Content Regulation: Is It Feasible?

Urmila Gupta,

executive director, Star TV

It is the concern about content

that lies at the heart of all attempts to regulate the mass media. It is legitimate and

necessary for a nation to seek to fit media content within the broad matrix of its

specific social and cultural underpinnings. In the case of India, that would mean a

regulatory framework that is in keeping with our liberal, democratic spirit even as we

ensure the preservation of our diverse, pluralistic, and vibrant cultural traditions.

Where we have erred, perhaps, is in

attempting to make content regulation technology-proof. As a result, our media regulation

has been built around technical details—nature of frequency bands, aerials, size of

transistor sets, size of dish antennas, and so on—rather than on a lucidly defined

content code.

Technology has always preceded regulations

and laws; it is only after technology gains widespread acceptance that laws follow.

Devices such as rules to govern the ownership structure of media entities, limits on the

extent of foreign investment, restrictions on common ownership of inter-related and

synergistic services tend to restrict growth. One may also wonder whether content can be

effectively regulated by making uplinking mandatory from Indian soil or by severely

restricting downlinking. Truth is that neither measure would be in harmony with our

liberal, democratic spirit, and would probably be open to legal challenge.

Does this imply that content on television

cannot be regulated at all? Far from it, effective content regulation in television is a

matter of good administrative practices and sound common sense. It need not concern itself

with esoteric technical details or with interventionist investment policies.

All broadcasters, whether Indian or

foreign, could be required to register with the concerned regulatory body: downlinking and

distribution may be allowed only for such registered broadcasters. Registration itself

could be made contingent upon an undertaking to conform to India’s programmes and

content codes. Likewise, only broadcasters who conform to the code may be allowed to raise

advertising or subscription revenues in India. The broadcasting and advertising code could

be complemented by a requirement that registered broadcasting entities must evolve

in-house standards and practices which are periodically revised, updated, and deposited

with the concerned authority.

Most countries lay down well-defined

standards and practice guidelines or codes for broadcasting which work in conjunction with

in-house programme codes. India’s experience in the print media should bring home to

us the fact that self-regulation (with an ombudsman) and vigilance (through the Press

Council and the Editors Guild) have served as effective instruments of content regulation,

rather than pre-censorship or officially imposed guidelines. If there is no pre-censorship

required for print, surely the same principle should apply to the electronic media!

The nature of content on Internet is a

major pre-occupation in countries where practically every home is a stop on the

information superhighway. However, in the US, the initiative to outlaw smutty and libelous

websites has run into the wall of judicial disapproval. Moreover, there is no viable way

to block access indefinitely to the information superhighway. Even if the gateway

controller should deny access to objectionable websites, there is no way to prevent those

website owners from renaming their sites or to pre-empt the cloning of such sites.

This is neither a confession of

helplessness nor an argument for a complete absence of controls over content on the Net.

It is merely a statement of fact. There do exist possibilities of regulation: for

instance, there could be a mediation of access to the Net by adopting webcasting and

webpushing, where designated and approved websites are delivered to consumers either via

cable or direct-to-home. Webcasting and webpushing would also put an end to the

"World Wide Wait". India’s information infrastructure is as yet not mature

enough for us to be able to evolve an effective regulatory structure for the Net. At

present, the Net is pretty much a "you can have it all or you can have nothing at

all" sort of proposition.

Finally, society itself

regulates mores and norms. The success or failure of any regulatory mechanism must be in

keeping with the overall socio-cultural values.