The recent controversy over the TV programme Sach ka Samna has led to renewed calls for regulation of the broadcast media. P N Vasanti who was involved in drawing up self-regulation guidelines for the broadcasting sector for the I&B ministry, explains the content of the guidelines which, she says, could have addressed the current issues. Instead, it has been put into cold storage

The recent discussions in the Indian Parliament on a few ongoing programmes currently being aired on our entertainment channels has once again opened up the debate on media regulation (and especially regulation of content on television).  

I am happy to take this opportunity to write on my experience in developing content regulation in our country, and to elaborate on the purpose, nature and current status of the code that was developed for this purpose in 2007. I hope this sharing of efforts made so far on the sensitive issue of content regulation will help clarify the issues raised by the present debate.  

On the website of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting the proposed content regulation document is titled ‘Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Sector.’  There are two versions – the original draft is dated 2007 and a revised draft is dated 2008 (http://www.mib.nic.in/).

Since October 2005, I have been a member of the committee set up by the I&B Ministry to discuss what kind of content regulation can be adopted for our broadcasting sector, mainly television. This committee had over 30 representatives from almost all sectors including industry, civil society, activists, various ministries, etc. This committee sat through six meetings over almost three years, although I had more intensive sessions within the sub-group set up to actually draft the guidelines. The Content Code appended to the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2007 (aka Broadcast Bill 07) was an earlier version drafted by the committee.  The final report of the committee was submitted in March 2008 and is reflected in the revised draft made available then.   

Purpose of the guidelines 

The purpose of developing guidelines for content regulation was very clear right from the beginning. Similar to the current sentiment expressed in Parliament, the general feeling was that broadcasters were testing the limits and law of the country through provocative programming. In fact, the ministry was burdened by several legal cases and there were court orders calling for an objective content code that could be easily implemented. The few sections in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act (primarily # 6 & 7: see Box) were seen as too vague and subjective for the purpose. In addition, there were several demands and complaints from viewers, politicians and activists. Therefore, the purpose was to develop guidelines that are clear, objective and easily implementable.  

However, when we started discussions, a number of issues were raised about how the guidelines would be implemented. This in turn raised the question of who would be responsible for content regulation in India and thereby for implementing the guidelines. The consensus arrived at was that the media is ultimately responsible for content regulation. However, it was also accepted that intense competition and the need to boost revenues led to programming that does not uphold ethics and standards, especially since the entry barriers for starting broadcasting enterprises had been lowered. The debate also threw up the ethical and moral issues that can arise in the process of content regulation. The government’s role in regulation was also constantly disputed. Despite the unending debate on this, there was a consensus that an independent authority was required that would also look into content issues if broadcasters failed to self-regulate. So the committee’s report focused the responsibility of following the code of ethics and standards on the broadcaster in the spirit of self- regulation. 

Nature of the guidelines 

The current format of the guidelines evolved after a review of existing regulatory frameworks across the world and discussions on many versions of the document. The original document prepared by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) was an adaptation of a publication by Ofcom, the independent regulator for the UK communications industries. However, it seemed rather heavy and could not address all concerns in the Indian context, especially since the country did not have a similar regulatory system in place.  

Section 1

After many versions and discussions, the final submitted version by this committee to the ministry was a simple 24-page document divided into two sections:  Section I includes a brief introduction, principles meant to guide regulation and the self-regulatory system that could help ensure ethics and standards, including mechanisms for complaint redressal.    

This section provided a context and purpose for the guidelines. The onus of responsibility for self-regulation of content was on the broadcaster. The self-regulatory mechanism section outlined the roles, powers and jurisdiction of the three critical players – broadcasters, the body/ies representing the media industry and the independent regulator (the proposed Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India [BRAI] elaborated upon in the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill 2007). These stakeholders represented the three-tier system of the redressal mechanism. 

• The first tier comprises the broadcasters themselves carrying out self-regulation through a special officer (the term ‘content auditor’ is suggested) who is in charge of ensuring that the guidelines are followed and sending regular reports to the other tiers on compliance.
 
• The second tier is made up of industry bodies (such as the Advertising Standards Council of India [ASCI], the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, the News Broadcasters Association, etc) on the lines of the Consumer Complaints Council of the ASCI, which would take up cases involving any member.
• The third tier is the proposed independent regulator (eg, BRAI as suggested in the Broadcast Bill) which would come into the picture only when any complaint or petition is not resolved at the level of the other two tiers.

This proposed system actually resembles a system of ‘co-regulation’ rather than ‘self- regulation’ – not leaving accountability just to broadcasters but providing for the resolution of unresolved complaints/issues by peers in the industry bodies. The external, independent regulator would be involved mainly in ensuring compliance and resolving issues left unresolved at the level of the previous two tiers.  

This three-tier system was expected to bring in transparency while instilling responsibility in each stakeholder. Also, most importantly, the sanctity and freedom of the media would not be curbed by any third party – unless individual broadcasters and industry bodies are unable to self-regulate or resolve audience objections. I believe such a system can also survive the current trust deficit among all the key stakeholders including broadcasters, the government and the judiciary. Like our multi-tier governance system (Panchayat, District, State and then National) this proposed co-regulatory mechanism can enable a more accountable media landscape in our country.  

