Camera Obscura: Karnataka Assembly Bans Private TV Crews, Photographers

Karnataka was one of the few states where TV channels could cover assembly proceedings바카라�elsewhere, even in Par­liament, they have to subscribe to feeds from public broadcasters. The sudden move drew protests from journalists바카라�it was only the assembly that barred TV crews and photographers while the legislative council was still open to them바카라�and subsequently a boycott by news channels. Speaker Kageri maintained that the res­triction was being tried out as a pilot during the three-day session. 바카라�When we are giving all the data and information to them without any filter, is there a problem?바카라� he said. 바카라�For us, Parliament is the model. They are also suggesting that all states adopt a similar mechanism.바카라�

The curious bit, however, came when chief minister B.S. Yediyurappa tweeted that he would request the Speaker to rec­onsider his decision, but deleted the message subsequently. It only provided grist to the notion that the veteran leader didn바카라�t have a free rein as he used to. The media ban got a passing mention during the assembly바카라�s budget discussions as well. Cameras were allowed so that the proceedings of the House would be transparent, argued Siddaramaiah, leader of the Opposition. 바카라�Some (members) would be enthusiastic and some alert, while speaking,바카라� said the former CM.

But previous government too had thought aloud about a camera ban in the House, even if they didn바카라�t actually carry it out. In 2015, the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government had aired the view, suggesting that the legislature could instead start its own channel just like Lok Sabha TV and Rajya Sabha TV.

In defence of the ban, BJP members pointed out that media houses were only being asked to relay the telecast from a single source. Said law minister J.C. Madhuswamy: 바카라�This is the outcome of the practice in many states and Par­lia­ment and the decision of the conference of Speakers. This discussion has been going on for a decade.바카라� Of course, it must be said, live and archived webcasts of proceedings are available on the legislature바카라�s website too.

To most observers, however, it came across as a wary move. It바카라�s the general practice to focus on the member who has the floor but distracted members too have made it to the headlines바카라�it was a BJP government in Karnataka that was singed on that count in 2012 when a TV cameraman picked up three of its ministers watching a porn clip on a mobile phone while the House proceedings were on. The scandal forced them to resign their ministerships.

Read | How Many Ways Can A Political Party Be Caught With Its Pants Down?

바카라�It바카라�s not just a step back, it바카라�s also a rather futile step if you ask me,바카라� says Sashi Kumar, chairman of the Media Development Foundation, which runs the Asian College of Journalism in Chennai. 바카라�People바카라�s representatives are supposed to be on exemplary behaviour. They are supposed to represent not the worst sentiments of the people but the best.바카라� Kumar points to the long journey, worldwide, of how reporting parliamentary proceedings became an acceptable norm.

The Karnataka assembly first allowed private TV channels into the House in 1994, the same year Parliament started live telecast. 바카라�Eternal vigilance is the price of democracy. The people who elect us to the assembly or council have right to know what we are doing in the session,바카라� says senior Congress legislator K.R. Ramesh Kumar, a Speaker of the House in the mid-바카라�90s who had allowed private channels to cover proceedings.

바카라�Technologically, things have changed so drastically that you바카라�re actually trying to go against the grain when you bring in these regulations or restrictions,바카라� reckons Sashi Kumar. 바카라�Secondly, it바카라�s certainly less democratic. 바카라�

By Ajay Sukumaran in Bangalore