GOVERNANCE
televising parliament
Read more...http://www.gfilesindia.com
televising parliament
Read more...http://www.gfilesindia.com
Rajya Sabha—Does it need a TV channel? One more instance of squandering public funds on an unproductive activity
by VINOD KAPOOR
THE Rajya Sabha, perhaps emboldened by the Lower House starting its own television channel in 2006, has reportedly given final shape to its long-proposed plan to have an exclusive channel similar in content, reach and purpose to the Lok Sabha one. In itself, this is not unusual. Legislatures in the UK, US and Australia are covered regularly. The problem, in the Indian context, is with each House of Parliament having its own dedicated channel.
The idea of covering Parliamentary proceedings was initially conceived by United Artists Cable, funded by a consortium of British cable operators. The Parliamentary Channel was started as a cable-exclusive channel in 1992 but its relevance, historical and archival importance soon became apparent. Owing to this and its mandate as public service broadcast, the BBC took it over in 1998. Renamed BBC Parliament, it made democratic and legislative constituents more transparent to public probity and perceptions. It also ensured Parliamentary discipline in view of the impression created among the public. The channel has since widened its scope to include programmes that have a historical or broader social significance, encompassing major events.
BBC Parliament prompted Somnath Chatterjee, then Speaker of the Lok Sabha, to propose an exclusive channel for the Lower House. LSTV, as it is known, functions from the Lok Sabha library, with budgeting and programme schedules limited to issues and events linked to Indian democracy and history. With scarce technical inputs, it seeks Doordarshan’s help for all major live coverage. It is an offshoot of the agenda and mandate embodied in the charter and codes of Doordarshan.
Public service broadcast is not an easy medium. It is a combination of segments of programming intended to educate and inform viewers. It needs, besides professional acumen, a typical spirited approach to issues, social commitment, and a penchant for reaching out to the masses with objectives akin to those of an NGO. Often, it has to confront objections and public denouncement because of its limited appeal and staid programming.
Prasar Bharati, mandated to carry this agenda since 1959, is now struggling to keep within its ambit and failing to rise in estimation. Unable to fulfil most of its objectives, its dabbling in commercial activities has earned public opprobrium. A series of scams has led to erosion of relevance and respect as a public service broadcaster. Sensing the gaps left by Doordarshan, LSTV proverbially rushed into an arena it should have feared to tread in. With few professional staffers, the baton was handed over to Bhaskar Ghose – a bureaucrat who had picked up a great deal about broadcasting as DG, Doordarshan. He prepared the initial programming frame, along the pattern of DD-III (later rechristened DD Bharati). It was a mix of concepts long jettisoned by Doordarshan: most relied on studiobased productions which are dull. So, what need is there for another Parliamentary channel? In the UK, both Houses of Parliament feature on one channel. The model could be followed in India. Creating space for an independent channel for the Upper House leaves little scope professionally too. Its content related to Indian democracy and the history of Parliament would be neither exclusive nor provide anything varied from LSTV. Since all the Parliamentary Committees include MPs from both Houses, RSTV would repeat programmes already telecast on LSTV. The issues raised would be common and the socially interactive programmes would revolve around similar themes. The proposed channel, which has a stated project cost of Rs 25 crore and will initially derive technical support from BECIL, will obviously not be able to make inroads into the limited audience, which has already been captured by Doordarshan. Also, it could be eyeing public sector funding to sustain itself and, again, the scope to cannibalize revenue would be minimal.
A flood of applicants for broadcast licences recently has forced the I&B Ministry to seek recommendations from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). With 560 licences already issued, while 250 applications await clearance, the Ministry is besieged with complaints about at least 100 channels which are non-operational or never began operations at all. TRAI, while not agreeing to spectrum shortage, recommended that stringent financial and expertise qualifications for new TV channel licence applicants be made mandatory. Under such rules, how can RSTV qualify its credentials as “expert in broadcasting”? Even the posting of an OSD to the Chairman as RSTV’s CEO has not invoked professional cheer.
MORE important, in the current political scenario, the nation is disgruntled with the political system and rampant corruption. Viewers would hardly be enthused about a channel portraying the virtues and contributions of MPs. Public apathy would not get it enough eyeballs to call itself even an educational channel.
Another serious failing, which the Rajya Sabha itself is aware of, is the bureaucracy’s overlording in a professional and technical domain. Doordarshan and, to a lesser level, LSTV have suffered from untrained bureaucrats strangling professional expression. Bhaskar Ghose, the first CEO of LSTV, has emphasized that LSTV’s major failing is the complete control over minuscule matters by the channel’s Secretary General. In media, autonomy in functioning is imperative for realization of potential.
