Configuring Regulatory Mechanism and Mass Mediation in India

Configuring Regulatory Mechanism and Mass Mediation in India

Lecture Delivered at a National Seminar organized by Gurudas College and Calcutta Research Group

Abir Chattopadhyay

Tethering media butterfly?

Slide#1: Tethering Indian media? two opposing or complementary signifiers; on whose side are we? Who the corporate media is accountable to? State? 'People' is a vague answer, as they play the role of audience for media.

For me, it has always been difficult about saying anything on the ‘regulatory mechanism’ tethering Indian media in an era of deregulatory ‘butterfly’ functioning of or rather say deregulated mass media for last 25 years. The subject opens up with the largely traditional 'state regulatory structure' on the one side, and 'global corporate missionary media' on the other, tethering each other or giving additional operational space rather to each other. ## Then on whose side are you, masters of opinion?

It is therefore a difficult task indeed to explore the central signifier for tethering or regulating mass media and the mediation process. Who then is to be considered as the authority for today's hypercommercial media? Or who the conglomerated media is accountable to? Is it the respective state where media operate or the global corporates that own media? It is indeed a very difficult question because, for various ideological reasons, we can't overrule any of the institutional codes in a country's limited periphery. I will try to explain the situation rather than trying to resolve it.

So, while reading I found certain points mentioned in your brochure that helped me developing my idea about the subject, rather resolving the crisis of my understanding.

Slide#2: Are mass media and mediable space homological? Corporatization and conglomeration do not make them homological in any sense;

Slide#3: Spatio-temporality is a condition for media-production, as we communicate in a particular spatio-temporal condition; very difficult to understand the signifier of spatio-temporal condition i.e. why this production;

The first paragraph of your brochure mentions that print, audio-visual and social / new media omnipresent and independent of spatio-temporal limitations.

Firstly, I am bit a hesitant about identifying mass media and the new virtual mediable space homological at all. There is indeed a great debate there on it. It is very hard to however equate a production engine with a mediable space albeit both are globally corporatized and conglomerated.

Secondly, 'spatial' and 'temporal' are somewhere different in terms of media consumption. 'Spatial' is related to the 'entry use' (much similar to using data and package space) of technical space which media provide as a 'base' and 'temporal' is related to a determinate ‘time (code) value’ i.e. superstructure. So we now need to clarify whether any central ‘code value’ is dependent upon any central ‘usage’ of media space for earning any central 'value' of the media. Audience consider 'media' in a spatio-temporally limited condition.

But when spatio-temporal or the 'time and space' comes or is considered together, it is the very signifier of 'media production' which is neither manifested nor independent because media production is not a free signifier in this world. Audience also cannot get any knowledge about that.

Thirdly, usage of media has a popular social impact on its consumption not on the condition of production. We often exemplify the ‘usage’ of media (and try) to value-judge its success also, e.g. 125 million people use or subscribe FB, so it is very successful; this app has more user, that media has more TRP etc etc. Similarly what we exactly do is campaigning the success of the cinema that bags 200 or 300 crores etc. Now my question is do you call it a value judgement or value of the ‘temporal’ just on the basis of 'entry usage' of a 'media space' given to us?

The consumption of the media content otherwise is actually value-based because we read the content for earning the value. Mass media create contents, but mediable space or social media provide related information for campaigning that further in a different spatio-temporal condition. Mass media and mediable space therefore do not share same spatio-temporal condition but create successive spatio-temporal conditions one after another to cover social space. One complements the other in such a way that they conquer all possible inter-temporal conditions to cover the total social space. So the value judgement procedure is a matter of different spatio-temporal condition that is not included in the above dual spatio-temporal conditions between media and mediable space.

Finally, considering the impact of media independence, we all have deliberately missed out the corporatization and globalization signifiers of media. We have accepted it as a compulsive and given phenomenon.

Now regulating mass media is therefore an issue of discussion on the one hand and regulating newly generated mediable space in the virtual platform is a different ball game altogether.

Slide#4: mass media spatio-temporally limited; they create number of 'limited' spatio-temporal conditions with an abnormal variety of production; each spatio-temporal condition neutralizes the earlier condition; In this way they remain statist more than the state;

A. Spatio-temporally limited mass media

In case of mass media, there is hardly any counter social space for communicative action, because genealogically they are not interactive, better say very limited interactive, whenever they initiate interaction, in talk shows, or reality shows etc. One can at most say that in the era of globalization the number of so called 'limited space' has been increased with the band of mass media production. Today's all pervasive global mass media conglomeration or global media power however has surpassed all possible traditional regulatory mechanisms of state censorship by

(a) Neutralizing harassing, disparaging contents by extending them toward the issue of entertainment; as too much information and entertainment categories on various successive spatio-temporal conditions usually neutralize the earlier condition. Sometimes they become statist; sometimes they appear as entertainers, sometimes partisan and sometimes unbiased.

