|
NEW
DELHI: Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) president Jawahar
Goel has written to the information & broadcasting minister
for conveying the IBF’s "great disappointment"
with the Content Code/Guidelines finalised by the MIB, and
says it shall not be a party to it.
“IBF
is greatly disappointed that the ministry has negated all
the positive cooperation and constructive efforts they had
gone into framing of the Content Code/Guidelines and the Complaints
Redressal Mechanism (CRM) that was given to the ministry on
21 February 2008,” Goel writes in the letter dated 26
March.
“In
tune with the technological development taking place in the
broadcasting in India, including the convergence of communications
and addressable platforms like CAS and DTH and keeping in
view the best practices being followed in democracies across
the world, the IBF Code/Guidelines had included (many) innovative
ideas,” Goel adds.
These
include differing standards for addressable and non-addressable
systems, time-scheduling of programming, need for liberal
adult fare in addressable systems and in adult watershed for
millions of Indians having no access to cinema halls and forced
to see pirated movies etc.
IBF
says that it had carefully considered and incorporated these
points but all of them have been overlooked.
“These
have not even been considered by the ministry and picking
on a single provision for showing nudity in exceptional circumstances
with a number of other safeguards, the IBF draft has summarily
been set aside,” he says.
Goel
holds that IBF was one of the few organisations, which had
responded and given its comments to the Content Code/Guidelines,
which was drafted by a four-member committee in which eminent
filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt was representing the entire entertainment
industry.
“In
the first para of its response dated 15 June 2006 (Annex.
A), it was specifically mentioned that in case the ministry
finalised a draft which was more restrictive than the sub
committee’s draft, it may not be possible for broadcasting
industry to be a party to that,” he stresses.
In
its response dated 20 July 2007 to the draft put up by the
ministry on its website in July 2007, the IBF had reiterated
its position vide letter dated 20 July 2007 (Annex. B).
Goel
points out that in the Content Code/Guidelines now finalised
unilaterally by the ministry and annexed to their affidavit,
only one thing has been conceded - the provision regarding
reporting to BRAI by the Content Auditor of any case of her/his
being overruled by the Chief Editor has been omitted.
“All
other restrictive and highly bureaucratic provisions like
need to keep content auditors instead of standards and practices
departments available with TV channels globally; detailed
provisions to categorise content into eight themes; detailed
provisions for subject matter treatment and audio-visual presentation,
etc. which are seeking to directly control a creative medium
like TV have been retained and TV programmes are sought to
be treated like an industrial product,” Goel says in
his letter.
He
also adds, “Finally, it was really surprising that after
detailed discussions with broadcasters during August 2007
first at the level of secretary, I&B and then with the
Hon’ble Minister himself, the consensus had veered around
to self-regulation as being the preferred way for content
regulation but the ministry, all of a sudden, chose to simply
cast away the document carefully prepared by the IBF instead
of sitting together and finding a way out to iron out differences,
if any and arrive at consensus.”
“IBF
would, therefore, strongly urge that before finalising the
Code/Guidelines, the ministry should hold discussions with
the broadcasters and work for mutually agreed Guidelines,”
Goel’s letter ends.
|
