As BTV falters, viewers groan
Monday, 24 September 2012
Neil Ray
Few would contradict the view that had the state-controlled television given the liberty it deserves to play a role like its most famed counterparts on the world stage, it would have enjoyed mass popularity and confidence among common people. In most Third World countries, it has remained either a tool of government propaganda or a mere spokesman of the ruling parties. In case of foreign policies, even the world's best and most neutral tend to toe the government line whereas the less illustrious ones feel no qualms about rabidly supporting party stands within the range of domestic politics. With the cable lines thrusting hundreds of TV channels into a TV set, options are now wide both for news, views, entertainment and knowledge of the unknown and amazing world of science, technology, cosmology, medicine, marine life and what not.
No wonder competition to capture audience is fierce and the viewers take no time to decide which channels do not compromise on the quality of theme, content and the making of the programmes. Those who produce films or programmes on wildlife, underwater marine life or cosmic events are wedded to science of their respective areas. Some of them are the best in the trade and their love for and commitment to the causes are second to none. A few of them are not only pioneers but yet to be beaten by their successors. It is only natural that to many the once 'idiot box' has now turned to be the window to a colourful and unlimited world. Well, there are other not so elevating options too. But that is not a problem so much with the media concerned as it is with its abuse.
It is exactly at this point, the viewers' choice should be considered sovereign. Any attempt to control or impose an unsavoury will -or better say hubris -on the TV spectators by the authorities of the state-controlled BTV is surely an infringement in people's fundamental rights. The BTV bosses must share such a blame for ordering the cable operators to get the Star Cricket channel off the screen. Blanking this popular and high-quality provider of sports programme in favour of forcing the viewers to witness the T20 World Cup now being played in Sri Lanka on the state-run TV is violation of people's basic rights.
What does the BTV authorities want to achieve by this unpopular decision, especially when there is nothing political about it. One of the purposes may be to force the viewers to see BTV programmes. The quality of telecast is so miserable that people cannot help cursing those who have left them with no other option. The authorities have no right to do this because they subscribe to the cable operators for the best options possible. If the BTV men are bent on making the government unpopular, it is however a different political ball game. That it has been an ill-advised decision is quite incomprehensible to people who think the state property is their own. Even if the quality of telecast were comparable to that of the Star Cricket, they had no business taking such a poor decision.
If programmes are high quality, there is no need for coercing people to view those. People are wise enough to discern between the average and the exceptional -not just the deplorable and the excellent. So, let the BTV authorities not to continue with their follies and before resentment becomes mass rage, they should withdraw their decision in favour of allowing the cable operators to open the Star Cricket channel.
Few would contradict the view that had the state-controlled television given the liberty it deserves to play a role like its most famed counterparts on the world stage, it would have enjoyed mass popularity and confidence among common people. In most Third World countries, it has remained either a tool of government propaganda or a mere spokesman of the ruling parties. In case of foreign policies, even the world's best and most neutral tend to toe the government line whereas the less illustrious ones feel no qualms about rabidly supporting party stands within the range of domestic politics. With the cable lines thrusting hundreds of TV channels into a TV set, options are now wide both for news, views, entertainment and knowledge of the unknown and amazing world of science, technology, cosmology, medicine, marine life and what not.
No wonder competition to capture audience is fierce and the viewers take no time to decide which channels do not compromise on the quality of theme, content and the making of the programmes. Those who produce films or programmes on wildlife, underwater marine life or cosmic events are wedded to science of their respective areas. Some of them are the best in the trade and their love for and commitment to the causes are second to none. A few of them are not only pioneers but yet to be beaten by their successors. It is only natural that to many the once 'idiot box' has now turned to be the window to a colourful and unlimited world. Well, there are other not so elevating options too. But that is not a problem so much with the media concerned as it is with its abuse.
It is exactly at this point, the viewers' choice should be considered sovereign. Any attempt to control or impose an unsavoury will -or better say hubris -on the TV spectators by the authorities of the state-controlled BTV is surely an infringement in people's fundamental rights. The BTV bosses must share such a blame for ordering the cable operators to get the Star Cricket channel off the screen. Blanking this popular and high-quality provider of sports programme in favour of forcing the viewers to witness the T20 World Cup now being played in Sri Lanka on the state-run TV is violation of people's basic rights.
What does the BTV authorities want to achieve by this unpopular decision, especially when there is nothing political about it. One of the purposes may be to force the viewers to see BTV programmes. The quality of telecast is so miserable that people cannot help cursing those who have left them with no other option. The authorities have no right to do this because they subscribe to the cable operators for the best options possible. If the BTV men are bent on making the government unpopular, it is however a different political ball game. That it has been an ill-advised decision is quite incomprehensible to people who think the state property is their own. Even if the quality of telecast were comparable to that of the Star Cricket, they had no business taking such a poor decision.
If programmes are high quality, there is no need for coercing people to view those. People are wise enough to discern between the average and the exceptional -not just the deplorable and the excellent. So, let the BTV authorities not to continue with their follies and before resentment becomes mass rage, they should withdraw their decision in favour of allowing the cable operators to open the Star Cricket channel.