ajay124
Well-Known Member
Television world wide is about greed and advertising revenues.
'News is the stuff we shove between the ads.'
(Don't remember which media magnate said that.)
Public vs Private Sector TV and Other Companies
- Thread starter ajay124
- Start date
Television world wide is about greed and advertising revenues.
'News is the stuff we shove between the ads.'
(Don't remember which media magnate said that.)
sanjay0864
Well-Known Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
I think you guys are overlooking one very important 'FACT'. That 'Doordarshan' is a state owned, public broadcaster, whose very reson for existence, is to provide 'free' coverage of events, information, news etc. of NATIONAL importance and interest. Unlike private companies, their objective is not supposed to be to 'profit', specially not at the expense of something as nationally important as the Opening Ceremony of a 'nationally' hosted event such as this. In most, if not all other nations, even private companies would show more respect to their viewer and more importantly, for an event of this magnitude. I'm sure if you were to check with friends abroad, who may have seen the opening ceremony, they will confirm this to be true. Please stop accepting or making excuses for what is simply blatant 'greed' and what far exceeds the objective of even commercial enterprises. For even they, atleast supposedly, set certain moral/ethical boundaries within which to earn their profits.
Last edited:
jitubisht
Active Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
completely valid.
i still however feel that DD should look to make profit where they can. the more they can survive on their own, the better it is. Just because it is backed by govt funds does not mean they shouldnt look to make profits.
In no way I am trying to accept things that are wrong. For me too, DD had far more breaks than I would've liked. All I said was, I can understand why they would have wanted to cash in on this.
completely valid.
i still however feel that DD should look to make profit where they can. the more they can survive on their own, the better it is. Just because it is backed by govt funds does not mean they shouldnt look to make profits.
In no way I am trying to accept things that are wrong. For me too, DD had far more breaks than I would've liked. All I said was, I can understand why they would have wanted to cash in on this.
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
Doordarshan until the mid 80's had more content and less ad's.But with the influx of private broadcasters got into the me-too (sensationalize content and grab as many ad's as you can) mode.In any case,in these times of recession( most parts of the globe sans India,China,Brazil) I don't think any public broadcaster would be expected to sacrifice any revenue it could get it's hands on.But at least the CWG could have been the exception to the rule.
Last edited:
sanjay0864
Well-Known Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
I am not sure any of you understand the very objective of having a state owned 'Public broadcaster'. If DD is now just another "me-too (sensationalize content and grab as many ad's as you can)" broadcaster, then they have outlived their utility and need to be shut-down and at thevery least, they then no longer ought ot have first rights, by default to anymore national events. Infact since hey are no longer working for the interest of the 'public', they should have to compete for all broadcast rights, can you think 'cricket', like any other broadcasting company. I guarantee that had a private broadcaster covered the 'opening ceremony' as pathetically as Doordarshan has, there would have been a hue and cry by the politicians and bureaucrats. Also, if the TV rights to the CWG had been openly auctioned, I bet DD would have gone crying to the government and the courts to force the private company to share the feed in the name of 'NATIONAL' interest. The same 'NATIONAL interest' that was so evident during the opening ceremony coverage.
I am not sure any of you understand the very objective of having a state owned 'Public broadcaster'. If DD is now just another "me-too (sensationalize content and grab as many ad's as you can)" broadcaster, then they have outlived their utility and need to be shut-down and at thevery least, they then no longer ought ot have first rights, by default to anymore national events. Infact since hey are no longer working for the interest of the 'public', they should have to compete for all broadcast rights, can you think 'cricket', like any other broadcasting company. I guarantee that had a private broadcaster covered the 'opening ceremony' as pathetically as Doordarshan has, there would have been a hue and cry by the politicians and bureaucrats. Also, if the TV rights to the CWG had been openly auctioned, I bet DD would have gone crying to the government and the courts to force the private company to share the feed in the name of 'NATIONAL' interest. The same 'NATIONAL interest' that was so evident during the opening ceremony coverage.
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
By the same token would you say that public sector companies like BHEL,NTPC,SAIL,ONGC should also work in the 'national interest' and shun profits?The stock market would hammer them so badly they wouldn't know what hit them.And isn't making a profit by a public sector enterprise a more important national interest than a one off event?
By the same token would you say that public sector companies like BHEL,NTPC,SAIL,ONGC should also work in the 'national interest' and shun profits?The stock market would hammer them so badly they wouldn't know what hit them.And isn't making a profit by a public sector enterprise a more important national interest than a one off event?
sud98
Well-Known Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
I dont think anyone is talking of shunning profits but of also keeping national interests in mind too.
