Source: The Asian Age | By editor
Created 26 Feb 2013 - 00:00
"To a large extent, Doordarshan is a state broadcaster. Can it run a programme that is openly critical of the government or of some government policy?"
There have been recent media reports that information and broadcasting minister Manish Tewari is seriously concerned about the state of Prasar Bharati, the state-funded radio and television broadcaster, and has set up a committee under Sam Pitroda to examine different aspects of the functioning of the organisation and suggest how they could be changed to make Prasar Bharati attract larger audiences.
The emphasis, as far as public perception is concerned, is on Doordarshan, the television network. It is widely perceived as the purveyor of dull entertainment programmes and news programmes that are not only badly presented but are nothing more than government pronouncements. In fact, both perceptions are wrong, or exaggerated; a number of the entertainment programmes are certainly dull, and the news bulletins sometimes sound dispirited and do reflect the government's views on events. But there are good entertainment programmes too, and the new bulletins are, more often than not, richer in terms of news content than those broadcast by some commercial channels. They are less shrill, less hysterical. While one recognises that some commercial news channels assert that the hysterical debates they broadcast are more watched than other programmes, many turn to Doordarshan for the "actual" news.
These caveats apart, one has to admit that there is much that ails the state-run television network, much more than Mr Pitroda will find alarming and depressing. It would have been of value if, even before beginning any kind of examination of Prasar Bharati's working, a careful, rational assessment had been made of just what its identity ought to be.
The media, when reporting on Doordarshan, blithely uses the terms "state broadcaster", "state-funded broadcaster" and "public service broadcaster" interchangeably; those who have been following the fortunes of that organisation admittedly do not, but in reportage this happens all too often. The fact is they are completely different. A state-run or state broadcaster is not just funded by the state but reflects and carries the viewpoints of the state, like the Chinese television network. And to a large extent, that is what Doordarshan is, a state broadcaster. This may well be denied, but if one were to put it differently the truth of this assertion will become evident: can Doordarshan run a programme that is openly critical of the government or of some government policy? They may have someone say something in a discussion programme that's mildly critical, but there will always be other voices contradicting it, claiming that what they're saying is the actual factual position.
And this is inevitable. The government provides a large amount of the taxpayer's money to keep the organisation going, and at some time or the other the minister will say to Prasar Bharati what every minister before him has said: it is the minister who is answerable to Parliament for the way in which the organisation functions, because it is the ministry that provides its funds, or a large part of it; consequently he must and will have it function in a manner that he can defend in Parliament. In other words, it must do what he says it should.
A public service broadcaster is an entirely different animal. It is usually funded, by law, through the licence fee levied on radio and television sets, like the BBC in the UK, SVT in Sweden or NHK in Japan. It can even be entirely funded by the state like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Some public service broadcasters also earn some revenue through advertising, as in Portugal. But all of them are completely independent of the government in terms of functioning; most of them, like the BBC, answer to a special committee of Parliament on its functioning, since it does so using public funds, but none of them answer to the government.
Quite some time ago the McKinsey Quarterly made a study of public service broadcasters (which did not include Prasar Bharati) to see how they were faring amid the burgeoning private, commercially funded television channels. The team that conducted the study came up with some interesting findings that would hold good even today. The first among these was: "All PSBs (public service broadcasters) have lost marketshare since deregulation, but several have stemmed those losses and remain market leaders, without abandoning high-quality, distinctive programmes. Examples include ARD and ZDF (Germany), SVT (Sweden), and the BBC." This is not all. Even more importantly, the study found that "some PSBs have maintained their influence on the overall development of television by inducing their commercial competitors to offer equally distinctive programmes. In effect PSBs can, and do, act as regulators of the television industry as a whole." (Source: A study titled "Keeping Baywatch at Bay" by Adrain D. Blake, Nicholas C. Lovegrove, Alexandra Pryde and Toby Strauss in McKinsey Quarterly Q4 of 1999.)
Another interesting and very significant finding of the study was that the best model of funding was by providing the PSBs with the proceeds of the licence fee levied on radio and television sets; state funding, they found, tended to be erratic and sometimes politically motivated, and advertising revenues no less dependable and also subject to perceptions of the "market". Those PSBs that were funded by licence fees were the most effective — the BBC, SVT, NHK, ZDF and some others. Those that depended on state funds like the CBC or ABC were not quite as effective, though the quality of their production was very high, and some others that were funded in part by advertising revenue were much less effective as RTB and PSB in Portugal, which have continued to lose marketshare to commercial channels.
It isn't only a question of funding, though the manner of funding is prime; it is also a question of the kind of people the PSBs have. The McKinsey study found that even though PSBs like the BBC had very large budgets, they took only the best people, and were continuously watching costs, cutting back on what they considered avoidable expenditure, while providing adequately for research. The BBC spends very large amounts of money on programmes like The Human Body but cuts back where it considers expenditure wasteful; we've seen that recently when the channel BBC Entertainment was closed down.
The Pitroda Committee ought, therefore, have started first by determining what Prasar Bharati should be; a state broadcaster — for which there is a case, good or bad — or a public service broadcaster which the original, grand intention was that Prasar Bharati be and which floundered by the wayside. To be realistic, one has to say that desirable though it may be that we have a public service broadcaster, independent of the state, funded by law either though a licence fee or some other means, no government, either this or any other, will allow that to happen. We need, therefore, to settle for a state-run broadcasting organisation as in Pakistan, and make the best of what it can do in terms of quality, both in its entertainment and news programmes.
This should be a basic decision, prior to any examination of the organisation. It will make the committee's work clearer and more focused. But one fears that will not happen; the effort will be to create a public service broadcaster which is, in effect, a state broadcaster. We will say one thing and do another; the kind of thing we're so good at doing.
The writer, a former IAS officer who once served as director-general of Doordarshan, is a columnist, author and theatreperson
No comments:
Post a Comment