Instead of a dedicated channel, the Rajya Sabha should have a slot on LSTV. This would avert the squandering of public funds for unproductive activity.
by VINOD KAPOOR
THE Rajya Sabha, perhaps emboldened by the Lower House starting its own television channel in 2006, has reportedly given final shape to its long-proposed plan to have an exclusive channel similar in content, reach and purpose to the Lok Sabha one. In itself, this is not unusual. Legislatures in the UK, US and Australia are covered regularly. The problem, in the Indian context, is with each House of Parliament having its own dedicated channel.
The idea of covering Parliamentary proceedings was initially conceived by United Artists Cable, funded by a consortium of British cable operators. The Parliamentary Channel was started as a cable-exclusive channel in 1992 but its relevance, historical and archival importance soon became apparent. Owing to this and its mandate as public service broadcast, the BBC took it over in 1998. Renamed BBC Parliament, it made democratic and legislative constituents more transparent to public probity and perceptions. It also ensured Parliamentary discipline in view of the impression created among the public. The channel has since widened its scope to include programmes that have a historical or broader social significance, encompassing major events.
BBC Parliament prompted Somnath Chatterjee, then Speaker of the Lok Sabha, to propose an exclusive channel for the Lower House. LSTV, as it is known, functions from the Lok Sabha library, with budgeting and programme schedules limited to issues and events linked to Indian democracy and history. With scarce technical inputs, it seeks Doordarshan’s help for all major live coverage. It is an offshoot of the agenda and mandate embodied in the charter and codes of Doordarshan.
The proposed channel, with a stated project cost of Rs 25 crore and initial technical support from BECIL, will not be able to make inroads into the limited audience, which has already been captured by Doordarshan.
Public service broadcast is not an easy medium. It is a combination of segments of programming intended to educate and inform viewers. It needs, besides professional acumen, a typical spirited approach to issues, social commitment, and a penchant for reaching out to the masses with objectives akin to those of an NGO. Often, it has to confront objections and public denouncement because of its limited appeal and staid programming.
Prasar Bharati, mandated to carry this agenda since 1959, is now struggling to keep within its ambit and failing to rise in estimation. Unable to fulfil most of its objectives, its dabbling in commercial activities has earned public opprobrium. A series of scams has led to erosion of relevance and respect as a public service broadcaster. Sensing the gaps left by Doordarshan, LSTV proverbially rushed into an arena it should have feared to tread in. With few professional staffers, the baton was handed over to Bhaskar Ghose – a bureaucrat who had picked up a great deal about broadcasting as DG, Doordarshan. He prepared the initial programming frame, along the pattern of DD-III (later rechristened DD Bharati). It was a mix of concepts long jettisoned by Doordarshan: most relied on studiobased productions which are dull. So, what need is there for another Parliamentary channel? In the UK, both Houses of Parliament feature on one channel. The model could be followed in India. Creating space for an independent channel for the Upper House leaves little scope professionally too. Its content related to Indian democracy and the history of Parliament would be neither exclusive nor provide anything varied from LSTV. Since all the Parliamentary Committees include MPs from both Houses, RSTV would repeat programmes already telecast on LSTV. The issues raised would be common and the socially interactive programmes would revolve around similar themes. The proposed channel, which has a stated project cost of Rs 25 crore and will initially derive technical support from BECIL, will obviously not be able to make inroads into the limited audience, which has already been captured by Doordarshan. Also, it could be eyeing public sector funding to sustain itself and, again, the scope to cannibalize revenue would be minimal. A flood of applicants for broadcast licences recently has forced the I&B Ministry to seek recommendations from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). With 560 licences already issued, while 250 applications await clearance, the Ministry is besieged with complaints about at least 100 channels which are non-operational or never began operations at all. TRAI, while not agreeing to spectrum shortage, recommended that stringent financial and expertise qualifications for new TV channel licence applicants be made mandatory. Under such rules, how can RSTV qualify its credentials as “expert in broadcasting”? Even the posting of an OSD to the Chairman as RSTV’s CEO has not invoked professional cheer.
The nation is disgruntled with the political system and rampant corruption. Viewers would hardly be enthused about a channel portraying the virtues and contributions of MPs.
MORE important, in the current political scenario, the nation is disgruntled with the political system and rampant corruption. Viewers would hardly be enthused about a channel portraying the virtues and contributions of MPs. Public apathy would not get it enough eyeballs to call itself even an educational channel.
Another serious failing, which the Rajya Sabha itself is aware of, is the bureaucracy’s overlording in a professional and technical domain. Doordarshan and, to a lesser level, LSTV have suffered from untrained bureaucrats strangling professional expression. Bhaskar Ghose, the first CEO of LSTV, has emphasized that LSTV’s major failing is the complete control over minuscule matters by the channel’s Secretary General. In media, autonomy in functioning is imperative for realization of potential.
Instead of a dedicated channel, the Rajya Sabha should have a slot on LSTV. This would avert the squandering of public funds for unproductive activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment