Week 4 Lecture 1
GLOBAL MEDIA LAW AND
REGULATION
Case Study: Coverage of Mumbai Terror
Attacks
Jen Paton
• Understanding differences between
newspapers, television, the internet. The
potency of the three mediums, how media
laws/ regulation differ between them and
their relation to journalism. What ethical
questions does each medium raise?
“Egypt Shuts Down Al-Jazeera
Bureau”
The Egyptian authorities are revoking the Al Jazeera Network's license to broadcast from the country,
and will be shutting down its bureau office in Cairo, state television has said.
"The information minister [Anas al-Fikki] ordered ... suspension of operations of Al Jazeera, cancelling of
its licences and withdrawing accreditation to all its staff as of today," a statement on the official
Mena news agency said on Sunday.
In a statement, Al Jazeera said it strongly denounces and condemns the closure of its bureau in Cairo by
the Egyptian government. The network received notification from the Egyptian authorities on
Sunday morning.
"Al Jazeera has received widespread global acclaim for their coverage on the ground across the
length and breadth of Egypt," the statement said.
An Al Jazeera spokesman said that the company would continue its strong coverage regardless.
•
•
I want to use this as an example to understand – in broad strokes – how media regulation works
globally.
Regulation
Media Regulation – Why?
• Presupposes “media” is special in some way, unlike other
businesses in key ways: there are “universal perceptions
that media content and media operations can significantly
impact economies, social policies, political debate and,
above all, the lives of people.”
• TWO TYPES OF MEDIA REGULATION (Siuchru)
– 1. Economic Regulation (treats media as a
commodity/business): Preventing monopoly, securing systems
for intellectual property rights, “fairly allocating public
resources” such as the broadcasting spectrum.
– 2. Social Regulation (treats media as a public good): Regulating
content, “policing specific “outer limits” of specific content. Can
range from providing public broadcasters to censorship.
From Sean O Siochru, “Global Institutions and the Democratisation of Media.” in
Thomas, P. and Zaharoun, N., Eds Who Owns the Media.
Print versus Broadcast
• In most states, print media has been less
regulated than broadcast media.
• The logic was that there is finite space for
broadcast media to be broadcast – only so many
channels in the spectrum, whereas print could be
reproduced infinitely.
• Technology is of course changing this. The
internet means that there is no longer physical
limitation to broadcast media in the same way as
before.
Regulatory Terms
• Watershed – “a specific time period late at night
in which content restrictions might be easier
because…” its assumed children are asleep.
• Minutage: the total number of advertising
minutes allowed during “a prescribed segment of
time.”
• Bumper- “momentary graphic image that
appears on the television screen between
programming and advertising, in order to create a
clear separation between the two types of
content.”
Robert MacKenzie. “Comparing Media
Regulation Between France, the USA,
Mexico and Ghana.”Comparative Media
Law Journal. http://bit.ly/gMn94V
Different States, (Some) Different Priorities
•
•
Robert MacKenzie compared the media regulatory structure of France, the United
States, Mexico, and Ghana.
Some example regulations
– In France (via EU regulation): “50 per cent of all television programming must be of European
origin, the French government requires that 40 per cent of this 60 per cent be of French
origin. In addition, 35 per cent of songs on radio stations targeting teenagers must be of
francophone origin “
– In the USA, obscenity “cannot be broadcast at any time.” What is obscene? “Obscenity is
defined as whether an average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds
that a broadcast appeals to the prurient [appealing to unusual desire] interest.”
– In Mexico, “criticism of government” is prohibited. Since 1998 Mexico has become a freer
democracy and this is less used, but it is still expected, especially in the press (newspaper) that
government officials won’t be insulted
– In Ghana, the “right to rejoinder” is law. That means if a person is criticized in the media, they
have the right to respond on air to that criticism. Ghana’s regulatory bodies also work to
promote democracy by: “balancing discussion of personalities with analysis of the issues;
making party manifestos intelligible to the electorate; remaining impartial; refraining from
activities that compromise the integrity of the journalist; and avoiding the promotion of
violent or ethnic conflict. ”
Robert MacKenzie. “Comparing Media Regulation Between France, the
USA, Mexico and Ghana.”Comparative Media Law Journal.
http://bit.ly/gMn94V
Different Concerns, Different Regulations
• “France regulates media as
an extension of culture.
