the power to order interception of any messages. However, given that communication has increasingly shifted online — including phone calls made via Skype and other VoIP mediums — this communication now comes under Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
Commentators have pointed out that the broad powers included in the act — any government official or policeman can listen to phone calls, emails, SMSs without a warrant — are in clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This means that the government has the power to easily violate a citizen’s guaranteed right to privacy — in the name of security.
There’s also another pressing question to consider when examining the CMS: who will oversee the body to ensure that there are checks and balances? Intelligence agencies don’t come under parliamentary oversight as of yet in India. A bill entitled Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, introduced in parliament in 2011 has been shelved by the Prime Minister, with the promise that a law would be formulated soon.
What seems to be a plausible way forward, given that India is building online surveillance mechanisms, is a valid legal framework for bodies like the CMS. The challenge is to ensure the citizen’s right to privacy as enshrined by the constitution is not trampled upon, and that accountability is built into these systems from the start.
