continued: TBS Virtual Symposium "Transnational Broadcasting in Asia"
page 1 | 2
biographies of participants

TBS: We have sometimes referred to transnational broadcasting as “broadcasting that transcends borders.” Asia’s countries tend to be relatively isolated from one another geographically; is transnational broadcasting able in this instance to transcend these borders, or does geographic isolation bring a degree of isolation in broadcasting systems? What about linguistic factors--does the plethora of languages and dialects spoken hinder transmission from country to country?

Thomas: I disagree that Asia's countries are isolated geographically from each other, as most of them are contiguous on the continental mainland. Besides, satellite technology overcomes the tyranny of distance and of geographical terrain such as high mountain ranges or oceans. While doubtless there is a plethora of languages across the whole continent, many are strictly dialects or languages within a language group, which are thus mutually understandable. There are also a number of "lingua franca" operating within Asia, such as Hindi, Mandarin, and Arabic, not to mention English in many urban metropolises. Some ethnic groups such as the Chinese have migrated throughout Asia, or a good part of it, and taken their language with them. Even where languages may be totally different, there are often other cultural similarities within Asia or its subregions, which allow people/groups to enjoy each other's television programming--take, for instance, Hindi movies in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Finally, having been drawn rather arbitrarily for historical reasons, political boundaries have seldom been successful in containing languages and cultures exclusively and hence even terrestrial domestic broadcasts enjoy transnational audiences by spillover.

Shoesmith: When STAR TV was established it was constructed as a pan-Asian service, meaning that it would be a highly centralized broadcaster. This had obvious cost benefits for Hutchison Whampoa and then Murdoch and also for the multinational advertisers. However, it proved impractical and by 1995/96 STAR TV had moved towards customization of products. This was further aided by technological improvements that allowed more specific footprints to be developed. Thus, while broadcasting can transcend political and physical borders, it still is confronted by cultural and linguistic borders that are not so easily transcended. However, two things should be noted: English is a lingua franca (the relationship between satellite broadcasting and old style imperialism still needs to be investigated) and sport is one area where transcendence seems to be welcomed.

Kumar: Satellite channels such as Star-TV began broadcasting in English, but soon learned that transborder languages such as Chinese and Hindi are more widely known. Star TV's major channels targeted at South and West Asia are now in Hindi (Star Plus, V-Channel, Zee TV). It's not entirely correct to say that Asia's countries tend to be isolated from one another. There is some cultural exchange, though not as much as that between individual countries and the the major transnationals. But much more than language hindering transmission from country to country is politics. Yet, Indian films do travel well in West Asia and Southeast Asia; some of them are subtitled, others are dubbed, but many films are transmitted in the original language. Hollywood films too are screened regularly, often subtitled in Hindi, Chinese and Arabic.

Kitley: One of the difficulties I have in responding to this question is that the term "Asia" is so general and unsatisfactory. There are many Asian countries which are squeezed together, with borders that have been sites of invasion and shifting sovereignty for centuries. Think of Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand. Equally it is true that Japan is a long way from Burma or India. The linguistic issue is very significant, although modern dubbing technology facilitates the exchange of television programs across linguistic and cultural borders. Indonesia has an extraordinary set of regulations concerning dubbing. Foreign language soundtrack programs must be dubbed into English, and then given Indonesian subtitles. The rationale is difficult to discover, but it is associated with a belief that if the foreign language soundtrack were simply dubbed into Indonesian, then Indonesian would become a conduit for the infiltration of (undesirable) foreign values. English becomes a kind of buffer. Here then is a case of local regulations being developed to counter the perceived undesirable effects of transnational broadcasting. Of course, certain elites, those who own satellite dishes, for example, can escape the government’s dubbing policy, by taking their programs as a direct feed from satellites. It seems that at least in Indonesia the New Order government was not overly concerned about this hole in the dubbing layer. They took the smug view that anyone wealthy enough to own a satellite dish was probably sympathetic to the regime. This was a highly prejudiced and very optimistic assessment.

TBS: Recently China had a conflict with Rupert Murdoch's Sky News over their coverage of the country’s process of democratization. Have you seen other instances in which international news networks touch on politically sensitive issues? Is there a big difference in the coverage of some issues between local news agencies and international networks? And within Asia itself, do you think conflicts between nations affect their news coverage of regional issues?

