Ethics in the Transitional Era

I am informed by some people that most mediapersons and media houses, both print and T.V., have decided to boycott me and not to publish my views or anything about me.

Probably that is because I largely supported Gen. V.K. Singh who called mediapersons ' presstitutes ', on my facebook post and blog.

Of course I had.also said that there were also many upright journalists, and I had mentioned the name of P.Sainath, whom I greatly respect. I also include the late Vinod Mehta, Karan Thapar, N. Ram, Vinod Sharma, Madhu Trehan, Krishna Prasad, Rahul Kanwal, Bhupendra Chaubey and some others whom I respect. But yes, the vast majority of Indian journalists are indeed 'presstitutes', as my experience in the Press Council showed me.

If my information is correct, and indeed these 'presstitutes' have decided to boycott me, they are welcome.

I have repeatedly said that I am not a publicity or popularity seeker, and so I am totally unaffected by such stupid 'boycotts'.

Yes, I want publicity of my ideas, not for any personal benefit but because I believe they are in the interest of the nation. However, even if my views are not publicized in the print or T.V. media, I have the social media available to me i.e. facebook, blog and Twitter. That would of course not give as much publicity to my views as the other media, but it is sufficient for my needs.

 It is also possible that some political authorities have told the mediapersons to boycott me, since I have often expressed my low opinion of most of the present Indian politicians, and the 'free media' may have loyally obeyed the diktat, but this is in the realm of speculation.

However, I am not blaming mediapersons alone. After all, they have lifestyles to maintain and families to look after. So they cannot afford to displease their owners ( and the owners cannot afford to displease the political authorities ). And so like Dr.Faust, these 'presstitutes' have sold their souls to some Mephistopheles.

However, it is the general decline in ethics in India which I would like to comment upon.

  As I have pointed out in some of my earlier posts, India is presently passing through a transitional period in its history, transition from feudal, agricultural society to a modern industrial one. At present we are neither totally feudal, nor totally modern, but somewhere in between.

 A feudal society had an ethical system, but that has largely been destroyed. On the other hand, the ethical system of industrial society has not yet been put in its place ( because industrial society has not yet been fully created ). So presently there is no ethical system existing in India, and there is an ethical vacuum. So what we have in India is a free-for-all.

  Indian society has become largely commercialized, and money has become its God. There is a Hindi film song which accurately summarises the situation " Na bibi na maiyya, the whole thing is that ki bhaiyya, sab se bada rupaiyya ". So for making money most Indians can do anything, by hook or crook.

 I remember over 20 years ago, perhaps in 1992 or 1993, when my daughter was in class 10 or so ( she would have been about 15 then ) she gave a birthday party to which she invited about a dozen school friends. I was then a Judge in the Allahabad High Court. I went and sat for about 15-20 minutes with my daughter's friends and started talking with them. I asked one girl, who was a bright student regularly getting about 90% in her exams, what she wanted to do in later life. She said seriously " Uncle I will join the I.A.S. and make a lot of money ". I was shocked ! A 15 year old bright girl was frankly saying that she would take bribes in later life  I could not even imagine such thoughts in my youth.I told her it was wrong to make money by improper means, but she replied " Uncle when I work hard to get into I.A.S. I deserve to get the good things in life "

 I do not mean to say that there are no upright people in Indian society today, but their proportion has certainly gone down drastically.

 If one's parents have instilled good values in one in one's childhood, the chances are that one will be upright in later life. But if one's parents are themselves corrupt or crooks, as more and more adults are becoming, what can be expected in society ?

So I do not blame mediapersons alone. Most of Indian society has become amoral.

Presstitutes

I would not agree with Gen.V.K. Singh if he meant that all media people are ' presstitutes '. There are some very upright media persons I know,e.g. P.Sainath. But, these are exceptions. The vast majority of mediapersons would certainly fall in the category mentioned by Gen. Singh, as my experience in the Press Council taught me. What else do paid news, Radia tapes, etc denote ?

"Media Freedom and Media Responsibility "

I had firmly decided not to write any more articles or say anything publicly or appear on t.v. for quite some time, firstly because I had already expressed my views on several issues, and secondly because some people had started accusing me of seeking popularity or cheap publicity. I regard publicity or popularity seeking as a form of vulgarity, and I never seek it. 

What I was doing was to put forward certain ideas which I thought were in the national interest, though it is quite possible that some of my views were wrong. But since I was misunderstood by many people, some of whom even started abusing me and launching personal attacks, I thought that the time had come for me to become silent. 

For this reason I said and wrote nothing for two months, and I would have continued my silence in the future too for a long time but for an event which happened recently.

On 19th June a senior journalist wrote an article entitled " Muzzling the Media--Freedom at Risk", which was published in his own newspaper, a leading English Indian national daily. His basic idea was that the government was trying to muzzle the media, and thereby violate the freedom of the press guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution.

