The central government’s revised guidelines for uplinking and downlinking of satellite TV channels lay down norms and make advisories that are aimed at making India a ‘teleport hub for other countries.’ But they also include one section which is controversial and contentious and would challenge freedom of the media on an ambiguous pretext.
According to the clause, TV channels must devote at least 30 minutes every day to content designed to promote “public service and national interest.”
It will be obligatory for TV channels to telecast such content on eight themes — education and spread of literacy, agriculture and rural development, health and family welfare, science and technology, welfare of women, welfare of the weaker sections of society, protection of environment and of cultural heritage; and national integration. The justification given is that “airwaves/frequencies are public property and need to be used in the best interest of the society.”
The choice of the eight themes in the advisory is, on the face of it, unobjectionable, and so is the idea of promoting ‘national interest.’ But ‘national interest’ means different things for different institutions and individuals in a democracy.
For the government, it may mean the promotion of its own programmes and ideology; for the ruling party, it may mean the promotion of its own partisan views on issues.
For journalists and the media, the dictum is to question the very nature of ‘national interest’, the government’s view of it, the methods of achieving it, and even where one may agree with the government’s view of it, to expose its failings in achieving it. But as per the advisory, it is the government which will be the arbiter and it “may from time to time, issue a general advisory to the channels for telecast of content in national interest, and the channel shall comply with the same.” Any channel found to be non-compliant would be asked for an explanation. It follows that there would be action.
The government has said that the channels can “appropriately modulate their content to fulfil the obligation”, but it is certain that it will monitor how they do it. The warning about non-compliance means that. This can lead to a situation in which channels will have to do “positive” programmes about government policies and schemes and toe the government line in the name of national interest. The move brings back memories of what the government media did and newspapers were forced to do during the Emergency for the sake of “development and discipline.” The government would be well advised to let the media function freely. For public service telecast and programmes, it has its own vast apparatus of radio and television at its disposal.