A new policy is for a 'new' tier of broadcasting. Or should we, like several market products, have the same players and same kind of broadcasting repackaged with a 'new' label?
If CR and its mandate is not suitably defined - why have a separate policy for it? If the approach and philosophy of CR is not being reflected across the stations that have come up, it is precisely because we seem to be compromising on the basic tenets of CR. No one is suggesting that there cannot be 'meaningful' partnerships, but that does not mean, giving up the basic premise/spirit of CR? I was given to understand that 'facilitating' is different from 'educating' people and that 'capacity building' is far more participatory and rooted in the culture/lives of people than mere 'training'. And that funding support would be to let a thousand CRs flourish and not for calling every new non-profit radio as CR just to add to the statistics. Variety and diversity are the soul of CR, but that cannot be interpreted as giving concessions on the interests and motives of the intended CR operators just to let 'hundred flowers bloom '. What if all flowers that bloom are backed by a propaganda, power, politics or privilege motive? What if one single-minded person/organisation with no passion for CR takes it upon himself/themselves to define what community radio is? Would we rather follow that as a guideline? If the group has followed the mails that have made a case against those [Community Radio & its distracters] "seeking legitimacy in government corridors in the name of community radio (or, more appropriately, caricatures of community radio)," you would probably understand the angst of the people who are sticking to the real spirit and philosophy of CR – they are being put down/discouraged by those who have co-opted CR to suit their own interests/agendas. How can one give up on the basics of CR? Should CR not be - rural more than urban? local rather than 'global'? people produced, owned and managed, rather than 'manned' by retired AIR officials? Why do we want to see CR stations as 'adopted' projects of government officials/departments? [I would rather have the social sector take them up – in the right spirit, of course] Why do students of campus stations have to teach communities what is meant by 'development'? I would think that if the state governments are so keen to get into broadcasting, they should struggle to seek ownership of the 77 local radio stations of AIR and run them well; rather than 'taking over' CR stations? 'Sustainability' is, no doubt, a big concern, but it should not become a cradle for nurturing outright commercial ideas or a passage for government players to march in.Some of the things that are being said or introduced into the CR debate in the name of sustainability would only lead to diluting its purpose and intent. I am sure those who are applying for CR licences for their communities are perfectly capable of finding apposite ways in which communities would work together to sustain their own radio stations. Kanchan 2008/12/31 sanjay bharthur <[email protected]> > Of late and seeing many postings and debates about CR I am a bit concerned > as to whether we are over defining CR and its mandate. This concern is > relevant because we ought to move into a realistic plane. The platform upon > which a different CR policy was fought had its purpose and sincerity that > none can doubt. However, that approach and philosophy is not evident across > the spectrum of CR stations that have come up and are likely to come up. > Are our expectations of them skewed or oversimplified. We were concerned > about sustenance and advocated limited advertisement support model. Now can > we push our argument to suggest that advertisement support in a pluralistic > market place can be choosy. We were wary of partnerships and now > partnerships of all hues including government support is likely. State > governments that were callously left out of broadcasting activities have now > found unique opportunities to partner with cbos-recall the karnataka > government approach- that we heard while we were at Bangalore. If let a > hundred flowers bloom is our avowed intention can we stop the variety and > diverse interests and motives of intending CR operators?. Content is one > aspect that we agonised and so did we on operational parameters. My concern > is overreaction to attempts at someone somewhere exploiting CR's philosophy > and or its exising licensing framework will isolate us from the larger > concerns. We may want to reflect. > _______________________________________________ > cr-india mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india > -- Dr. Kanchan K. Malik Department of Communication S N School of PA, FA & Communication University of Hyderabad Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500046 Phone: +91-40-23135501(O) +91-990-858-2613(M)
_______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list [email protected] https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india
