Free to air?

But that sense of disquiet is deepened by the black-and-white nature of debate on content of television broadcasts. There are good reasons,in both cases,for an informed debate on the depiction of children and on the representation of truth-revealing qualities of certain technologies. These episodes reveal,as was highlighted during the real-time coverage of the Mumbai attack in November,the absence of a mechanism whereby questions on content and broadcasts can be raised,lead to wider consultations and if need be yield regulation. They show the need for such a mechanism that is placed outside the controlling purview of government and thereby prone to a well-proven censorship impulse or of the media industry and so,prone more to evading the concerns voiced. In a democracy as transparent as India has striven to be,there can be no case for the government to have powers to summarily ban or censor content it is

illiberal and has too much potential for backroom quid pro quos. Yet,clearly the default position cannot be absence of any scrutiny.

How then to meaningfully address questions of content? Of parental guidance,for example,or the timing of broadcasts not suitable for children,of representation of certain topics,of the security or social implications of certain issues? The government and the industry need to find ways to create a space separate from their turfs where these questions can be raised,debated,and perhaps acted upon. Britain,for instance,set up the Office of Communications or Ofcom by an act of parliament in 2003 as an independent regulation and competition authority for communications industries. Its capacity to nuance a controversy was evident during the Shilpa Shetty-Big Brother racist row. Both government and industry must consider clearing such a space in this country,the one by ceding immense powers of censorship and the other by opening itself to responsive regulation.