Indian Journalists

Many of the top journalists in India have sold their souls to Mammon. They own huge bungalows, have huge bank balances, and have fancy chauffer driven cars. One is said to have aqcuired a huge house in Delhi reportedly worth Rs. 52 crores, another has a huge farm house near Delhi reportedly worth Rs. 50 crores.
 Can one expect objectivity and fair reporting of the real problems of the people from them ? Was Gen. V.K. Singh wrong ?

Narad Muni --The first Indian Journalist

Vishnu Bhagwan was lying on the great serpent Sheshnag in the middle of the sea having in his four hands a lotus, a mace (gadaa), a shankh (conch) and a chakra (wheel), when the first perpetually peregrinating Indian journalist Narad Muni came to see him. As usual, Narad was carrying a Veena in his left hand, and wearing a dhoti and with a garland of orange coloured flowers around his neck.

"Narayan, Narayan" said Narad on beholding the Lord, and he bowed and folded his hands.
"Vatsa Narad" said the Lord, "Nice to see you again. How are you ? How are you doing in your profession of journalism on earth ?"

"Narayan, Narayan" said Narad, "Lord, it is for this very reason I have come to you. Please grant me a pension as I wish to retire from journalism. 

The Lord showed great concern. " Why, what has happened Narad ?"

"Lord, I cannot face the competition anymore with these young Indian journalists."

"Oh come on Narad" said the Lord " You are such a senior journalist. How can these youngsters create a problem for you ?"

"Narayan, Narayan" said Narad, "Lord, it is not journalism anymore. What exists in India today in the name of journalism is not journalism but magic, and unfortunately I have never learnt magic. There is a new medium called television which never existed in my time. It is truly magical. The job of this medium is not to inform but to create public opinion by whipping up sustained mass hysteria over a certain issue, such as the corruption issue, the Delhi gangrape issue, the beheading of an Indian soldier issue, etc.

Most T.V. channels, hungry for higher T.R.P. ratings, and convinced that rabid demagoguery is profitable, are falling head over heels over one another to make people angry, frenzied and hysterical and go to the streets over some issue. For doing this everything goes : half truths, downright lies, sensationalism, trivialization, etc. and a meticulous search and empanelment of ' experts' and 'opinion makers', who often advocate and indulge in jingoistic chauvinism like 'unleashing the sword', anchors who instead of being neutral and objective, aggressively give a slant to a story, rudely interrupting and not allowing those invitees who disagree with their views to speak.

Some time back most T.V. channels projected Anna Hazare as a modern Moses who will lead his chosen people to a land of milk and honey (though a careful study of the man's statements show that he has no scientific ideas). The whole country was led in a frenzy by the media, somewhat like the children of Hamelin led by the Pied Piper, over the issue of corruption, but where is the issue now ? It has disappeared, and so has Anna Hazare. Obviously because the issue is now no longer profitable as it does not increase the T.R.P. rating. And has corruption dropped by even 0.1% in India ? Not at all.

Then the Delhi gangrape issue exploded. For over 2 months most T.V. channels created a manufactured hysteria which drove young people to the streets and to Jantar Mantar. Rape had become the one and only issue, a matter of life and death for the human race, while poverty, hunger, malnutrition, unemployment, price rise, lack of healthcare, farmers suicides, etc. became non issues and counted for nothing.

When this hysterical wave subsided another was created by our T.R.P.driven broadcast media : the beheading of an Indian soldier allegedly by Pakistanis. Despite offer by the Pakistan High Commissioner to India to hold an objective probe, our media whipped up jingoism and war mongering, leading to attack on Pakistani hockey players and sending them back, postponement of the agreement on visa on arrival for the elderly, etc.

"And what about the print media" asked the Lord.

"Narayan, Narayan" said Narad, "It has largely become advertisements. Many leading newspapers really begin on page 3, the first 2 pages being advertisements. And the print media is often led by the nose by the electronic media with its 'breaking news'.

Paid news is so rampant in both print and broadcast media that there is no point even talking about it.

Lord, please give me a pension otherwise I will go mad in the company of the great Indian journalists of today."

"Tathaastu" said the Lord, and disappeared, and now Narad Muni is sitting in padmasana in a Himalaya cave with his eyes closed and wishing for nirvaana!

Press Note : Paid News in Gujarat Elections

PRESS NOTE 

December 17, 2012

            I have been informed today by Shri Rajeev Ranjan Nag, Member, Press Council of India and Convener of the team I appointed for looking into complaints of paid news and violation of Press freedom in the Gujarat election, that large scale practice of paid news in the recent Gujarat elections has come to the notice of the fact finding team.

            The full report about this is still being prepared and shall be submitted to me shortly, but I am informed that not only the print media but even the visual media (TV Channels) indulged in large scale practice of paid news in the Gujarat elections.

            This is indeed shocking and very disturbing as it is a heavy blow to democracy in the country. Certain politicians seem to be making a mockery of the purity of elections, and in their desire to get elected are prepared to go to any extent.

            After I receive the full report of the fact finding team I shall inform the Election Commission of India about it (as well as the general public and concerned authorities)  and request that elections of candidates who indulged in paid news and violation of press freedom in the recent election should be cancelled, as was done in the case of an elected candidate in the recent U.P Legislative Assembly Elections.  

            This also vindicates my plea for effective media regulation and punitive powers in the proposed Media Council for taking action against the delinquent media. ‘Self regulation’ has proved to be ineffective, and the recent Gujarat elections is the latest example of the malaise in a large section of the media, and it is not just an aberration.

