“Self-censorship is not good for any democratic country. If an atmosphere of fear is created, and you’re constantly in fear that your channel can be shut if the government doesn’t like what you say, it’s going to lead to that,” said Ravish Kumar, former editor of NDTV India.
Kumar was speaking at a press conference today on the challenges and implications of the Broadcast Services (Regulation) Bill, organised by Digipub News India Foundation, India’s largest coalition of digital news media entities, media commentators, and journalists.
The second draft of the broadcast bill, released to selective stakeholders in July, has proposed to categorise digital content creators, such as Dhruv Rathee and Ravish Kumar, as “digital news broadcasters”. This could mean a set of new regulations and codes of conduct for digital creators across platforms and mediums, from text to videos. In addition, the draft not being shared with the key stakeholders has also roused questions.
Alongside Kumar, panellists Ritu Kapur, co-founder of Quint and general secretary of Digipub; Anant Nath, editor of the Caravan and president of Editors Guild of India; and Apar Gupta, advocate and co-founder of Internet Freedom Foundation, also raised concerns over the bill.
.jpg)
Kapur, who moderated the discussion, said that Digipub had been trying to get into a conversation with the ministry of information and broadcasting regarding the bill but did not receive a response to any of its letters. She said the purpose of the press conference was to try one more method to reachout to the ministry.
‘Scope of the bill unlimited’
Anant Nath said it was important to look at the broadcast bill in context of the last few years, when policies and laws such as the IT Rules, Data Protection Act, Telecom Bill, New Press Act, and the new criminal laws have been introduced.
“The broadcast bill is just one more step in creating a multi-layer system to regulate and moderate content,” he said. “The same piece of content can now be targeted through five different laws and acts. It’s like if an opposition leader is jailed, even if he gets bail in the CBI case, there will be an IT case or an ED case.”
Nath said that the government should not be allowed to have the final say or have the majority opinion in regulation. “Whatever regulation is required should be self-regulation. There is no space for any kind of regulatory framework besides that. Have to take the risk of the media saying whatever they want.”
The draft bill proposes three levels of regulations for content published by digital creators: self-imposed, through self regulatory organisations, and through the broadcast advisory council, which will be constituted by the central government.
“Everyone is picked by them and the tenure too will be determined by them,” said Apar Gupta. “There is no corporate personhood being granted that establishes that the broadcast advisory committee will exist independent from the government.”
“The kind of programme code that is in place includes things like good taste. But anything we say, including how I like to eat a samosa, may not be in good taste for someone. The ambit and scope of the bill is virtually unlimited. While the act applies to all podcasters and YouTubers, who it will be enforced on are completely dependent on the government.”
He added that despite several news articles and videos speculating about the broadcast bill, the government had not denied anything, indicating that the suspected implications were probably true.
The panellists emphasised that one of the major issues was that the bill was shared only with a select few. Each copy of the draft has also been marked with the organisation’s identifier so if it is leaked, it can be traced back to them.
Ravish Kumar said that the names of the people and organisations the bill has been shared with should be released at the earliest, while also releasing the draft bill to the public.
Post-election
Surveys and commentaries after the Lok Sabha elections were testimony to the power of digital journalists and the influence they yield.
Ritu Kapur said that this fact, and the timing of the draft, on the heels of the elections, should not be ignored.“Digital journalists and content creators played a crucial role in bringing to light information and amplifying work done by ground reporters. This bill is going to change how that is done in the future.”
She added: “Our apprehension is not just about the bill but the way it has been rolled out. The last few years, we have had raids on media houses, YouTube channels have been taken down without warning, which has led to fear that this bill could ensure censorship through compliance burden.”
The bill has widened its scope to include digital content creators. Those who provide programming and curated programmes through a website or social media platform as part of a systematic business, professional, or commercial activity, will be treated as “OTT broadcasters”. That means a chartered accountant sharing tips on investing in SIPs on YouTube, or a nutritionist providing information on how to diet, may also be considered an OTT broadcaster.
“There are lakhs of creators across villages using YouTube to be creative and earn money. It is not just four or five of us being targeted through this bill, it is every YouTuber from Ladakh to Kanyakumari,” said Ravish Kumar. “How can we expect every one of them to make content evaluation committees? Have grievance officers?”
“YouTube is the place for people like us, who the mainstream media cannot give a job to right now. If the government is looking for a way to shut us, they should know that this will lead to them being shut. If they would pay attention and look at the media reports, perhaps they would be able to handle situations better. Why isn’t legacy media speaking up about this bill, are they not concerned for their freedom of expression? For our freedom of expression?”
Kumar said that lakhs of individuals had switched to digital creation and digital organisations because they wanted news of public interest, instead of the puppetting on mainstream TV channels.
“The government tried to control the godi media but saw no result. The public wants to receive real information from YouTube. So the government’s solution is to control us now. The lakhs who escaped the webs of godi media with difficulty are now being sent back to them from the government. News channels have regulations but look at their language and their content.”
Newslaundry earlier reported that several journalist bodies have raised concerns over the bill “irreparably damaging free speech”.
What entails the second draft of the broadcast bill? Is censorship coming for digital creators? Watch.
How will the bill, if passed, affect news platforms? Watch the explainer.
Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
