Who Runs Doordarshan?

Thursday, 8 May 2014 16:51

http://www.theindianrepublic.com/tbp/runs-doordarshan-100035226.html

Source: theindianrepublic

First it was reported that Doordarshan had played around with the interview of Narendra Modi, editing parts where he commented on Priyanka Gandhi and Ahmad Patel. Then Jawahar Sircar, the CEO of Prasar Bharati, the organization that controls DD, came out with a statement asking for increased autonomy for the channel. Immediately thereafter, Manish Tiwari, the minister for I&B said that DD and Prasar Bharati have complete autonomy without any kind of governmental interference. Taken together, the act of editing and the repartee between the official and the minister present a horrifying picture of the way the country is being run. It also points to India being the land of andher nagari, chaupat raja.

No one in DD or the government has denied that the Modi interview was edited. This brings us to the procedure being followed in DD regarding such interviews. Why is there a policy, if any, of vetting interviews? Do all interviews get vetted or only those of political opponents of the ruling dispensation?  Who vets them? Is there a standard guideline on what will be aired or does it depend on the whims of the vetting authority, if there exists one? Or was the Modi interview earmarked for special treatment on advice of an extra-constitutional authority that vetted and edited the tapes? Who was this person or group of persons? The people are entitled to know whether what they see on DD is unbiased or slanted in favour of the ruling cabal. For DD belongs to the country and not the government of the day.

The Prasar Bharati has ordered an enquiry into the incident. This proves that there are no set procedures governing interviews. It also proves that there is no official designated to vet such interviews. Otherwise, that person would have immediately been suspected of having tampered with the tapes. It logically follows that instructions must have gone to the producer to get the interview passed from a certain person. Departmental inquiries are known to produce no results and even when they do, they normally look for a scapegoat officer who, ostensibly, exceeds his brief in protecting the government of the day. But this time a thorough enquiry should be made to find out the culprit.

The dangers of censoring were immediately visible to the nation. Media reported that Modi had termed that Priyanka was "like his daughter." It later came to light that Modi had actually said that he understood that as a daughter, Priyanka was right in defending her father's family. The censored part was misquoted in the media leading to a further war of words between Priyanka (who said she was Rajiv's daughter) and Modi. On the Ahmad Patel issue, friendships do exist between political opponents. The best example was Pranab Mukherjee, whose immense networking talents were regularly used by the Congress to get out of tight spots in parliament. So what is wrong in disclosing Modi's friendship with Patel?

A government funded media organization can be independent and BBC is the prime example of that. But in India, funding is usually associated with control leading to a situation where the organization becomes a propaganda tool, much like those in communist countries or countries ruled by despots. It also means that other programming is reduced to being fillers between government sponsored disguised advertisements highlighting its supposed achievements. If we want DD to exist and flourish, we have to take it out of this rut. Prasar Bharati was formed for this reason but successive governments have shied away from relinquishing control, letting DD waste taxpayers money and die a slow death. It has also become an organization where scribes close to the government of the day are posted to reward them for their support.

Narendra Modi has made a scathing attack on the lack of autonomy in DD. The times are now convenient to attack the ruling party on any of its misdeeds. But will the NDA change things when it comes to power. Every government thinks it needs a tool that reaches drawing rooms to present its point of view and highlight its achievements. But as there are many options on television, this tool becomes ineffective if it is perceived as biased and uninteresting. It is worth noting that very few people watch DD, except when sports channels get into a tiff with cable operators and DD telecasts a live cricket match? If NDA come to power and thinks that DD needs to be retained (which in itself will be a tricky decision to take), Narendra Modi should keep his autonomy sermon in mind and grant it full autonomy. Concurrently, the organization should be staffed with top talent and given a time frame to achieve the goal of self financing. Government funding should be withdrawn gradually. The government can at best take hourly paid slots to indulge in ego boosting propaganda, not that many will watch.

To achieve this, the political mentality of trying to control news and views will have to go. Narendra Modi himself is guilty of this. He is reported to have told an American journalist that his greatest regret in the aftermath of the 2002 riots was for not having better managed the media. It is not the work of a politician to manage the media. If he manages the affairs of the state well, the media will perforce be 'managed.' The best example of this was when cyclone struck Orissa in 2013. Naveen Patanaik's disaster management won him unrestrained praise within and outside the country. It was a huge and timely operation that minimized loss to life and property and the media were not blind to it. Praise has to be earned. In our country, politicians think that media should praise them by virtue of their occupying the coveted chair. They have to understand that normally, achievements of governments do not make great copy. It is their follies that do. So the media will mostly highlight the follies in order to get more readers or TRPs.