MEDIA SCOPE
The Central Board of Film Certification is fretting over trivia again. Its objection to the use of the word “cow” among others in a documentary on Amartya Sen is just another example of the cockeyedness on display when it comes to the media and entertainment industry. In the deluge of comment and counter comment real issues and their solutions get buried.
As new Information and Broadcasting Minister Smriti Irani takes charge, could this column point her to some?
Take films for instance. They are dogged by a lack of screens. Nitesh Tiwari’s Dangal, the biggest hit in Indian cinema, has grossed about ~2,000 crore globally. Of this, ~600 crore was at the Indian box office. Roughly, that means about five per cent of Indians or about 60 million people saw Dangal in the theatres in India — the film’s home country.
Compare that to China, where the film is a massive hit. Dangal collected ~1,225 crore ($191.6 million) selling over 46 million tickets (it is still running there). The ticket prices are higher, but even then the number of tickets sold is more than that for any major domestic hit such as Bajrangi Bhaijaan. This is not just because Dangal is a good film, but because it got a better opportunity to monetise itself in China. The country has about 40,000 screens for its 1.38 billion people against 9,000 for India’s 1.2 billion people. In 2011 China was at the same screen level. That is when the state decided to push investment into building screens. It is now the world’s second-largest film market at $6.6 billion.
You could argue that people are watching films online and on TV and that theatres don’t matter. But they do. More than three-fourths of the Indian film industry’s revenues come from the box office. Without one, it is dead. While multiplexes are adding 150-200 screens every year, single screens have been shutting at twice that rate. Much of the growth for the last few years has come from raising ticket prices, not because more people are watching films. You could further argue that film is an irrelevant industry. It isn’t. It is a huge marker of India’s soft power and generates millions of jobs and crores in taxes.
Can the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting then direct its attention to putting together a policy that helps incentivise the building of screens across the country — by making it easier and less cumbersome? Instead, we are being blindsided by what words to use and how long to kiss on screen.
Then there is everyone’s bugbear — news content. India’s news television industry is known for ill-trained, loud and at most times judgemental and partisan reporters. Just three things could help.
One, take the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India recommendations from 2014 seriously and ban state governments, politicians, political and religious organisations from owning news channels or cable distribution firms. In addition, mandatory sharing of all information on a news organisation — quarterly reports, ownership structure, funding sources — online would go a long way in pushing out dodgy owners.
Two, free up Doordarshan by freeing up Prasar Bharati administratively and financially from the central government. Once the state broadcaster, which has no revenue pressure, is truly autonomous it can invest in good quality journalism. This will force the private news market to correct itself. The existence of the BBC has been a huge factor in how the TV news market in the UK shaped up.
Three, work at giving self-regulatory bodies such as the Press Council of India some teeth. If it had punitive powers, paid news would have been killed long back.
In the last six years only two significant decisions that facilitate the growth of the ~1,26,200-crore Indian media and entertainment industry were taken — to digitise cable and to auction radio stations. More such decisions are needed if the industry is to contribute more than the 0.9 per cent to India’s gross domestic product. That is the real stuff to fret about.