Urgent Review Needed

Newsreel Asia Insight #88
Dec. 30, 2023

The scope and certain provisions in the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, raise critical concerns about the future of media freedom and the independence of digital journalism in India, according to analyses by independent media outlets.

Here’s a compilation of reports by media organisations, including The Wire and Scroll.in.

Spanning 72 pages, the bill aims to replace the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, extending its reach to internet-based platforms, including Over-the-Top (OTT) services – like Netflix and Disney+ Hotstar – and digital news portals. This expansion, while allegedly aimed at modernising the legal framework, also brings forth potential challenges to the autonomy and diversity of media. For, it could subject digital news outlets to the same regulatory framework as entertainment content providers.

A key feature of the bill is the requirement for all broadcasting services to register with the government. This mandate does not differentiate between large streaming services and smaller digital news entities. The implication for independent journalists and smaller media outlets, especially those operating on digital platforms like YouTube, is profound. They could face barriers to entry, potentially limiting the plurality of voices in the digital media landscape.

Further, the necessity for government registration could effectively serve as a gatekeeping mechanism. It could empower authorities to decide who can or cannot disseminate news and information, leading to a situation where only registered entities are allowed to broadcast. This could limit the diversity of voices and perspectives in the media landscape.

Furthermore, the registration process could be used as a tool for indirect censorship. If the government has the authority to approve or deny registrations, it could potentially reject or delay applications based on the content the applicant produces, especially if it is critical of the government or explores sensitive topics.

Sections 19 and 20 of the bill mandate adherence to Program and Advertisement Codes, which are yet to be defined. This delegation of rule-making to the government – and not the legislature – is viewed as a potential tool for censorship, as it could be used to suppress content deemed unfavourable by the authorities.

The bill requires broadcasters to establish Content Evaluation Committees (CEC), potentially influenced by the government. The primary role of this committee is to approve every piece of programming before it is broadcasted. This step is intended to ensure that all content adheres to the Programme Code and Advertising Code to be set by the government.

However, the requirement for a CEC could be seen as an intrusion into the editorial process. Traditionally, editorial decisions are made by editors or content creators based on journalistic standards and ethics. The CEC, especially if its composition is influenced or determined by the government, could act as a tool for pre-emptive censorship, undermining editorial independence.

For independent journalists and small media outlets, particularly those who are single-person teams, forming a CEC is impractical. These journalists typically handle all aspects of content creation themselves, from research and scripting to recording, editing, and publishing. The requirement to establish a committee for content evaluation adds an unrealistic burden on them.

The CEC could also lead to a form of internal censorship. Knowing that content has to pass through this committee might influence journalists and content creators to self-censor, avoiding topics or narratives that they fear might not be approved by the CEC. This could limit the range of issues covered and the depth of analysis provided.

In organisations where editors already review and approve content, the CEC could add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. This could slow down the process of news dissemination and lead to a duplication of effort, potentially affecting the timeliness and competitiveness of news organisations.

The CEC requirement might disproportionately affect smaller and independent media entities, which often provide alternative viewpoints to mainstream narratives. This could lead to a homogenisation of content across media platforms, reducing the diversity of perspectives available to the public.

Moreover, the proposed three-tier grievance redressal mechanism, culminating in the Broadcast Advisory Council (BAC), mirrors the structure of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The involvement of government-appointed members in the BAC raises the spectre of governmental intrusion in media content decisions.

The bill’s language, especially regarding the definitions of “programme” and “broadcasting services,” is notably vague. This could lead to a wide interpretation, bringing various digital contents under close government watch. Additionally, the bill empowers the government to inspect, monitor and seize broadcasting equipment, intensifying fears of increased state control over the media.

The bill’s exemption of traditional newspapers and their digital replicas from its regulations is intriguing, to say the least. This selective approach indicates a specific focus on digital media, acknowledging its growing influence in shaping public opinion and discourse.

The Bill, in its current form, calls for a careful reassessment of the bill. There needs to be a balance between effective regulation and preserving a free, diverse and independent media.