The United States largely
regulates media as
extension
of commerce. Mexico
largely regulates media as
an extension
of communication and
transportation. Ghana
largely regulates media as
an extension of developing
democracy.”
Robert MacKenzie. “Comparing Media
Regulation Between France, the USA,
Mexico and Ghana.”Comparative Media
Law Journal. http://bit.ly/gMn94V
• He concludes that: “ It could be surmised that
the main conditions impinging media
regulation include: commerce in the United
States, culture in France, poverty and
development of national infrastructure and
democracy in Mexico and similarly poverty
and development of national infrastructure
and democracy in Ghana.”
Robert MacKenzie. “Comparing Media Regulation Between France, the
USA, Mexico and Ghana.”Comparative Media Law Journal.
http://bit.ly/gMn94V
Regulation in the United States
• As McKenzie notes, the US tends toward minimal government
control – a trend of “de-regulation” (which film is about.)
• Federal Communications Commissions manages both economic
and social regulations for broadcast media.
– 1987 – “Fairness Doctrine” eliminated. This doctrine had provided for
broadcasters to “ require… that they made every reasonable attempt
to cover contrasting points of views. The Commission also required
that stations perform public service in reporting on crucial issues in
their communities.”
– Minot chemical spill – people didn’t hear about dangerous chemical
spill because no one was at the privately run radio stations.
• Not all public goods are provided by the marketplace.
What about regulating the internet?
• Some bodies – some international, some national
– regulate various aspects of the internet.
• Ongoing debate: Net Neutrality.
– Pro-NN: All traffic should be treated equally (like the
phone system: content does not determine the
charge.)
– Anti-NN: The government should stay out of
regulating what private companies can do with the
network they built.
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
(This video helps understand the issue but definitely
takes a stance and has its own bias…)
• FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski explains Net Neutrality this way:
• “The... principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that
broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet
content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade
lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some
content or applications over others in the connection to
subscribers’ homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just
because it competes with a similar service offered by that
broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to
decide what content and applications succeed.”
• In December 2010 the FCC has banned cable and telephone
providers from blocking or slowing down access to competitors
sites, but does not nec. Block them from charging more for faster
service.
• But the new Congress has said they will rule against these.
United Kingdom
• Newspapers
– Are (voluntarily) subject to the Press Complaints
Commission (PCC) which has a code of practice, but no
damages can be awarded
• Television – More Tightly Regulated.
– Ofcom regulates broadcast media. They have the power
to “order broadcasters to issue apologies and corrections,
whiel serious breaches can result in fines or loss of
broadcast license.
– *NB: The BBC “is governed by Royal Charter and has its
own internal regulatory system.
MediaWise – Media Regulation http://www.mediawise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=972
• The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has
little power.
– Journalists have little respect for it: "I've been
justly punished," he says in the intellectual
monthly magazine Prospect. "But by an authority
for which I have no respect,
• OFCOM wields more power. It is an independent
regulator (it is NOT the government but rather
empowered by the government) which ” licenses
all UK commercial television and radio services.
Our Broadcasting Code also sets out the rules
which television and radio broadcasters must
follow. This section includes information for the
broadcast industry, as well as our latest research
and Broadcast Bulletins.” (Ofcom.org.uk)
• For example, just recently OFCOM has been
engaged in
– Investigating the talent show the X-Factor for
promoting music tracks for sale on its Web site – goes
against certain regulations for inside and outside of
programmes (unfair competition/advertising)
– Preventing News Corps (Rupert Murdoch’s company)
from buying a majority share in BSkyB.
• OFCOM has reported to the government that “may be
expected to operate against the public interest since there
may not be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of
media enterprises providing news and current affairs to UKwide crossmedia audiences”. (http://bit.ly/hCFhyl)
Global Media Regulation (Economic)
• Increasingly global technology– leads to a
need for global media governance.
