Broadcast
media: ruling out the rule book
Ranen
Kumar Goswami
Freedom
of the Press is premised on its necessity to gain the greatest common good.
Press freedom has several distinct and independently significant roles, which
as Amartya Sen points out, includes its intrinsic importance as a constitutive
part of development, its informational function in broadening understanding
across the society, its protective role in reducing human insecurity and
preventing serious deprivations and its constructive contribution in the
interactive and informed formation of values. A free Press can ensure that
citizens are not deprived of the fruits of democracy. Article 19 (1.a) of the
Indian Constitution says all citizens shall have the right to freedom of
expression. Freedom the Press is derived from this Article. But Clause 2 of the
same Article imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this freedom in
the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or
in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
Clause 1.a of the Article confers upon the media its freedom but Clause 2 of
the Article alerts the media against the misuse of this freedom and reminds them
of their responsibilities.
A large section of the electronic media
chooses to differ. They want to enjoy all possible freedom but do not want to
bear any responsibility in exercising it. They want to be powerful but not
accountable. The 26/11 Mumbai siege brought to the fore some glaring instances.
We would like to quote from an editorial in The
Indian Express on December 12, 2008, which said: “By debatable telecasts
during the siege, some broadcasters have justly invited the question: did they
transgress lines that should have been honoured with responsible editorial
oversight and thereby imperil operations or cause panic? When a news channel
interviewed by telephone a terrorist on air, for instance. Or when a prominent
broadcast journalist speculated the toll at one location could double, even as
operations had not yet officially ended. Or when TV ‘breaking news’ flashed
unverified reports of fresh firing in Mumbai. And when anchors amplified
war-like rhetoric against Pakistan, and reported unsubstantiated rumours of
military build-ups at the border. The danger now is that by the misguided
conduct of just a few journalists the freedoms of so many may be questioned.
Reason enough for each to reconsider the installation of editorial oversight
and codes.”
Similar sentiments were expressed in many
quarters. The pressure built up. Not that those leading the electronic media
had performed with a modicum of responsibility earlier. Television news is very
often packaged as histrionic performance, dressed up in hyperbole and
melodramatic mien, serenaded by lethal sound effects and evocative background
scores, mostly from films. And yet, as a discerning commentator has pointed
out, “it is completely secure in the conviction that unlike cinema there is no
confusion about it not being ‘real’, whatever it may do. It is the ultimate
reality show.” In an article in www.hardnewsmedia.com, posted on November 19,
2011, noted writer Badri Raina has expressed his disgust in such words: “Holy
cow,
rogue elephant, mythical albino pachyderm that everybody seeks and fears, it has
come to be all of these.Till this day, this animal that traverses across the
plethora of
channels, a spectrum of production from the occasionally sober and urbane to
the habitually sectarian, tendentious,
jingoist, gauche, superstitious, reactionary, callously exploitive of base
instincts and illiteracies, and obliteratively noisy, remains formally
unaccountable within the institutional arrangements
of Indian democracy, answerable only-- as some very senior Indian journalists
recently pointed out in a talk show -- to a handful of private
paymasters.………..Even
as they routinely scream to hold all State institutions -- the political class,
the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the State-apparatus--- accountable, India’s
electronic TV channels remain blissfully and shamelessly outside the ambit of
any regulatory mechanism, unlike the print media who are overseen by a Press
Council of India, however conciliatory and toothless thus far.”
In December 2000,
the United Kingdom published a White Paper entitled A New Future for
Communications. The document suggested conceptual
restructuring to bring together the five sectors of telecommunications,
television, radio, broadcasting standards and radio spectrum allocations under
a single-umbrella communications regulator. Emanating from this, the
Communications Act, 2003 established the Office of Communications (OFCOM) as
the regulator for all communications industries to further the interests of
citizens and consumers. Here in India, in face of severe criticism and
pressure, the National Broadcasters Association (NBA), a representative body of
TV channels formed in 2008, advocated self-regulation. They got a reprieve when
the Government did not oppose the idea. On January 8, 2009, even Sonia Gandhi,
the real power behind the UPA Government, told an NBA delegation that no
restriction should be imposed on the media.
Now, here is an instance of how the NBA
enforced its avowed self regulation. Abhishek Upadhyay, Editor, Special
Projects, Dainik Bhaskar, has pointed
out in www.thehoot.orgon November
22, 2011: “The NBA is so weak, so feeble in its exercise of power that it
can’t confront intimidation by its own members. The India TV case is an example
of this. The NBA, in the past, had given notice to India TV for deceptively
recreating a US-based policy analyst’s interview. It slapped a penalty of Rs 1
lakh on the channel which then walked out of the Association.The group of
broadcasters found itself completely helpless, couldn’t take any
action and finally surrendered meekly before the channel. The offending channel
issued a statement saying that its return has come after “fundamental issues
raised by the channel against the disregard to NBA’s rules and guidelines were
appreciated by the Association’s directors…” The head of India TV, Rajat Sharma
then proceeded to join the board of NBA, and the channel’s managing editor
Vinod Kapri returned to the authority in the eminent editors’ panel!” Upadhyay
further points out: “This was the turning point in
the so called self regulation mechanism of electronic media. It became clear
that all concerned had made an unwritten, oral understanding to not to raise a
finger on their own brethren in future. The Broadcast Editors’ Association
(BEA) was the next step in this direction, formed on 22 August, 2009 with a few
electronic media editors in the driving seat.”
Of late, the BEA’s favourite whipping boy is Justice Markandey Katju, the
new chief of the Press Council of India. Why? Because, Justice Katju has openly
advocated a regulatory mechanism for the TV channels. In Justice Katju’s
opinion, the mechanism may or may not be the Press Council. Now, let us go
through what Justice Katju has to say. On November 16, 2011, he wrote in The
Hindu: “The electronic media have strongly opposed bringing them under the
Press Council. Their claim is of self-regulation. But even Judges of the
Supreme Court and High Courts do not have such an absolute right. They can be
impeached
by Parliament for misconduct. Lawyers are under the Bar Council of India, which
can suspend or cancel their licence. Auditors are in the same position. Why then
are the electronic media shy of coming under any regulatory authority? Why
these double standards? If they do not wish to come under the Press Council of
India (because the present chairman is a wicked and/or undesirable person) then
the NBA and BEA should indicate which regulatory authority they wish to come
under. Are they willing to come under the proposed Lokpal? I have repeatedly
raised this question in several newspapers, but my question has always been met
either by stony silence on the part of the NBA and the BEA or by dismissing the
very question as irresponsible…………… If the broadcast media insist on
self-regulation, then by the same logic, politicians, bureaucrats, and so on
must also be granted the right of self-regulation instead of being placed under
the Lokpal. Or do the broadcast media regard themselves so holy that nobody
should regulate them except themselves? In that case, what is paid news, the
Radia tapes, etc? Is that the work of saints?”
The television channels, or a majority of
them, are self-appointed moral police of the society. If the police refuse to
respect any regulatory mechanism, should the people respect them?
(The Assam
Tribune, December 13, 2011)
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