Kitley: Conflicts over news have long been the site of transnational strife in the Asia Pacific region. Australia has suffered in its relations with Asian neighbors over the issue. The East Timor issue and the "recalcitrant" affair are two disputes which have soured relations between Australia and Indonesia and Malaysia, for example. But these disputes are not always between so-called "Western" and Asian countries. The Flor Contemplacion affair that I cited above shows that ASEAN brothers can also fall out over news broadcasts. At the time of the Commonwealth Games, Prime Minister Mahathir warned international journalists that they were only permitted to cover the Games, and could not file stories on domestic issues such as the Anwar trial. News reporting formats and values differ widely in the region. In many countries, news is much closer to the values of development journalism than the “free press” ideals championed by Western liberalism. Sometimes, national news in countries such as Indonesia has almost a ritual character (see Kitley, 1998 “Television News Rituals in New Order Indonesia” Hitchcock, M and V T King Images of Malay and Indonesian Identity Kuala Lumpur; Oxford University Press).

Kumar: BBC World is known to be insensitive to coverage of community conflicts in Asia. It tends to highlight these conflicts unmindful of the consequences on society. There is a huge difference in the coverage of politically sensitive issues between local and international networks. Local agencies, for instance, tend to gloss over communal clashes and crime; transnational networks focus on them. Hostility between nations in Asia does tend to influence news coverage. Indeed, TV is used to unleash hate propaganda against the "enemy." This is also true of shortwave broadcasting.

Shoesmith: News gathering and dissemination in Asia is a fraught area. Until recently there was a powerful argument in place about Asian values and the role of journalism and news in their maintenance. Among the ASEAN countries there was an agreement that the respective presses would not comment unfavorably on political events of fellow ASEAN nations. Since the fall of Suharto and the imprisonment of Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia this has changed. But again, to generalize about news coverage in Asia is almost impossible. How do you compare Singapore with India, China with the Philippines? You can't, and this issue has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Thomas: Periodically there are instances where national broadcasters, public or commercial, will choose or be under pressure to suppress politically sensitive news, but transnational broadcasters remain at liberty to report, even if only out of sensationalism and motivated by the hope of high ratings. One instance cited often in the early 1990s was the destruction of the Ayodhya mosque in India by Hindu fundamentalists, news which was suppressed by India but broadcast by the BBC and which is alleged to have triggered widespread violence within the country. Another incident involved the broadcast of the Dili massacre in East Timor, which was suppressed by Indonesia but broadcast unwittingly, not by a transnational broadcaster but by domestic Malaysian television. However, this was available in Indonesia by spillover in border areas as well as via satellite throughout the country, since Malaysian television also uses an Indonesian satellite. Protest by Indonesia reportedly resulted in the dismissal of the Malaysian broadcast executives responsible, a response which would not be countenanced by transnational broadcasters with a "Western" pedigree. Yet instances of this sort can only increase as even domestic broadcasters go regional via satellite technology, and little can be done by governments except to ensure that their own version of events are also broadcast.

TBS: Some Asian countries are currently involved in the privatization of their broadcast media. Where do you foresee this process heading? Will the privatization process impact other systems that believe development doesn’t necessarily go hand-in-hand with privatization?

Kitley: In Indonesia privatization of television has occurred rapidly since 1989, when the first private pay-TV service was introduced. There are now five national commercial channels and one government channel. Other satellite services are developing, and cable and other pay services are growing. Audience reaction has generally been positive. Discourse in the press has welcomed privatization as audiences look forward to greater variety. Lobby groups concerned with children’s television, conservative values and ethical standards in advertising have all become increasingly vocal since the introduction of commercial television and the assault of transnational programming. As commercial channels compete for audiences, audiences believe that there is likely to be greater openness. This is seen as a good thing, something likely to assist national development as it is likely to contribute to greater transparency over major contracts and the like. In this sense, privatization in Indonesia is regarded positively, even though the private channels are all owned by family or friends of the former President Suharto.

Shoesmith: The only country that I know has embarked on a systematic privatization of the media is Singapore, although Malaysia seems to be moving in this direction. In the Singaporean instance I would suggest that privatization at this moment is more an illusion than a reality. India, the Philippines etc. have always had private media. I can't see China privatizing CCTV in the near future, although some cable companies have the trappings of private companies--but they are still subservient to political demands from the CPC.

Thomas: Privatization of broadcast media in Asia is taking place in tandem with liberalization of the wider economy in those countries keen to tap into the capitalist world system. Much of the motivation for privatizing the broadcast media has been the widespread disaffection for public broadcasting and thus the attraction of transnational broadcasts, and recognition that the public bureaucracy is neither competent nor adequately resourced to compete. However, privatization does not mean abdication of control of the media, as often it is the government itself, whether national, state or city, which turns private owner (as in China and Singapore). Alternatively, it may be the dominant political parties (as in Malaysia and Taiwan), or family members or business cronies (as in Indonesia) who are granted licenses. The same is true also of cable systems licensed to rebroadcast of satellite television. Hence, while there has been some liberalization and much commercialization of content, formal governmental control of the broadcast media in Asia is being superceded by informal but no less effective self-regulation.

