Imagine India without its media. Suresh Kalmadi would be circling the globe organising the Delhi Olympics. Bundles of currency notes would not have made a spectacle in Parliament. No minister would be in jail. VIP sons who shoot bar girls dead and police bosses who rape under-age girls and then drive them to suicide would be roaming free, their hobbies undisturbed. Cricket-fixing, money-laundering, pesticide poisoning, Swiss bank accounts, they would all remain strictly in the private domain. In short, the country would be at peace and all would be well—for the few who rule India.
The many who are ruled, however, would not want such an India. The media has been their accessible lifeline, giving them information that makes life meaningful and the opportunities to fight for a healthier India. In turn, this gave the media a chance to inspire and lead, to play a nation-building role and set an example in handling social responsibility with maturity and vision. Here the media failed.
And here, let it be understood, the media means the television news media.
In India's current situation, the difference between print and visual media cannot be over-emphasised. It's not just oranges and apples. It's more like Greek and Mongol civilisations. Print, when it was alone in the field, acquitted itself reasonably well, the black sheep remained identifiable as black sheep. In TV journalism, there is so much muck flying about that black sometimes looks grey while white sometimes looks blue and sometimes like Cheshire cats. The Justice Markandeya Katju-triggered quake's epicentre is undoubtedly in journalism of the channel kind.
Justice Katju overstated his case, but there's no denying his core point—that the media runs after the trivial and the divisive while ignoring real issues. The main reason for this is a recent trend of seeing news as a commercial product to be traded for profit. In print, this remained in isolated pockets. In TV, news commodification developed a generic character leading to the dumbing down of the medium as a whole.
Other problems piled up on top of this: Competitive boasting, anchor egos, a blurred border between freedom and licence. When anchors claim an interview to be exclusive although the same interviewee is appearing in all the channels the same night; when the anchor thrusts himself/herself arrogantly forward as the show's star; when that strange animal called party spokesperson appears again and again saying the most predictable inanities; when anchors shout about what India wants to know tonight and deliver lectures that stretch the concept of freedom of expression to its limits, it is the concept of freedom of expression that takes a hit.
Freedom must be earned. By overdoing things, the media lost its moral power. It has no one to blame but itself.
The government is itching to step in. A government which had refused to recognise public disgust at corruption and attributed the Anna Hazare movement to media mischief. These "elected representatives of the people" would love to do their things unwatched by the people. Regulations that put the government in the driver's seat will make a bad situation worse. Unfortunately, the solutions Justice Katju suggests—such as punitive powers for an enlarged Press Council—will only play into the hands of the government. Organisations like the News Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Indian Broadcasting Federation, hastily put together to give an impression of self-regulation, have proved useless. None of them had teeth anyway.
The media has to accept that a regulatory mechanism has become necessary. This is best done from within before outside forces interfere. If architects, nurses and agriculturists can have their own professional organisations, it should be possible for journalists to have one that would be more than decorative. Perhaps Justice Katju can put his present assignment to best use by helping device a system like the Bar Council, run by professionals subject to statutory rules and vested with statutory powers which include procedures for disciplinary action. There must of course be provisions to prevent the disasters that overtook the Indian Federation of Working Journalists and the Medical Council of India. The government's role must be limited to passing helpful legislation that would, for example, discourage growth of monopolies and make corrupt practices like paid news cognisable offences.
Ultimately, though, there is no substitute to promoting a public service broadcasting system that would give the people a choice. Since this would be a body of professionals and run on a non-profit basis, tax and other benefits to make it viable would be justified. Untrammelled by commercial pressures and vested interests, such a service would purvey news with detachment and thereby win viewer confidence. We live in a competitive world and one way to beat commercial competition is through competition that puts professional excellence above everything else.