Unlike the companies you mention, DD is an arm of the ministry of I&B and not a public sector company so the comparison doesnt make sense as they have different objectives.
If profit was the primary motive of DD then they would never be broadcasting 'Krishi Darshan' kind of shows.
Do note that even public sector companies have an explicit agenda that profit is not their first priority. Thats the reason you have subsidized diesel as an example. Any profit minded enterprise would never have done it.
I dont think anyone is talking of shunning profits but of also keeping national interests in mind too.
Unlike the companies you mention, DD is an arm of the ministry of I&B and not a public sector company so the comparison doesnt make sense as they have different objectives.
If profit was the primary motive of DD then they would never be broadcasting 'Krishi Darshan' kind of shows.
Do note that even public sector companies have an explicit agenda that profit is not their first priority. Thats the reason you have subsidized diesel as an example. Any profit minded enterprise would never have done it.
sanjay0864
Well-Known Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
On the other hand, public sector companies are exactly that, companies. They exist to make a progfit and infact in most cases these were all originally private companies that the government took over in the name of national interest. In fact the very logic used to take over these private companies was that profit should not be made from certain basic essential industries and services. Thus these sectors were taken over by the government and the newly formed companies objective became to simply provide their products and services at cost and not with a motice to make, let alone maximize profits. Even with the new found zeal to make the public sector companies profitable, they are time and time again reminded of their primary 'objective' that of providing certain service/products of a certain standard and at a minimal cost to the public. As 'sud98' pointed out the most well known example is the subsidizing of petroleum products at the cost of huge losses to the public sector oil companies.
Bottom line is, one must keep in mind what the 'objective' for the very existence of Doordaarshan is, which is to provide coverage of nationally important information, news and events to the public at zero cost.
I am sorry to say that your comparisons are absolutely baseless at the least if not outrightly silly and ridiculous. 'Prasar Bharti' is not a company and is an autonomous corporation of the 'Ministry of Information and Broadcasting'. It was formed with the 'sole' objective of providing autonomy to Doordarshan and All India Radio, the two Public broadcasters of India, like those in many other countries. The role of any public broadcaster is just like any other administration/service wing of the government. It's like suggesting that the External Affairs ministry ought to start making profits on issuing passports or the local municipal corporation make profits from the sewage service. It's one thing to try and recover as much of the cost from charging the customer with the sole objective of reducing the tax burden, but it is an erntirely different thing to suggest that government ought to try and make a profit from their services. In any case, the attempt to increase revenue to turn a profit, cannot and should not be at the expense of reducing services or the quaklity of those services. I suppose it would be alright as per your logic, for your local municipal corporation to decide that in an effort to reduce costs and thus profits, they shall only clean the roads and collect garbage once a month.
On the other hand, public sector companies are exactly that, companies. They exist to make a progfit and infact in most cases these were all originally private companies that the government took over in the name of national interest. In fact the very logic used to take over these private companies was that profit should not be made from certain basic essential industries and services. Thus these sectors were taken over by the government and the newly formed companies objective became to simply provide their products and services at cost and not with a motice to make, let alone maximize profits. Even with the new found zeal to make the public sector companies profitable, they are time and time again reminded of their primary 'objective' that of providing certain service/products of a certain standard and at a minimal cost to the public. As 'sud98' pointed out the most well known example is the subsidizing of petroleum products at the cost of huge losses to the public sector oil companies.
Bottom line is, one must keep in mind what the 'objective' for the very existence of Doordaarshan is, which is to provide coverage of nationally important information, news and events to the public at zero cost.
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
There is no such thing as 'zero cost'.If DD or any other government agency cannot pay it's way then the tax payer foots the bill.
The petroleum subsidy is an outdated election plank which both the government and the oil companies would gladly be rid off,but successive governments have been scared of biting the bullet.When oil spiked to 147$ recently our public sector oil companies nearly went bust.
What you are suggesting are outmoded socialist concepts which have already been consigned to the dustbin of history in most parts of the world.
And the dialogue would be more civil if you stopped using words like silly and ridiculous.
There is no such thing as 'zero cost'.If DD or any other government agency cannot pay it's way then the tax payer foots the bill.
The petroleum subsidy is an outdated election plank which both the government and the oil companies would gladly be rid off,but successive governments have been scared of biting the bullet.When oil spiked to 147$ recently our public sector oil companies nearly went bust.
What you are suggesting are outmoded socialist concepts which have already been consigned to the dustbin of history in most parts of the world.