• Various international bodies regulate (or
attempt to) the global flow of media.
– ITU
– UNESCO
– ICANN
– WTO
ITU
•
•
•
•
International Telecommunications Union
Members: every state but Cook Islands, Niue, and Palau
Founded 1865 – but now part of the UN
Allocates radio spectrum “across borders, terrestrially, and via
satellite, for the purposes of telephony…data, television, radio, and
others.”
– 1. Standardization: Standardizes telephone networks.
– 2. Radiocommunication: The broadcast spectrum is a scarce public
resource – there is a a finite amount of space over which to
broadcast- ITU regulated who gets to broadcast (vis a vis countries)
– 3. Development: “established to help spread, equitable, sustainable,
and affordable access to communication technology”
– 4. ITU TELECOM: Organizes events, summits for global
Telecommunications sector.
UNESCO
• The United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural
Organisation
• Founded 1945
• More social than technical concerns.
• Provides a “forum for voluntary cooperation on…issues of
mutual concern across a wide area, and to raise and debate
issues of global import.” (26)
• Much more about diplomacy and such things as “cross
border…satellite broadcasting…and copyright exemptions
for development purposes.” (ibid.)
• NWICO – New World Communications Order – caused
much debate. The U.S. left UNESCO in 1984 and rejoined in
2003.
ICANN
• Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers
• Founded 1998 as a non-profit private corporation
in California.
• Assigns IP addresses and Doman Name System
(DNS) allocation.
• But the US Department of Commerce maintains
ultimate control over DNS allocation.
• Example: in June, designated “.xxx” for adult
content sites.
• In late 2009, ICANN went ahead with the
“Internationalised Domain Name Fast track process”
which “allowed…non –Roman characters to be used in
top-level domain names.”
• Using Chinese, Arabic, and Greek.
• "The coming introduction of non-Latin characters
represents the biggest technical change to the Internet
since it was created four decades ago," said ICANN
chairman Peter Dengate Thrush in a statement. "Right
now Internet address endings are limited to Latin
characters--A to Z. But the Fast Track Process is the first
step in bringing the 100,000 characters of the
languages of the world online for domain names."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_310387139-93.html#ixzz1CeG8ji27
WTO
• World Trade Organisation – which regulates lots
of aspects of global trade – some of this spills
over into media.
• 1995 ratified the “Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights” (TRIPS) which took
control of IRPS away from the UN.
• This means that everything from “films, usic,
books, televisions, magazines” have their rights
underwritten by the WTO (in TRIPS signatory
nations at least).
• For example, “for magazines, newspapers, and
other non-audio-visual media, countries are
not allowed…to introduce barriers to market
entry on basis of protection of cultural
integrity.” (28).
Social Regulation
• We’ve broadly discussed economic regulation at
the national and international levels.
• What about social regulation – what does or
doesn’t get shown in the media?
• One aspect is censorship – like the restrictions on
what can be told about a child in the US or
France.
• Sometimes, the way major events are reported
throw up new questions about regulation and
ethics.
Case Study - India
• Mumbai Attack Coverage (India)
India’s Broadcast Environment
• Over one-billion people.
• Markets (including media markets) opened to
competition in 1991
• From two channels to +375 channels in two
decades
• No single national media policy
NDTV’s Coverage of Mumbai Attacks
• New Delhi Television, a private television company in
India.
• In November 2009, terrorists bombed the major rail
station in Mumbai, India, as well as two hotels.
• In the Taj hotel, there unfolded an ongoing hostage
situation on live television.
• “Transcripts of conversations between the terrorists
and their masters, released to the press subsequently,
show that the latter guided and orchestrated the terror
operations based on the live reportage and information
volunteered on local news channels.”
• Clips of Taj Hotel coverage:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjybT0W
SIs (Barkha Dutt)
• http://www.youtube.com/user/ndtv?blend=1
&ob=4#p/search/1/qO3-Z_3X5Pg
Why were people upset about
broadcast coverage of the Mumbai
attacks?
• Interviews with family – exploitative?
• Interviews with officials – distracting them from doing
their job?
