India amended the Cable Television Act in 2011 with the intention to move from analog to digital systems. Dishes were to replace the antenna.  It was a phased process — with the metros leading the way. By October 2012, you could not watch TV in Delhi if you didn’t own a set-top box. The change was more gradual in smaller towns and villages – but it happened nonetheless. Digitisation left people with four options:

• Cable with set-top boxes
• Direct to home (DTH)
• Doordarshan’s terrestrial connection with or without the antenna
• Doordarshan’s subscription-free DTH platform, DD direct

The first two options require a set-top box. Terrestrial broadcast is on its legs and Doordarshan’s DTH, although available without a monthly subscription fee, gives one very few options. Remember, though, that set-top boxes are an expensive affair – both the one-time installation cost and monthly charges are higher than in analog systems. What that meant was that one had to choose: between flexibility, available for a price on DTH and cable TV and a frugal but much cheaper viewing experience on Doordarshan.

While the shift to set-top boxes was quite natural in bigger cities, it wasn’t all that simple for a large section of the population in smaller towns and rural India. Digitisation, therefore, has led to a major change in television viewing patterns, particularly in rural areas.  So how have lower-income viewers responded to digitisation? Have they chosen the flexibility of DTH/cable TV over the much cheaper but limited choices Doordarshan offers? Or have people refrained from investing in the expensive set-top box?  Also, how has digitisation affected Doordarshan, the country’s public broadcaster, if at all?  The Media Foundation, New Delhi, carried out a detailed ground-level study between 2012 and 2014 in various districts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and also Delhi to answer these questions.

Called “When the dish box knocked down the antenna”, the study analyses “how television digitisation is impacting low income viewers and public broadcasting”.  The study reveals that even the most economically-deprived households prefer dishes to Doordarshan – thus making the public broadcaster perhaps the biggest casualty of the digitisation exercise.  The singular reason people cite for their decision is Doordarshan’s quality (the lack thereof, rather). The report notes, that in all the focus group discussions that were part of the study, “the desire for quality content was expressed in unambiguous terms”. This quote from one discussant in Bhilai about Doordarshan’s programming sums it up:

If they are talking about education, then it will go on for two hours. If it is agriculture it will go on for an hour. And that too it is not interesting. Two people will sit and keep talking about agriculture. They will say: If you want to farm, then farm like this. For one or two hours this will continue. In this the viewer’s attention is not retained. Then how does one see these programmes. Add some entertainment. Put some songs in this programme, good songs, Chhattisgarhi folk music.” 

According to the study, most people who continue to opt for DD Direct have no other choice. They come from some of the most backward districts of Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat, where even owning a television set is a luxury very few can afford.

The study also throws light on the mismatch between content demand and DD’s programming.  A significant chunk of respondents said the public broadcaster’s programming was too entertainment-heavy.  They complained that there was not enough information on employment and education opportunities.  Their concern is certainly legitimate. As much as 51 per cent of DD-National’s programming is just entertainment – and not very gripping entertainment at that.

People also rued the lack of local agriculture news. The report says that though there is a fair amount of farm-related programming on Doordarshan, most of it is on terrestrial TV. As a result, most farmers cannot access it because they are on satellite or cable – platforms which give them much more control over other viewing choices.

It is evident from people’s responses documented in the report that the public broadcaster has failed its rural low-income viewers to a large extent. While the shift in technology has contributed to people not being too kicked about Doordarshan’s programming, it is abundantly apparent that the bigger problem lies in Doordarshan’s quality of programming.  Where and how have things gone so wrong for Doordarshan?

I attended a roundtable with the Doordarshan Kendras’ heads of the states which found mention in the report last Saturday to try and understand. To be sure, the problems are real. Almost every state head bemoaned the lack of funds. “A major chunk of the very little money we get is used towards engineering, leaving us very little for actual content creation,” said one of the heads. Another said there wasn’t a credible or comprehensive audience feedback system to rely on.  There were also grievances about the lack of advertisement budgets.

However, there was also a strong sense of denial among many of the state heads.  “Doordarshan is a family channel – it is the only channel today the entire family can sit and watch,” said the Punjab Kendra head, making a point about the “mandate of a public broadcaster”, which he claimed was not the same as that of any other commercial channel. What he meant was that the programming was not sub-standard but just adherent to “family” values.  Truth to be told, most of these so-called “family entertainment shows” are not only regressive, but also badly made with sub-standard production values.  To pass off these shows which are neither socially progressive nor entertaining as “family entertainment” is to undermine the aesthetic sensibility of the viewer.  While there is no denying that the public broadcaster has its share of problems that it can do very little about, refusing to accept that its content is sub-par doesn’t help anyone.  Lok Sabha TV and Rajya Sabha TV too are government-funded broadcasters, but they have managed to create a niche for themselves owing to their quality programming.  There is no reason why DD can’t regain at least some of its lost ground if it switches to smart responsive content instead of “family entertainment”. Of course, for that to happen what goes on air has to be decided by professionals and not babus, who may mean very well, but often just do not have the programming experience, creative sensibility required.

After the round-table, I caught up with Sevanti Ninan, General Secretary of The Media Foundation and co-author of the report. She said the primary problem was the fact that most of Doordarshan’s money went into engineering and technology and not content creation. When I asked her if we could afford a loss-making public broadcaster any more, Ninan told me that there is a huge information gap in India and it is the government’s “duty” to run a public broadcaster to address it.

Doordarshan is on a ventilator. It’s been on one for a long time now. Most people who matter, though, seem to think staying alive is what matters. If that’s the case, it will. The government has enough reasons to keep it alive. But then it should not call itself a “public service” broadcaster because it’s clearly not serving the public anymore.