Content of National Importance-MIB’s New Mandate

Broadcasters’ puzzled response to MIB’s latest mandate is eminently predictable. Who is government to dictate what should be the content? And who will define National Importance?
Although MIB is going to hold discussions on this issue with stakeholders, and then issue detailed guidelines, the voices of resentment and dissent are not likely to be muted even as the provision is not being downright rejected by the Industry.
Very true to its nature, the Industry’s first objection is not on principles but on who would bear the cost of content creation? Some in the Industry ask if the government plans to bear the cost of creating content of national importance?  The preoccupation of these concerns to the exclusion of others, only confirms the gaining impressions about India’s TV industry and the prevailing paramountcy of commerce. 
On the face of it, the unspoken fear of government interfering in matters of content creation is misplaced. Presenting programs of national importance is not being patriotic, as some may feel and argue. It is simply part of media’s legitimate function that should transcend above criticism and censure. It is a fair responsibility to present positive and constructive. 
The Mandate
The Union Cabinet has approved the Guidelines for Up linking and Downlinking of Television Channels in India, 2022, under which it has become mandatory for Television channels to telecast content in national and public interest.
Clause 35 of the guideline states “as airwaves/frequencies are public property and need to be used in the best interest of the society, a company/LLP having permission under these guidelines for up linking a channel and its downlinking in India (other than foreign channels only downlinked in India) may undertake public service broadcasting for a minimum period of 30 minutes in a day on themes of national importance and of social relevance.” 
It further adds that the broadcasters must select one of the following eight topics for creating content on the issue of national importance. These include (i) education and spread of literacy; (ii) agriculture and rural development; (iii) health and family welfare; (iv) science and technology; (v) welfare of women; (vi) welfare of the weaker sections of the society; (vii) protection of the environment and of cultural heritage; and (viii) national integration. 
The sub-clause 2 of clause 35 also states “channels may, for the purpose, appropriately modulate their content to fulfil the obligation referred to in sub-para (1), except where it may not be feasible, such as in the case of sports channels”. The guidelines further say that the central government may, from time to time, issue general advisory to the channels for the telecast of content in the national interest, and the channel shall comply with the same. 
The guidelines are effective from November 9 and the channels will be given time to conceptualize and create the content and a detailed advisory on the same will be issued soon.
The Background
The mandate has come following a recommendation of TRAI on the public service obligation of broadcasters. The recommendation was made some time ago in 2008. Presumably the reservation being raised on the mandate must have been raised even when TRAI were having the consultations and many of such objections were considered before the recommendation was made.
The Legality
The legality of the mandate cannot be faulted. As the licensing authority for up linking and downlinking of channels, the government is perfectly within her right to issue directives. The only caveat is that these directions must not violate the constitutional rights on freedom of Expression. No one can argue that the mandate in question infringes any fundamental right in any manner. 
And to argue that channels should not in any way be advised to place salience on topics of national importance is talking liberalism to an unreasonable degree.
Is It Restrictive?
Legality aside, is it restrictive? It will be difficult to argue that these could be called restrictive in any case. It does not require the channels to follow a particular line. All that it says is that they must carry at least 30 minutes’ program containing contents of national importance. The subjects that could be considered of national importance have also been indicated. Nobody can quarrel with the subjects. And certainly channels are free to enrich and enlarge these areas. Thoughtfully, MIB’s list is not definitive but illustrative.
Who Bears The Cost?
The argument that for programs of National Importance to be produced and broadcast, the cost should be incurred by the government is specious and shallow. Firstly, to say that the onus of broadcasting programs of National interest is entirely that of government is absurd. As responsible organ of the society and a nation, this duty and responsibility is shared by everyone including the media. Secondly, it also casts serious doubts on the creative capabilities of the content creators to think that they are incapable of producing programs that are interesting and entertaining. After all, so many channels are creating content that have no difficulty in attracting advertisers and are commercially viable.
Many broadcasters believe that any program that discusses government initiatives must be funded by government. This is symptomatic of a prejudiced and opinionated mind-set. If criticism is the right of the media, highlighting the benefits to the people is as much their responsibility. And if the argument is to link the telecasting these programs with DAVP advertising, it needs to be rejected forthwith. 
Proposed Consultation
Apparently, MIB has merely implemented the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recommendations that were issued in 2008. MIB believes that the public service obligation is a reasonable expectation from the broadcasters and the mandate is merely a nudge in this direction. It is neither onerous nor oppressive. And certainly not irresponsible. It has proposed to have discussion with the stakeholders and come out with detailed guidelines on this issue in a few weeks.
Certainly many of the misgivings of the broadcasters will be addressed in these consultations. The experience of such consultations assure a reasonable outcome and a resolution and reconciliation on the points of divergence and dissent. However, an open mind and a spirit of give and take usually help achieve a win-win situation. Pending these consultations, rejecting the government directive will be neither proper not prudent.
Rationalise Channel-Pricing
One concern however, deserves urgent attention of both TRAI and MIB- the need to rationalize the channel pricing, an issue that has been evading a satisfactory resolution since long. Broadcasters have long resented the restrictive regime of pricing the channels. They have often blamed the inflexibility and inadequacy of subscription revenue for many of the constraints plaguing content creation. TRAI and MIB though seized of the matter, may be well advised to consider a  more market driven tariff structure and expedite resolving this long standing issue.
Need To Introspect
There is a certain legitimacy in the media considering itself as the watch-dog for society, the state, the people. Often, the role is performed with commitment and sincerity of purpose and the motivations are transparent. Only when these motivations begin being alloyed, even overtaken, for reasons other than the public interest, the aberrations creep in with devastating effect. Media does not fancy being told how to conduct themselves because they are so used to dictating others. So, who watches this watch-dog? The voices of fairness and reason even within media, have begun to flag and discuss many such issues. These voices need to be strengthened from within.
Accepting public service obligation shall strengthen the credibility of media, getting increasingly corroded by rank commercial concerns and considerations. Even if it were to be mere perceptions, they need to be addressed and dispelled.