The :Pioneer Keeping watch on the watchdog Tuesday, 11 March 2014 | Rohinee Singh
Operating with impunity and often described as 'paid media', journalists today are reviled in Indian society. In the process, good journalism is often forgotten. Regaining public trust is the need of the hour. For that, the industry needs a strong, independent regulator Recently, a sting operation by a news channel showed how opinion pollsters were willing to manipulate results to suit the needs of their media clients. Yet another sting operation showed how senior editors were willing to 'game' interviews. Other journalists and proprietors, without disclosing anything to their audience, have been supporting one political party or another tacitly. Open support is one thing. The Pioneer's stance has consistently been Right-of-Centre, our managing director and editor is a sitting Member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party. In fact, it is because of that one fact that this paper is scrutinised far more heavily than most. Yet, we do not bury news or not report uncomfortable facts just because they do not suit an ideological position. This, despite us living in a time where half-baked or incorrect facts are presented as evidence of a perceived wrong. Journalists have been, and will continue to be, political especially in a country like India. Very few of those will be brave enough to join a political party, and those who have openly joined a party should be applauded, even though some of them have recently resorted to vandalism. A good journalist is someone who asks a lot of questions and gets many answers. If they have been fortunate, like some of us, they get to travel extensively both inside and outside India, experience problems at the ground level and think of answers. Yet, journalists are, on the whole, disliked by the reading and watching middle classes. Why is this? While journalism has played a major role in shaping public opinion over the years, today, thanks to the widespread availability of digital communications, public opinion is always in your face. Sometimes facts and conscience fly smack into the face of public opinion. Often it might be the other point of view that a journalist holds which ought to be listened to. A democracy is built on opposing points of view, and the unpopular view could be the rational one. Yet the blunt-force trauma that many Indian journalists use to get their point of view across is, more often than not, distasteful, and frankly, idiotic. But this is not why the Indian media needs a regulator. The Indian media needs a regulator because the public at large does not trust a lot of the material they read in the newspapers and watch on television. The Indian media needs a regulator because the public feels that it has lost its sense of balance. While the print media has a regulator in the Press Council of India, the latter has been largely toothless. But because the print media often gets dragged to court when unfavourable stories appear, thanks to strict and heavy-handed defamation laws, it tends to be more careful. In fact, had the Press Council of India been more effective as a regulator and acted on its statutory powers more often, the risks of lengthy judicial proceedings, often on dubious grounds, could have been minimised. For example, a defamation charge was filed against The Hindu for factual reportage where one politician made allegations against another. This is a bit strange. Telecom litigation, for instance, works its way through an industry tribunal, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, whose decisions can be questioned only in a High Court. This is not to argue that defamation laws are not needed in India, but criminal defamation laws which strangely continue to exist in the Indian Penal Code is a relic of colonial rule and has been used by companies and individuals alike to silence uncomfortable stories by taking advantage of the time-consuming Indian judicial system. A well-funded and timely regulator with statutory legal provisions to deal with defamation cases, however, with the right of appeal to a higher court remaining, can dramatically speed up the process and stop the tendency of apparently 'aggrieved' parties filing cases in far-flung parts of the country. And even if one has actually been defamed, unless one knows a good lawyer in a higher court, getting an apology and a retraction can also take forever. By that time the damage is done. More importantly, a proper media regulator that accounts for the fact that technology has evolved and has made it possible for stories -- both the written word and the audio-visual -- to be created from the comfort of a bedroom, can also take suo motu notice of stories that incite hatred or issues that tear at the fabric of society. For instance, the case of a young girl in Guwahati, Assam, who was attacked by a mob incited by a television cameraman was a dark day in Indian journalism. Although a social media mob bayed for the blood of the complicit individuals, there was no action taken to speak of. It is not difficult to imagine that any media regulator could become a version of the 'thought police'; and that is a risk that has to be eliminated. It is far too easy for the media, particularly the unregulated television media, to cry that its freedom of speech and expression has been trampled upon, whenever a regulator is suggested. The problem with any regulator that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed until now is that it comes far too close to becoming a version of the 'thought police'. A well thought-out council, that can prevent allegations of being a Government lapdog, with members of the media themselves acting as control, along with other stakeholders such as public personalities, lawyers and judges, should be set up. Many media houses will not be happy with the idea of a regulator and will do their utmost to prevent a media commission, even a free one with their own representatives. However, in the television media world self-regulation has been a clear failure. With no ability to impose legal punishment, the News Broadcasters Association is worse than a toothless tiger. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India does regulate the carriage of broadcast television but it has no powers over content. The fact remains that the media industry has grown far too large to not have a unified regulator today. Can you imagine the civil aviation industry without a regulator? One could argue that planes carry people and lives are at stake when planes fly. But one can also say that, without a doubt, the media shapes our lives today, and that without a regulator, the profession of journalism will continue to be under attack from all corners. --- eugene