Section 2

The second section of the committee’s report consists of the annexures. The first annexure is a complete listing of rules and codes that the media still need to be aware of and compliant with. The second annex is the crux of the exercise: the Certification Rules that each broadcaster requires to self-regulate.  

These rules would replace the existing relevant sections in the Cable Television Network Act to enable more objective and easily implementable rules. The certification rules relate to nine themes (Violence & Crime, Harm & Offence, Religion & Community, etc) and include details about subject matter treatment and audio-visual presentation. There are details within each theme that set out what would fit into programming categories U, U/A and A. According to this categorisation, broadcasters are expected to slot their programming into watershed timings guided by the principles of self-regulation. 

The audio-visual presentation of all the nine themes are further detailed for these categorisations (U, U/A or A) as “don’t” in each category. For example, in theme #1 Crime & Violence, Category ‘U’ restrictions are not to “show excessive blood or gore, dismembered or disfigured limbs or bodies”. Category ‘U/A’ restrictions are for “close ups or prolonged shots of dismembered or disfigured limbs or bodies” and for Category ‘A’ it states not to show “prolonged close-up shots of blood and gore or dismembered or disfigured bodies”.  

I felt that detailing each theme in this format provided less vagueness and yet scope for creative expression and innovation. Of course, these codes are also visualised to be dynamic and to eventually change with evolving contemporary standards and audience needs.  

The implications of this kind of certification can be assessed by thinking in terms of how they could be used for a programme like ‘Sach ka Samna’ – one of the programmes caught up in the current controversy. If these rules were applicable today, ‘Sach ka Samna’ (a category A programme) would be available only on Addressable Systems (like CAS or DTH) after 11 pm. (Note: “addressable system” means an electronic device or more than one electronic devices put in an integrated system through which signals of television channels can be sent in encrypted or unencrypted form, which can be decoded by the device or devices at the premises of the subscriber within limits of the authorisation made, on the choice and request of such subscriber, by the service provider to the subscriber.) There would be no day repeats or content-based advertisements during the day. Thus such rules could satisfy the conservatives since such a programme would not be available to the vulnerable/children, while also addressing the concerns of the liberals who advocate the right of audiences to choose programmes that they would like to watch. The question, however, would be whether channels would follow such rules, especially at the cost of their TRPs.    

Status of the guidelines

Since last year, the proposed Certification Rules and, in fact, the whole document, has been under wraps – virtually forgotten. The so-called content code was opposed by the media, especially news channels, who do not favour any regulation.

By and large, the Certification Rules apply uniformly to all types of broadcasters. However, for News and Current Affairs (N&CA) programming, individual broadcasters are expected to edit the content, carry prominent warnings and suitably mask any portions of scenes in news or current affairs considered unsuitable for general viewing in accordance with the certification norms for scheduling in news bulletins throughout the day.

However, with the increasing levels of entertainment and other genres of programming on news and current affairs channels, the contentious last chapter of the document, originally meant for News and Current Affairs programming, is actually not required (or relevant): the detailed categorisation of nine themes covers almost all sensitive and controversial issues that come up in news and current affairs also. The chapter on News and Current Affairs should thus be removed from the current Certification Rules and be replaced with a recommendatory journalistic code of ethics and standards in this document annex.

Besides such minor revisions, the ‘Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Sector’ is still very relevant to our current concerns with television content, in my opinion. Also, it fits easily into the overall regulatory vision that the ministry has encapsulated in the proposed (currently shelved) Broadcast Bill 2007. The Bill was also surrounded by controversy as it had dealt with many critical issues such as foreign direct Investment, cross media ownership, mandatory public service broadcasting etc, that are contentious. But that is the topic of another article.

Nevertheless, the proposed independent broadcast authority/regulator (like TRAI for the telecom sector) is one clear pre-requisite that all stakeholders, including broadcasters, welcomed. The need for such a body is also clear from the suggestions made by all participants in the recent debate on the subject in Parliament. We can deliberate further on what such a body should be called, what its composition and scope of responsibilities should be, and so on. I only hope the pressure from the recent parliamentary debate will lead to a revisiting of the efforts put into conceptualising a system of content regulation and will initiate the setting up of the much-needed independent broadcast authority.   

(P N Vasanti is the Director of CMS (www.cmsindia.org). She specialises in strategy development, designing, researching and evaluating communication initiatives. She writes/ advocates / teaches on media & communication issues based on research)

InfoChange News and Features, August 2009 

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

Comments (1)

Written by Jatin, on 17-02-2010 07:52 Thank you for a brilliant article on the TV content code and about the broadcasting law. Can you shed some light on what kind of content code is applicable for the home video market, that is, for the content on DVDs and VCDs. Is it the same as the broadcasting code, or is it different for the home video market?

Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to the subject of the article. Only moderated comments will appear on the site. Comments should be limited to 250 words. If you wish to submit a longer comment, it might be better to write an entire article and submit it to us for consideration
Name:
Comment:
Key in the Security Code:*