[cr-india] Redefining CR??

[Kanchan K. Malik]

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 <bpssn54 at gmail.com>

> 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
> cr-india at sarai.net
> 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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20090102/5b1df94e/attachment.html