(b) The contemporary mass media, unlike its pre-globalization phase, therefore comfortably avoid censorship by being so statist for their commercial gain; state power, civil society and even free intellectuals today largely depend upon mass media signified[s] i.e contents.

(c) Author Ammu Joseph admits that bodies like Press Council of India, BRAI have largely been unsuccessful to regulate broadcasting media on the one hand and failed to appear as a truly autonomous body beyond government power.

New Corporatized Mediable Space: Spatially Unlimited?

Slide#5: Techno-spatially huge space for personalized consumption; the space features are regularly upgraded; the new order of consumption requires certain proactive configuration of audience; the hugeness of white space also gives a new modernist feel of independence;

Slide#6:

• Independent blogging and other institutional contents,
•  Anti-national content production,
•  Interactive or communicative action in social media,
•  Production and consumption of pornography, and lastly,
•  Neoliberal corporate commercial extension i.e. the story of global corporate commercial extension and myth of people's active participation and development.

The second paragraph of the brochure rightly mentions that "survival of new media is dependent upon technical innovations..." etc. I would here prefer technical ‘upgradation’ instead of the word 'innovation' because the techno-corporate features of new media space unfortunately but no longer appear innovative to the consumers. It rather reaches its consumers as ‘upgraded’ features for the extension of usage or consumption, albeit the new order of consumption needs certain proactive configuration of the audience too, also said the brochure. Through websites, social media spaces in the virtual medium, there is however an ambivalence of both personalized and corporate conditions exercising,

•  Independent blogging and other institutional contents,
•  Anti-national content production,
•  Interactive or communicative action in social media,
•  Production and consumption of pornography, and lastly,
•  Neoliberal corporate commercial extension i.e. the story of global corporate commercial extension and myth of people's active participation and development.

All above activities, first of all, are being performed on a technically non-limited space. I don't prefer the word 'unlimited' space as long as the space is quite censorable and also cognizably offendable. It is basically a virtual space, we can say, for conventional contents. But for a particular content there is a huge but corporatized, limited virtual space, rather white space is allotted. This hugeness generates a modernist affiliation of independence for incorporating micro or personalized opinions. We all are mesmerized with the hugeness of white innocent space given in our facebook profiles (however the space is not innocently managed; Scape example). All above activities are therefore somehow legitimizing the condition of independence also. We therefore feel independent using facebook or own websites etc, and ambivalently aware as well of its corporatization and right of banning any content, any profile, any activity etc.

Moreover there is a Cyber Regulatory Network globally and nationally active beyond or latent to such a feel of independence.

So out of all these activities what concerns us is, three mutually opposed CONTENT structures for which ‘laws to be enforced for anti-national contents’ and if done so, ‘independent blogging is seriously hampered’ and thirdly interactive action in social media that also develops both planned and loose contents.

For (d) there is already a large-scale moral policing active against pornographic extension among audience although there is no way of intercepting pornographic production in the virtual platform. So the whole effort is nowadays concentrated on mitigating the statistical figuration or statistical code. Some say 37%, some say 30%, some say 4% pornographic elaboration share total internet space. But whatever the figures of production, consumption of internet pornography is increasing day by day. No ‘state law’ could so far extend any punitive or preventive action except banning some sites. I don't know to what extent they are doing so.

Lastly for ‘neoliberal corporate commercial extension’ we are not at all concerned about, although the global corporate commercial format extends a whole new political economic production considerations behind all such activities, be it media conglomerate or media-IT conglomerates. So are we really concerned? A big No. We are therefore deliberate about neglecting all such production axis albeit concerned about whether any unholy consumption takes place.

Slide#7: Media related to set new policies and economic order; How; as a formulator or a reflexive instrument? Is the phenomenon economic?

The second paragraph of the brochure also mentions that "media in the age of globalization is intrinsically related with new economic order and new sets of policies". Now the problem is how media is related to such developments? I am not here going to bombard you with [figures of] signified[s] of media coverage, which you already are aware of its availability in various sources.

So as your brochure says, media is intrinsically i.e. somehow iconically related with the new world order and instrumental behind new policies, the problem is how it is related. Is it related as a signifier i.e. media formulates opinion ## or ## just as an outcome i.e. media just cover the opinion? If it is an outcome, i.e. a 'reflexive' face of the world orders, it works then as an instrument or an innovation of whosoever owns it. But I consider that global media does not appear as just an outcome.

Now what if the media and new media conglomeration works as a signifier? It therefore becomes a huge production engine not just structurated by any global innovation but structurates all global and state policies and trends. My question still stands. How? Is the phenomenon economic?