• Live feeds of the hotel – showed what police were
doing and thus helped terrorists?
• Violated security cordon – broadcasters got too close
to the action?
• Coverage focused on hotels – where the rich people
were affected – rather than equally attacked rail
station, where “regular people” were also suffering.
• “The controversial, continuous, live television
coverage of the three-day ordeal, which was
avidly watched by audiences across the
country, generated considerable criticism and
thereby revived the debate on media
regulation. However, once again, much of the
discussion sidestepped the idea of an
autonomous regulatory body for the media as
a whole or at least the broadcast sector. “
Ammu Joseph, “Broadcast Regulation in the Public
Interest” (http://infochangeindia.org/Media/BroadcastLaws-and-Regulations/Broadcast-regulation-in-thepublic-interest-A-backgrounder.html)
• Even as security forces were still battling
hostage takers within the Taj, (on November
28th), “the Union Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting summoned news media owners
as well as office-bearers of the Indian
Broadcasting Federation (IBF) and the News
Broadcasting Association (NBA) to express
concern over the conduct and content of
television channels during the extraordinary
emergency.”
Ammu Joseph, “Broadcast Regulation in the Public Interest”
(http://infochangeindia.org/Media/Broadcast-Laws-andRegulations/Broadcast-regulation-in-the-public-interest-Abackgrounder.html)
• Indian case law holds that broadcasting must
serve the public good: “the airwaves or
frequencies are a public property” (belonging
neither to the State nor to private entities)
and that “their use has to be controlled and
regulated by a public authority in the
interests of the public and to prevent the
invasion of their rights”.
Ammu Joseph, “Broadcast Regulation in the Public Interest”
(http://infochangeindia.org/Media/Broadcast-Laws-andRegulations/Broadcast-regulation-in-the-public-interest-Abackgrounder.html)
• This led to increased debate in India over
regulation. As in many countries, this debate
highlighted tension between a fundamental
(and in India, constitutionally mandated) right
to free speech and a more shifting definition
of the “public good”, particularly in
unexpected security situations like the
Mumbai attacks.
• Barka Dutt, a broadcaster and anchor for NDTV who
covered the events, says broadcasters never violated
the security coordon, and only interviewed family
members because they wanted to talk:
– “Why did we interview waiting relatives who staked out at
the hotels as they waited for news on their families and
friends? Quite simply, because they WANTED to talk.
Allegations that I or any of my colleagues across
the industryshoved a microphone in the faces of any
waiting relative, are untrue in the extreme. Television, for
many of these people, became a medium to express pain,
grief, anger and hope…”
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/mumbaiterrorstrike/Story.aspx?ID=C
OLEN20080075194&type=opinion
• The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
proposed an amendment to introduce
restrictions…on live coverage of war and
violent law and order situations, disclosures
about security operations, live interviews with
victims…or perpetrators.”
• The media responded saying this was a limit
on their guaranteed right for free speech.
• The amendment did not end up passing.
• The NBA – National Broadcasters Association stepped in to regulate themselves before the
government did.
• They introduced a new set of guidelines “dealing
with the telecast of news during emergency
situations.”
• Meanwhile, the government ministry set up a
“consultative committee” to meet regularly with
the NBA.
• But no official government regulator as of yet.
Government and Media Must Work
Together?
• Government needs a strategy of who speaks
when there is a crisis: “There appears to have
been no protocol in place in the government as to
who was authorised to speak to the media and
who was not.”
• Existing law has far reaching powers, but it wasn’t
necessarily enforced: India already has
the“…Power to prohibit operation of cable
television network in public interest –” but they
were reluctant to silence the networks – perhaps
because there were so many viewers watching.
Final Word - With the Viewer?
• Dutt, the journalist, admits: “ Viewing
preferences are highly subjective and always
deeply personal choices, and the most fitting
rejection of someone who doesn't appeal to your
aesthetics of intelligence, is simply to flick the
channel and watch someone else. The viewer, to
that extent, is king.”
• If the Media exists to serve the public good, how
much of a role should state (and international
governance structures) play in making sure that it
does?