TV bans: Don’t let the issue die down

BY SAI VINOD| IN Law and Policy | 14/11/2016
Government bans on TV won’t go away. They have been around for 12 years, and a sustained campaign against bans as a method of regulation is the only solution.
Research by SAI VINOD

Ravish Kumar's show on NDTV India, using mime artists to protest the 24-hour ban on the channel. 

 

After the 24-hour ban on NDTV India was put on hold, the media has quickly forgotten the larger issue at stake in letting the government ban TV channels—whether entertainment or news—without having an acceptable decision-making process in place. The last two bans were decided upon by an inter-ministerial panel, non governmental or judicial representation is not there in the panel which makes the final ruling.

Bans on TV channels are an arbitrary government solution resorted to in the absence of a statutory regulator to govern content regulation on television. The self regulatory authorities of private channels have been in place, even as these bans (14 in the year 2013) have been imposed. Evidently self regulation is not the last word on subject, government fiats are.

As the table below shows there have been 32 bans in 12 years. Whereas NDTV India was the second national news channel to invite a ban, there have been seven bans imposed on regional news channels before, ranging from 1 day to 30 days in the case of  Satlon News, a Gujarati channel. 

The first national news channel to face a ban--of 30 days--was Janmat, in 2007, then headed by Sudhir Chaudhury currently at Zee News. This was for the infamous Uma Khurana sting operation.

And there was one ban before this on an international news channel, Al Jazeera, for a period of 5 days in 2013, for showing a wrong image of India pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir.

Information for the table below is sourced from the website of the ministry of information and broadcasting.

 

 

View a chart listing all orders issued by the ministry since 2005  over here.

 

 

The Hoot is the only not-for-profit initiative in India which does independent media monitoring. Your support is vital for this website. Click here to make a contribution.
Subscribe To The Newsletter

The Supreme Court today admitted a writ petition filed by Quint reporter Poonam Agarwal for a court-monitored investigation into the death of gunner Roy Mathew, to seek guidelines on the application of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) to bring it in line with the Constitution and prevent its misuse,  and to conduct an inquiry into the persistence of the 'sahayak' system in the army. The judges issued notice to the government. The Quint journalist  was charged with spying under the OSA and abetment to suicide under the IPC. Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam and Adv Prashant Kumar appeared for the petitioner.          

Twitter-happy journalists of the Times Group have been served  a dampener by the organisation's  HR head. A circular says they may not use their personal social media handles to comment on news, politics, civic issues  or crime unless reported by the Group's official social media handles. Nor can they retweet their own stories unless the official Twitter handle has done so. Nor can they use their own Twitter handles to repost invective or opinions which may be against the laws of the land. Why? Because the personal opinions expressed are apparently hurting the "integrity and credibility" of the Times Network platforms.                 

View More
sub editors and page designers
Wednesday, April 19, 2017