Tuesday, July 27, 2010
In the last days, a Twenty-20 world cup in cricket was organized in South Africa. Although all the matches were thrilling & interesting but two Semifinals & a Final caused a shivering sensation to the lovers of cricket, the Semifinals were between India Vs Australia & Pakistan Vs New Zealand & the final was between India & Pakistan. These matches were a centre of excitement for the public. reason was that a TV channel company has bought all the rights to telecast it. It simply means that only that TV channel can telecast these matches that have got rights to telecast the cricket World Cup. If we talk about the countries of Southern Asia, especially India, Pakistan & Bangladesh, we see that most of its population lives in villages. Those people mostly lack the television ownership. Generally the national programmes are telecast on their TV sets. Whereas the only private channel that has got the rights to telecast the World Cup, can't be received unless there is a cable network. If there is no cable network, the dish available in the market, being sold by many companies can be made use of to watch the matches. But all these things whether cable network or dish can only be made available by the rich people or by the dwellers of the cities. As it was observed that on one side, there was a final match between the traditional cricket rivals India & Pakistan, being fought in the playground & on the other side, the common people were craving to watch the final on their TVs. This match was not being telecast by the Indian Doordarshan. Undoubtedly, the electronic media & different TV channels have molded themselves in the globalization. It is also true that profession can't be linked with the feelings. But, can this so called professionalism, ban the rights of watching a thrilling match of players of one's own country? Can the rule of telecast not be liberalized to the extent that the people of the country, whose players are playing the match to see it? Or the national TV channel is available for the people of the country? If there can't be such a setup then what else can it be called but only a planned conspiracy against the people of that country? Clearly this electronic media aroused the interest of the people by its open telecast in the beginning. When the people became habitual of inebriation, some professionals deprived them to watch by buying the rights to telecast. This professional maneuvering means that if someone wants to watch the match, he must arrange for the dish, may not for his bread & butter.