| Also In This Story |
| media Executive, legislature, judiciary...even sullen corporates lay siege to the messenger |
| |
| media Rs 100 cr in damages for a wrong photo |
| |
| media Some news channels and newspapers freely outed the 'Bhanwari tapes' |
| |
| opinion poll Press Council chairman Justice Markandey Katju's labelling of the Indian media as "anti-people" has few takers among news consumers |
| |
Authors: T.J.S. George
Tags: Media | Censorship | Free Speech | TV
Section: Society
Subsection: Cover Stories | Opinion
Translate| | |||||||||
| |
| | |||||||||
| |
| Nov 29, 2011 12:43 PM 22 | >> Unless appointed by the media themselves, we can say goodbye to a free and lively press. Another instance that shows that relying on a media to monitor itself shall be stupid www.deccanherald.com/content/204473/a-crusader-turns-collector.html He denied there had been pressure from Delhi for him to support the festival, which has been shadowed by a controversy, or that a deal had been struck for "Tehelka" to hold off an expose on illegal mining in Goa. "No, no, that's not true at all," he said. Did Tehelka blackmail Kamat? And more Neena Tejpal, sister of "Tehelka" editor Tarun Tejpal, was business-like and downright arrogant with the Goa chief minister, leaving his aides quite stunned. "If Tarun was here, he would have asked for Rs 1.5 crore. How much are you willing to give?" she asked Kamat quite bluntly, a government source told Deccan Herald. The source expressed shock at Neena's tone and tenor, considering she was talking to the chief minister of a state. An embarrassed Kamat asked his aides to see which departments could be tapped for funding the fest and the chief secretary finally came up with a figure of Rs 50 lakh for the magazine's event. "Tehelka", which prides itself for its investigative and public interest journalism, has been accused by theatre personality Hartman De Souza of burying a report on mining in Goa by its former correspondent Raman Kirpal because of the negotiations with the Goa government on "Thinkfest". Tejpal has strongly denied the charges. |
| Nov 29, 2011 08:15 AM 21 | IF Mr Manish Banerjee (Post No 18 )has indeed Post No 13 in mind,here is a clarification: In Post No 13 one has not commented AT ALL on some of the the substantive points Shri Banerjee Mahashay has now reiterated Viz., (i) Govt control & Regulation of media, (ii) Self Regulation of media houses and (iii) Viewers' dicriminatory powers etc..etc.. In Post No 13 one has merely tried to substantiate the implications of the word "Commodification" which Mr T.J.S George appeared to have conscioulsy used in his interesting article. For, the meaning of this word seems to have logical implications for the arguments he advanceses in his article. When Shri Banerjee ,in his post has used the word "commodification" as synonymous with commercialisation and linked it with the justifiable right of the media from the private sector in seeking profits AND any criticism of this feature as avoidable "Crying over Spilt Milk ", one had to say that the term "Commodification" is not merely "commercialisation".It is commercialisation AND beyond . To reiterate "Commodification of TV news" and an uninhibited profit -seeking by the privately-held visual media (irrespective of the interests of the society at large) are organically interlinded. Aren't they ? As for the print media, there are a few laudable instances where the owners and journalists of the privately -held news papers stood their grounds in times of crisis and dared the govt .Be it the owner of the "Jute Press" so called, Mr Ramnath Goenka and his Editor Arun Shourie from "Indian Express" during the Emergency or N.Ram of The Hindu, then as well as later. Admittedly they do have their political leanings. Yet they stand as shining examples for their principled journalism and integrity. |
| Nov 29, 2011 05:53 AM 20 | Correction : Post # 18 is adressed to Mr. G. Niranjan Rao in response to Post # 13 instead of D.L Narayan. Thanks for for pointing out, Mr. D.L. Narayan. |
| Nov 29, 2011 12:32 AM 19 | Manishda, sorry but my remarks were not targetted at you as my comments at #4 and #8 precede your first post (#9). You can see from my comments that I am in broad agreement with you on this issue. You are probably referring to post # 13 which was specifically addressed to you. The author of that post is Mr.G.Niranjan Rao. |
| Nov 28, 2011 08:20 PM 18 | Mr. D.L Narayanan, I am overwhelmed & feel humbled at being object of such erudition. But , Sir , you have lifted two of my unconnected sentences , added them togather , changed the entire focus of the point I wanted to make. To repeat - (i) Mainstream media being commercial operations it is unreasonable to think they should forget their bottom line & turn philanthroic. One would do better not take aphorisms such as media is the fifth pillar etc. seriously. (ii) Government control & regulation over of media is worse cure. ( iii) Media houses themselves cannot be relied upon to excercise self -regulation. They got hold of a pliant professor to recommentd the obvious - self regulation & got hold of a Judge to enforce self -regualtion. This self-regulatory body is not known - at least publicly - to pass one single regulatory nudge to any of its members. In light of some recent media controversy this body now again has been pulled out of the moth-balls. Self regulation did not work , not working now & would not work in future. (iv) Discerning & discrimanting viewer is the only practical regulator, but that is easier said than done (v) Finally despite waywardness Indian print media seem to be one of the best in the world. By media I meant audio-visual variety. |
PERMALINK
LIKE (2)
DISLIKE (0)
REPORT ABUSE| Post a Comment |