                                                                                                (Justice Markandey Katju)

                                                                                                Chairman, Press Council of India

                                                                                               

                       

             

           

  

Media cannot reject regulation

If red lines can be drawn for the legal and medical professions, why should it be any different for profit-making newspapers and TV channels?

I have not read the Private Member's Bill on media regulation that Meenakshi Natarajan was scheduled to move in Parliament last week so I am not in a position to comment upon it, but I am certainly of the opinion that the media (both print and electronic) needs to be regulated. Since my ideas on this issue have generated some controversy they need to be clarified.

I want regulation of the media, not control. The difference between the two is that in control there is no freedom, in regulation there is freedom but subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The media has become very powerful in India and can strongly impact people's lives. Hence it must be regulated in the public interest.

The media people keep harping on Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. But they deliberately overlook or underplay Article 19 (2) which says that the above right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, State security, public order, decency, morality or in relation to defamation or incitement to an offence.

NOT ABSOLUTE

Thus, while there should be freedom for the media and not control over it, this freedom must be exercised in a manner not to adversely affect the security of the state, public order, morality, etc. No right can be absolute, every right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The reason for this is that human beings are social creatures. No one can live in isolation, everyone has to live in society. And so an individual should not exercise her freedom in a manner so as to harm others or society, otherwise she will find it difficult to survive.

Media people often talk of self-regulation. But media houses are owned by businessmen who want profit. There is nothing wrong in making profits, but this must be coupled with social responsibilities. Media owners cannot say that they should be allowed to make profits even if the rest of society suffers. Such an attitude is self-destructive, and it is the media owners who will suffer in the long run if they do not correct themselves now. The way much of the media has been behaving is often irresponsible, reckless and callous. Yellow journalism, cheap sensationalism, highlighting frivolous issues (like lives of film stars and cricketers) and superstitions and damaging people and reputations, while neglecting or underplaying serious socio-economic issues like massive poverty, unemployment, malnourishment, farmers' suicides, health care, education, dowry deaths, female foeticide, etc., are hallmarks of much of the media today. Astrology, cricket (the opium of the Indian masses), babas befooling the public, etc., are a common sight on Television channels.

Paid ‘news' is the order of the day in some newspapers and channels where you have to pay to be in the news. One senior political leader told me things are so bad that politicians in some places pay money to journalists who attend their press conferences, and sometimes even to those who do not, to ensure favourable coverage. One TV channel owner told me that the latest Baba (who is dominating the scene nowadays) pays a huge amount for showing his meetings on TV. Madhu Kishwar, a very senior journalist herself, said on Rajya Sabha TV that many journalists are bribable and manipulable.

The media claims self-regulation. But by what logic? How can the News Broadcasters Association or the Broadcast Editors Association regulate TV channels driven by profit motive and high TRP ratings? Almost every section of society is regulated. Lawyers are a free profession, but their profession is regulated inasmuch as their licence can be suspended or cancelled by the Bar Council for professional misconduct. Similarly the licences of doctors, chartered accountants, etc., can be suspended/cancelled by their regulatory bodies. Judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court can be impeached by Parliament for misconduct. But the media claims that no action should be taken against it for violating journalistic ethics. Why? In a democracy everyone has to be accountable, but the media claims it should be accountable only to itself ...The NBA and BEA claim self-regulation. Let me ask them: how many licences of TV channels have you suspended or cancelled till now? So far as we know, only one channel was awarded a fine, at which it withdrew from the body, and then was asked to come back. How many other punishments have you imposed? Let us have some details, instead of keeping everything secret. Let the meetings of the NBA and BEA be televised so as to ensure transparency and accountability (which Justice Verma has been advocating vociferously for the judiciary).

Let me quote from an article by Abhishek Upadhyaya, Editor, Special Projects,Dainik Bhaskar:

“It appears that the BEA was founded to collectively use intimidatory tactics in favour of a select few players after NBA failed to do so. The NBA is so weak, so feeble in its exercise of power that it can't confroSelf Rs 1 lakh on the channel which then walked out of the Association.

“The group of broadcasters found themselves 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!

“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 not to raise a finger on their own brethren in future. BEA was the next step in this direction, formed on 22 August, 2009 with a few electronic media editors in the driving seat. Since its inception this body has been irrationally screaming in the interest of a select few. The editors of this body announced some tender sops from time to time to publicise its good image and thwart any regulatory attempt in advance”.

SELF-REGULATION

If the broadcast media claims self-regulation, then on the same logic everyone should be allowed self-regulation. Why then have laws at all, why have a law against theft, rape or murder? Why not abolish the Indian Penal Code and ask everyone to practise self-regulation? The very fact that there are laws proves that self-regulation is not sufficient, there must also be some external regulation and fear of punishment.

I may clarify here that I am not in favour of regulation of the media by the government but by an independent statutory authority like the Press Council of India. The Chairman of this body is not selected by the government but by a three-member selection committee consisting of (1) The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (who is the Vice-President of India) (2) The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and (3) One representative of the Press Council.

The Press Council has 28 members, of which 20 are from the Press, five members of Parliament, and 3 from other bodies (The Bar Council of India, UGC and Sahitya Academy). The decisions of the Press Council are taken by a majority vote. Therefore, I am not a dictator who can ride roughshod on the views of others. Several of my proposals were rejected by the majority, and I respected their verdict. If the electronic media also comes under the Press Council (which can be renamed the Media Council), representatives of the electronic media will also be on this body, which will be totally democratic. Why then are the electronic media people so furiously and fiercely opposing my proposal? Obviously because they want a free ride in India without any kind of regulation and freedom to do what they will.


I would welcome a healthy debate on this issue.

Published in The Hindu On 2/05/2012