|
Hukill恰当地总结了本地广播机构的态度和立场他在新加坡的电视对政府的描述：严重偏向积极的表现执政的本地新闻简报政府的理由是复杂的，包括对政府的支持，
简单地保持更大利益，社会和谐作为亚洲的美德，尊重个人意见。它也被视为责任，当地广播电视坚持诚信的良好管治规则，在许多亚洲文化中有着深厚的渊源。
Hukill aptly summarized the attitude and position of local broadcasters
towards the government in his description of television in Singapore:
Local news presentations are heavily skewed toward a positive presentation of the ruling
government. . . . The rationale is complex, comprising of support for the government and
simply keeping quiet as an Asian virtue in deference to the greater good of harmony in society
before individual opinion. It is also seen as the duty of the local television broadcasters to
uphold the integrity of good governance that has deep roots in many Asian cultures. This is
in sharp contrast to the notions of independent ‘checks and balances’ and the liberty of direct
individual criticism of the State in Western societies. (Hukill, 2000: 180)
One must however add here http://www.ukassignment.org/lxszy/ that the attitude of the public as well as the
broadcasters themselves to the control of broadcasting is more than a matter of
values in many Asian societies including Malaysia and Singapore. An array of
legal and regulatory provisions at the disposal of governments can come down
hard on criticism which is felt by the ruling parties to be detrimental to themselves
or their policies and actions (Banerjee and Kamal Anuar, 1999).
The Winds of Change: Deregulation and Liberalization of
Broadcasting in Malaysia and Singapore
Strong winds of change have transformed Asian broadcasting from the
mid-1980s and most analysts (French and Richards, 2000) argue that the
irresistible twin forces of technological change and the liberalization of world
markets have destabilized the monopolistic arrangements of broadcasting in
Asia and more generally in the world. What are the critical forces and factors
of this change and what are the emerging trends that characterize this new
broadcasting landscape?
Several key arguments have forced governments across Asia to deregulate
and liberalize their broadcasting sectors (Goonasekera and Lee, 1998). Some
of the most significant pressures on the monopoly and control of broadcasting
can be summarized as:
技术变革和卫星有线电视的到来，国外的渠道和程序可以不再被封锁调节和控制。
•需要发展，并鼓励私营部门和企业家积极利用广播界，因为这可能会在一定程度上限制跨国广播电台的权力和影响力。
• Technological change and the advent of satellite and cable television, and
the proliferation of foreign channels and programmes which could no longer
be blocked out by regulation and control.
• The need to develop and encourage the private sector and entrepreneurs
within nations to actively exploit the broadcasting sector as this could limit
to some extent the power and influence of transnational broadcasters.
• Commercial and competitive pressures that force governments, which generally
do not have adequate financial and other resources to keep pace with
technological and commercial developments, to allow private players to
exploit a very lucrative sector of economic growth and profitability.
Star TV was the first to start fully-fledged transborder satellite broadcasts in
the Asia-Pacific region in 1991. This sudden advent of multi-channel satellite
526 GAZETTE VOL. 64 NO. 6
Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on March 30, 2012
broadcasting in Asia where Star TV reached thousands of homes at first and then
millions within a few years, ushered in a new era of broadcasting in Asia threatening
the national monopoly which dominated broadcasting until then. Today,
and this highlights the rapid and phenomenal progression of satellite television
in Asia, Star TV claims that it can beam its programmes to 220 million households
in Asia. Governments have reacted to this new and potentially destabilizing
development in a variety of ways across Asia, and Chan (1994) highlights
four of the main types of response to satellite broadcasting: virtual suppression,
regulated openness, illegal openness and suppressive openness.
In this context, the Malaysian and Singaporean cases offer interesting
examples of national government responses, and the deregulation and liberalization
of broadcasting. While direct satellite television reception is still banned
in Singapore, Malaysia relaxed its ban in 1996 and allowed for satellite television
broadcasts by ASTRO (Asia Satellite Television and Radio Organization),
using the Measat 1 satellite. This package offers 26 television channels and 7
radio channels to the Malaysian audience and includes most of the well-known
international satellite television channels. However, it is important to note that
the Malaysian viewers cannot purchase any other dish than the one specified
for receiving programmes from the Measat 1 satellite and only for the ASTRO
package.
In Malaysia, the government ended its public service monopoly in 1984 by
allowing a third and commercial broadcaster TV3 to provide television services.
This was followed by further deregulation and liberalization and within the next
few years, several other private television networks have emerged in the landscape.
The Malaysian broadcasting landscape comprises two public service television
networks (RTM 1 and RTM 2), three commercial terrestrial stations,
TV3, Metrovision and NTV7, one cable television package, Mega TV, as well
as ASTRO satellite television.
To any superficial observer, therefore, the Malaysian broadcasting sector
would look like a dynamic, liberalized environment where a multiplicity of
channels and programmes are offered by both public and commercial operators.
It is true that there has been a substantial increase of television channels
and services in the country and commercial broadcasters have entered the
landscape. However, contrary to the expectations of Malaysian viewers, the
deregulation of broadcasting has not led to greater independence of broadcasting
from government control. Deregulation of broadcasting in Malaysia has
actually been followed by a greater intervention by the Malaysian government
in the broadcasting sphere (Banerjee, 1999).
Through its major investment arms, the Malaysian government has significant
stakes in the broadcasting industry. Moreover, many of the new commercial
broadcasters have received broadcasting licenses because of their close
proximity to the ruling political parties and each of these ethnic based parties
control the print and broadcast media in the various ethnic languages.