And the dialogue would be more civil if you stopped using words like silly and ridiculous.
sanjay0864
Well-Known Member
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
I'm sorry but comparing the obligations of a government agency to a 'publicly traded' profit seeking company, even if a public sector one, is nothing but silly. Even then, I apologise for offending you. As for Doordarshan, if it cannot self finance without reducing itself, to worse than the whorish standards of the average Indian TV company, then I'm sorry but it has outlived it's utility and ought to be shut down. At the very least, if they are going to have the same standards and obligations as any other private company, then they cannot and should not have exclusive first rights to any more national events. Most certainly, they also then no longer have any moral authority to demand rights to cricket events, stating 'national' importance. Uff... what hypocrisy.
Last edited:
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Checked out how 'Old Beeb' is funded.Within UK,every house/organisation having a TV set is charged an annual license fee.The amount is decided every year by the government.Outside UK the BBC World Service is funded by a grant from the government.Also by commercial sale of programmes by BBC Worldwide.
The EU has a comprehensive charter for funding public service broadcasting.Covers everything (and much more) of what we were debating in this thread before it got moderated
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/leg_p_funding_psb_tcm6-4443.pdf
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE EBU LINK
-the way funding is provided is likely to influence broadcasting output.
-an organisation dependent on ad revenue will be under 'rating' pressure,leading to 'commecialization'-broadcasting cheap mainstream stuff and avoiding experimental/controversial stuff.Leading to failure to cater to minority interest.
-a state funded broadcaster maybe 'leveraged' by the party/body providing the funds.
-secure funding system needed which does not expose broadcaster to political or commercial pressures.
-license fee from public is a good option since the broadcaster exists for the sake of public service.
-in case a public broadcaster is allowed to offer commercial services,there must be a 'structural separation' and a 'financial separation' to avoid cross-subsidization of commercial services from public funds.Therfore 'commercial revenue' and 'public revenue' needs to be clearly distinguished.
-public broadcasters in quasi-monoplistic situations were allowed a small amount of advertising to keep license fee at a minimum level,but tight limitation on advertising protected viewer from a disagreeable amount of advertising.
-introduction of commercial broadcasting considerably reduced viewership and revenue of public broadcasters....
Leading Back to the debate
Should public broadcasters depend completely on a license fee and be ad free and high content channels.In which case,how would they be protected from political pressures from the 'powers' who decide the license fee?
Or should there be some mix of public/commercial revenue,in which case how would they be protected from commercial pressures from advertisers who hold the purse strings?
CATCH 22!
The EU has a comprehensive charter for funding public service broadcasting.Covers everything (and much more) of what we were debating in this thread before it got moderated
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/leg_p_funding_psb_tcm6-4443.pdf
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE EBU LINK
-the way funding is provided is likely to influence broadcasting output.
-an organisation dependent on ad revenue will be under 'rating' pressure,leading to 'commecialization'-broadcasting cheap mainstream stuff and avoiding experimental/controversial stuff.Leading to failure to cater to minority interest.
-a state funded broadcaster maybe 'leveraged' by the party/body providing the funds.
-secure funding system needed which does not expose broadcaster to political or commercial pressures.
-license fee from public is a good option since the broadcaster exists for the sake of public service.
-in case a public broadcaster is allowed to offer commercial services,there must be a 'structural separation' and a 'financial separation' to avoid cross-subsidization of commercial services from public funds.Therfore 'commercial revenue' and 'public revenue' needs to be clearly distinguished.
-public broadcasters in quasi-monoplistic situations were allowed a small amount of advertising to keep license fee at a minimum level,but tight limitation on advertising protected viewer from a disagreeable amount of advertising.
-introduction of commercial broadcasting considerably reduced viewership and revenue of public broadcasters....
Leading Back to the debate
Should public broadcasters depend completely on a license fee and be ad free and high content channels.In which case,how would they be protected from political pressures from the 'powers' who decide the license fee?
Or should there be some mix of public/commercial revenue,in which case how would they be protected from commercial pressures from advertisers who hold the purse strings?
CATCH 22!
Last edited:
Re: Commonwealth Games 2010 inaugural ceremony - DD HD screenshots
it is extremely important for the ruling party to have a "captive" broadcaster -
especially when a state of emergency is declared - and there is need to play soothing music and show soothing motion pictures to an agitated and violent public.
it is extremely important for the ruling party to have a "captive" broadcaster -
especially when a state of emergency is declared - and there is need to play soothing music and show soothing motion pictures to an agitated and violent public.
Order now for just ₹19,990.00