Kumar: "Privatization" of the broadcast media in Asia has only led to further commercialization and to American-type programming. Instead of the Information Ministry calling the shots it is the advertisers and the advertising agencies who have taken over broadcasting. The "global village" has now been transformed into a global market where the transnationals are the main sellers of their cultural products and information.

TBS: How does the political unrest in Indonesia and Malaysia impact transnational broadcasting in Southeast Asia?

Shoesmith: Political upheaval in Southeast Asia seems to have had little impact on transnational broadcasting. Indeed, Malaysia seems to have become even more enmeshed in the process at the same time as it has embarked on a process of political destabilization. The same seems to apply to Indonesia.

Kitley: The economic crisis might have had a more serious impact than the political strife. These days domestic television in Indonesia is more critical than it ever was, but it is suffering a lot from the loss of advertising revenue.

Kumar: In this region of Asia, one would expect greater tightening of the government control over transnational broadcasting. Malaysia and Singapore have already shown that this could be done quite easily.

Thomas: Those who find themselves in the opposition during a national crisis in Asia are invariably denied access to domestic media, and are therefore dependent on transnational media both to convey their message nationally and internationally and to monitor developments elsewhere within their own country. Whether the supporters of Anwar or proponents of greater democracy in Malaysia will someday come into power and whether they will then be more supportive of transnational broadcasting is yet to be seen. Certainly in Indonesia, the unrest, which resulted in the resignation of Suharto as president, will ultimately affect the control of the commercial stations by various members of his family and friends. What form that change will take is still uncertain. The commercial viability of the major cable rebroadcaster, though, is already in doubt, given the decline in subscriptions following the severe economic crisis which accompanied the political one.

TBS: Although the phrase is now out of fashion given its use as a cover for arbitrary rule in Indonesia and Malaysia, the concept of "Asian values" or "Confucian values" has been demonstrated to be a viable alternative to free-market libertarianism in a successful society like Singapore. Can transnational broadcasting adjust its content to conform to such a value system in those Asian societies that officially sanction them?

Kitley: The question is hard to answer. "Transnational broadcasting" is multi-stranded. Services which originate from outside and which do not target Asian countries specifically may not see any particular imperative to conform to domestic regimes of value. Other services, specifically tailored to particular regions and audiences, do shape their programming accordingly. Australia Television, however, while declaring itself "sensitive" to regional values and cultures, aspires to be as frank and upfront in its regional broadcasts as it is for domestic audiences. A complete answer to this question would require an intensive investigation into programming content, scheduling, advertising and so on.

Thomas: Whatever their misgivings about "Asian values" and "Confucian ethics," transnational broadcasters have demonstrated that in order to be in the favor of national governments and thus gain access to valuable domestic markets, they can adapt their program content or allow it to be adapted for them. One example of this is the Astro cable television service in Malaysia, where transnational satellite programs are downlinked and subjected to local censorship before being uplinked and then rebroadcast direct-to-home within an hour. Another example is CETV, which adopted the explicit policy of "no sex, no violence, no news" to ingratiate itself with the Chinese, Taiwanese and other governments, although the policy did not save the broadcaster from financial problems. On a wider scale, most transnational broadcasters seem to have realized that in order to attract sizable audiences in Asia they need to provide programming, be it news or entertainment, that does not offend the sensibilities of mainstream audiences there, let alone government officials and politicians. Thus pragmatic business considerations have compelled even libertarian transnational broadcasters to pay lip service to "Asian values" and make cosmetic changes to their programming content, at the very least.

Shoesmith: I have never seen "Asian values" as an alternative to free-market liberalization. On the contrary, I see this ideology as an authoritarian adjunct of economic rationalism. Here we have to distinguish between traditional Asian value systems and "Asian values." "Asian values" is a cultural argument developed to gloss over the deep contradiction that underpins the "Asian miracle of the 1990s” where deeply conservative political regimes justified their authoritarianism and at the same time practiced crony capitalism. "Asian values" are a modernist construct whose hollowness is now apparent.

Wilson: I think this is a complex and interesting issue. To make one point: again from the perspective of audiences, much transnational content need not be adjusted. For instance, there is a quite remarkable compatibility between the values espoused in a US show like Oprah Winfrey (the individual in a family context) and attitudes held by, say, Chinese viewers in Malaysia. Issues of compatibility and conflict between cultural content need to be addressed from a very conscious position, since an academic reading of program content may be quite different from those made by everyday viewers.

Kumar: Transnational broadcasting adjusts quite easily since its primary concern is profit making. See how Murdoch has adjusted to China and the BBC to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Region's emirates. The concept of Asian values does provide a viable alternative to free market libertarianism, but for the transnationals the only value is commerce for profit and domination. Their continuing imperialist and ethnocentric mindset will continue to blind them any alternative values. TBS