Moreover, many of the large corporations which have majority stakes in the
broadcasting sector have close affiliations with the government, as is the case
of ASTRO satellite television owned by a close friend of the Malaysian Prime
Minister. Finally through a series of stringent licensing and other regulations,
BANERJEE: THE LOCALS STRIKE BACK? 527
Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on March 30, 2012
the government ensures that the media remain subservient to the state and the
ruling political parties (Banerjee, 1999).
The Singaporean case is also enlightening and shows clearly how controlled
deregulation and liberalization have been practised by some Asian governments.
In fact, in the Singaporean context, it would perhaps be more accurate
to use the term corporatization of the media rather than liberalization. In the
past few months there have been significant changes within the broadcasting
sector. Although there has been an emergence of commercial operators and
stakeholders in Singaporean broadcasting, a few key players control the whole
of the media in the country.
The current restructuring of the Singaporean media reveals certain key
trends. In the first place, there are two giant corporations, which have been
created to oversee and operate the country’s major media interests. On the one
hand, there is Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), which has been the monopol
player in the print media in the country and operates the English language
national daily the Straits Times. Recently, the SPH, which has stakes in telecommunications
as well as in the cable television sector through its shares in
Singapore Cable Vision (SCV), has formed Media Works, a television arm of
the company which operates two television stations, Channel U and Channel 1.
This is perhaps the first time that the government has allowed for cross ownership
of the media and allowed the powerful print media giant to enter the television
sector.
The other key media player in the country is the recently created Media
Corporation of Singapore (MCS), which owns a string of media interests
ranging from the series of terrestrially broadcast television channels such as
Channel 5, Channel 8, Channel News Asia, TV12 – Central and Suriya. These
channels are targeted towards specific ethnic markets such as the Chinese,
Malay and Indian audiences that constitute the main ethnic groups within the
country. MCS also has controlling stakes in Caldecott Publications, which owns
and operates magazines in the country.
Apart from these local terrestrial television channels and players, Singapore
has in the past few years witnessed the emergence of a large number of foreign
television channels offered via cable television. Singapore Cable Vision (SCV)
offers a large number of local and international television channels. The international
package includes Disney, ESPN, Star TV (movies and sports), Nickelodeon,
Animal Planet, Discovery, the BBC and CNN, Zee TV (Indian channel),
HBO, Cinemax, Hallmark and several others. This sudden entry of foreign
channels in the television landscape in the country has to be understood in the
context of the Singapore government’s efforts to position the nation as a regional
broadcast hub in East and South East Asia. The government in fact aims to
attract international broadcasters and producers to set up uplink programming
facilities and production centres in the country. Already by 1998 there were,
according to Hukill (2000), some 20 satellite and broadcasting licensees uplinking
from Singapore as well as a number of production and post-production
companies that had established their regional headquarters in Singapore.
It is evident therefore that both Malaysia and Singapore have opened out
their broadcasting sectors to foreign programmes and channels and that there
528 GAZETTE VOL. 64 NO. 6
Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on March 30, 2012
has been some semblance of deregulation within these broadcasting markets.
However, as these two countries demonstrate, even in the era of satellite television,
governments can continue to be major players within the broadcasting
industry. Commercialization of the broadcasting sector has perhaps been the
main consequence of all these developments without necessarily the constitution
of more independent broadcasting systems. In essence, one could say that
governments have tactically employed some form of deregulation and liberalization
to benefit from the large commercial potential of the broadcasting industry
without really distancing themselves from these developments. Governments
have become the shareholders of a commercial broadcasting environment and
while they continue to safeguard their political interests through ownership and
regulation, they have systematically used the potential of broadcasting to rake
in higher profits.
The Impact of Liberalization on Local and Foreign Content
and Programming
In both of these countries there has been a significant increase in foreign content
because of the channels distributed by cable in Singapore and satellite in
Malaysia. Does this imply that the deregulation and liberalization of television
have enhanced the one-way flow of broadcasting with potential threats to the
cultural values and identity of Singapore and Malaysia? At first glance this
would definitely seem to be a consequence of changes in the broadcasting landscape
in Asia. Public service monopoly of broadcasting systems restricted to
some extent the flow of foreign Western programming and content into these
countries. Deregulation has opened the floodgates and today not only foreign
content but also whole packages of Western-based foreign television channels
are circulating in Asia.
A closer inspection of the Malaysian and Singaporean broadcasting landscapes
reveals that although there has been a significant increase in foreign
programmes within these broadcasting systems they have not necessarily overthrown
local content or found particular favour with the local audiences. To begin
with it has to be underlined that foreign programmes have been imported into
Malaysia and Singapore from the early stages of broadcasting because of the
serious shortage and limitations in terms of local production skills, capabilities
and finance. In fact, even under the public service monopoly era, both these countries
imported significant quantities of foreign programming (Karthigesu, 1990).
The advents of cable television in Singapore and satellite television in
Malaysia have not entirely destabilized the local content industries. In Singapore,
ratings and audience statistics clearly indicate that the most popular television
shows in the country are locally produced Chinese dramas. Moreover, as
Hukill notes:
None of the cable channels, as might be expected, comes even close to the viewer draw of the
local commercial broadcast channels in Singapore and do not pose any competitive threat.
That the availability of more programming in Singapore has driven local broadcasters to
develop higher quality local programming is a positive outcome of the influx of additional programming
availability if not a direct result of commercial competitive pressure. (2000: 188)
BANERJEE: THE LOCALS STRIKE BACK?
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
