futility of AN advisory on government TV channels

Directly, the Advisor reiterated the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to prohibit Central and State Government Ministries and Departments, their companies or joint ventures from entering the business of broadcasting and distribution of TV channels over several years. . , The advisory said that the Ministry of Law and Justice supported the views of TRAI.

Media industry watchers, however, said the advisory is for some state governments, some of which are running TV channels. “Quite frankly, the opposition-ruled states of Tamil Nadu/Telangana/Andhra Pradesh and Kerala are being targeted as the country is in constant election mode, and state-owned channels have an impact on regional public opinion. Among others, Arasu Cable in Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu government’s Kalvi TV, and AP government’s IP TV channel AP Fiber News may be affected by using AP government’s fiber to home network,” said Ashok Mansukhani, corporate and media advocate.

However, he said the recommendations in the MIB note seem ineffective. Mansukhani said that routing channels through Prasar Bharati has no legal backing as it is not authorized under any law currently in force. “The idea of ​​ensuring that education channels are run only through Prasar Bharati has implications for centre-state relations and the true spirit of federalism because theoretically, if Prasar Bharati follows political, ideological direction, it can refuse to run an educational program which is politically or ideologically not suitable for certain sections in opposition to the philosophy of the State Government,” he said.

He said Media Advisor and Principal Provocator Advisory Paritosh Joshi said that there is no point in asking for sending channels through Prasar Bharati as the public broadcaster since its inception has almost always acted like a branch of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. have behaved. He said, “It is no more than a state broadcaster in contrast to the idea of ​​a public broadcaster, as revealed by, say, the BBC or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Australia, which are virtually independent of the state. “

Interestingly, last month, Deccan Herald reported that the Ministry of Women and Child Development may soon have its own TV channel which will be available on all DTH and social media platforms. Mansukhani pointed out that if the news report is accurate, it appears to be aimed at contrary with recent advice, unless the instructions are aimed only at opposition governments, in which case it is a dead letter, Mansukhani pointed out.

“Our politicians openly own the channels and will not stop doing so. If the government is seriously planning to implement this advisory, changes will need to be made to the downlinking and uplinking regulations. Not only this, the issues of freedom of speech and expression and constitutional freedom to do business under Article 19(1)(a) can and will arise at an appropriate time.”

The advisory issued mentions that government entities are “requested” to comply. “Obviously, they haven’t been instructed. If it was a mandate, they would have to show some legal provision under which they can exercise this authority. In the absence of that, all they can do is show it.” One can create an advisory as currently they do not have any mechanism to implement it,” Joshi pointed out.

Also, the advisory does not mention any web-based broadcast, such as live streaming on YouTube or Facebook, that governments are increasingly using to reach people.

So while there may be a desire to control some state-run channels, the government note carries little weight and is likely to be overlooked by the entities it was intended to be. The idea of ​​implementing it is like whistling in the dark.

Suchi Bansal is the Media, Marketing and Advertising Editor of Mint. The Ordinary Post will look into the important issues related to the three. Or just fun stuff.