Production-Consumption dialectics

Slide#8: media is also a gigantic production system; media produce all codes over the liberal social conditions; first media then mediable space: downward campaign;

We are now entering a very subtle phase of media operation far beyond producing censorable contents. The problem as mentioned above, somewhere down the line is the state production system, largely hidden behind a parallel production system of information code, progressive code, religious code, commercial code and anti-national codes on the one hand and the consumption of all above codes by the audience on the other in a successively later time and space. Parallel production system here denotes the production of Neoliberal Code system by the global conglomerates. And Consumption of that code means consumption of both essential and problematic contents like all fundamentalist codes, sexually and socially repressive, and finally anti-national codes too. Needless to say that such disturbing contents are being flourished in social media space, if we even observe loosely. On the contrary personalized, organizational nationalist codes in social media also appear too much intolerant and definitely censorable. However victims are only independent bloggers, free thinkers. This is possibly the neoliberal compulsion. So all the above neoliberal codes overshadow our very own liberal spaces of expression and opinion. Sometimes these are necessary for mankind, sometimes are very very problematic and undoubtedly censorable.

Nevertheless the state, social authorities, important chairs all have to be ambivalent in this context, i.e. concerned about the independent bloggers' fate, silent about the neoliberal production of fundamental codes and ignorant toward the definition of independence. We will still consider 'using' or 'consuming' commercial space as the symbol of independence.

B. Regulatory Mechanism

Content regulation: The state eclipses independent blogging and essential usage

Slide#9: state eclipses independent blogging or using mediable space in search of suspicious contents;

The law so far enforced including IT Regulations Act 2008 is to regulate suspicious contents for the state cause. So a massive debate is popping up that government may be vindictive to intercept any content which it considers suspiciously anti-national or threatening the country. As evidences of such unethical intervention are mounting to restrain independent bloggers in all neighbouring nations and also in our country, authors are of opinion that there should always be a public debate before the enforcement of any such law. But authors like Ammu Joseph here lament that no such debate had ever been taken place in India. This kind of debate, she however admits, provides no solution except the regulating authority comes up ethically.

Good, Bad & Ugly Contents: An 'Old Dialectical Code'

Slide#10: Good contents and bad contents: old dialectical code; books, newspapers were time and again gagged, censored, confiscated;

Now if we look at the problem in a bit subtle way, we will find that today’s problem is not just related to the above binarity of good content and bad or suspicious content. This opposition is a long standing and unresolved one, for which not just independent blogging is affected, lots of books, journals, and other political, national contents have been either suspended or confiscated or intercepted for a long time. I have worked on my first book 'Quit India Movement: A Retrospection' chiefly based upon the intercepted contents and secret documents. We Indians are habituated with this mutual opposition as a total 'dialectical code'. The law and the legal suspicion or punitive perimeters have not been changed at all, rather follows the essentiality or requirement code, i.e. when it is required. Naturally the democratic system is the single authority there, we can trust in.

Slide#11: It is basically an ambivalence of 'war and peace' between two production engines; state and media; your choice is not required; only independent bloggers, freethinkers and writers of today of yesteryears are alienated between two production engines;

We have in this course reached at a new dialectical situation between two production engines. The state power is there on the one hand and the corporate media or mediable space on the other. Both production engines have their own signifiers to control each other, to dominate each other and ambivalently to appease each other behind the mutual opposition. But in such mutual opposition, the radically independent personalities, bloggers and many others become victims of the state or of the fundamentalists. I however won't say much about citizen journalism for the practice not being so impactful in recent years.

Now the fifth and final paragraph of the brochure admits that media 'signifier' can mould public opinion. Basically both state and media can mould public opinion. But again the problem is how? Firstly, when both state and corporate media share same space together by perpetrating mutual opposition practice, both state opinions and media opinions get a multiplier effect. How? Actually media cover both state opinion and its own view. Only opinions of the common people become completely alienated like independent bloggers' opinions.

Oligarchy of Codes: Oligarchy of Signifiers

Mass Media up to websites ## and ## corporate or institutional use of social media perform only a single job. They produce Codes of events and situations. I can recall the famous analysis of Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak in 'Can the Subaltern Speak?' where she formulated how production of code overshadows the actuality of everything. Be it today's exploitation or public opinion. Finally the reductionist feature of mass mediated code rules the market. Today's state power and national part of global mass media are exactly doing the same, producing multiple ambivalent codes. Institutions and chairs are engaged in typical bereaucratic role of propagating or legitimizing, as Habermas says, the code. Media therefore play a real ambivalent role propagating both state code and its own codes along with some meagre amount of public views also. This is how media make a homology of codes while in producing soaps, news talk shows, reality shows with very meagre exceptions. Here the question of suspicion does not even arise except certain minor mistakes.

There is however no escape from this oligarchy of codes. From marketing to socializing the oligarchy of codes overshadows the economic and political scenario. From the price of a product to the highest nationalist practice the oligarchy of mediated codes rules the scene. We on the other hand need both of them for our purpose.

This is why I tried to elaborate the situation instead of giving a determinate solution.

With this load of unpleasant words, I want to conclude and wish the seminar all well.