I would have remained silent had he left it at that, because, after all, he is entitled to his view. However, what motivated me to break my silence is that the article specifically named and vilified me as the main agent who is helping the government in gagging the media. The article describes me as a ' terrier', though by allusion. 

Since I had decided not to write or say anything for quite some time, at first I was thinking of not replying to this deliberate, malicious falsification of my views about the media ( which are available on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ). It was only after several days of deliberation that I reluctantly decided to respond, though not by getting some article published in a newspaper but only on Facebook and my blog.

Here are the true facts:

(1) I have consistently supported media freedom, and condemned attacks on the media, overtly or covertly, e.g. In the cases of Aseem Trivedi, Iftikhar Gilani, Shaheen ( the girl who wrote on Facebook), Prof. Mahapatra of Jadavpur University, etc or when media persons were attacked in Maharashtra, J&K, Himachal, etc, or when media freedom was sought to be covertly suppressed in Bihar, etc. I have strongly criticized some Congress governments too in this connection, and not merely non Congress governments. So how am I a Congress agent ?

I support freedom of speech not for popularity or as a fashion but because I genuinely believe in it. Without freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to write and discuss, and freedom to dissent there can be no progress. It was because there was freedom in England that it progressed, whereas countries like Spain, where freedom was stifled by the Inquisition, lagged far behind.

(2) When the Times of India office in Mumbai was attacked by some hooligans, I strongly condemned the incident. When the Court imposed a fine of Rs.100 crore on the Times Now channel, I defended Times Now, saying that no doubt it had made a serious mistake, but it had apologized for the same several times, and in any case the fine was excessive.

(3) In the article in question it is mentioned that I have spoken of the need for media ethics. What is wrong in this ? Should there be no ethics for the media ? Everybody is accountable in a democracy, but for the media should there be no accountability?

(4) In the article it has been stated that the government tries to muzzle the media by cutting off advertisements. Here I entirely agree. But what the writer conveniently overlooks is that I issued a strong press note on 4.2.2013 condemning this practice of governments stopping or curtailing advertisements merely because the newspaper criticized the government or some minister or official ( see the press note on my blog). I also said that in a democracy the media has a right to criticize the government. In any case, I said, if the government wishes to stop or curtail its advertisements in some newspaper it must give the latter an opportunity of hearing, and then reasons for its decision, otherwise the rules of natural justice will be violated.

In its issues of 5.2.2013 and 7.2.2013 the Times of India complimented me, and published the views of several media persons who supported my stand ( see online).

(5) The article takes the stand that there should only be self regulation by the media. In my opinion self regulation is no regulation, it is an oxymoron. If self regulation were sufficient why should there be the rampant malaise of paid news, allegations of blackmail, Radia tapes, etc ? Why should there be laws at all ? Let everybody self regulate.

The truth is that every social activity has to be regulated in the public interest, because one's freedom cannot go to the extent of damaging society or others. A lawyer is in a free profession, but his license can be suspended by the Bar Council for professional misconduct, and a doctor's license can be suspended by the Medical Council for medical misconduct.A Judge can be impeached for misconduct.

Here I must make the distinction between regulation and control. In control there is no freedom, whereas in regulation there is freedom but subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. I am in favour of regulation, but am opposed to control. This regulation, too, should not be by the government but by an independent statutory authority, like the Press Council. The Press Council consists of a Chairman and 28 members, 20 of which are representatives of the press ( 5 are members of Parliament, and one each from the Bar Council of India, UGC and Sahitya Academy). The press representatives in the Press Council are not appointed by the government but elected democratically by the press bodies.Decisions in the Press Council are taken by majority vote, and not by me alone. Often I have been overruled by the majority.

At present the Press Council deals only with the print media, but if the electronic media is also brought within its purview by an amendment to the Press Council Act ( as The Press Council has recommended several times to the government) there may be 20 representatives of the electronic media also on the Council ( which can be renamed the Media Council).

Thus, 40 of the 48 members on the Council will be media representatives, and decisions on complaints will be by majority vote. This will really be a judgment by one's peers. In fact this proposal is more pro media than that of Lord Leveson, who in his report recommended that media persons should not be on the Media Council. What reasonable objection can there be to this suggestion ?

The article objects to criticism of content in the media. But what is wrong in such criticism ? Today India's main problems are socio -economic--massive poverty in about 80% of our people, massive unemployment, healthcare problems, farmers suicide, malnutrition,etc. as well as rampant casteism, communalism, and widespread crimes against women like dowry deaths, honour killings, etc.Yet the media focuses on film stars, cricket, fashion parades,astrology etc as if these are the real problems of the Indian people. Thus the real problems of the Indian people are sidelined or treated as non issues, and the non issues are projected as if they are the real issues. Sensationalism, trivialization, etc are the hallmarks of much ( though not all) of the Indian media today, obviously for T.R.P. rating and profits from advertisement revenues. Today I read that Hema Malini's younger daughter has been engaged. What a historical event !

Is not the Indian media behaving largely like Marie Antoinette who said that if the people do not have bread let them eat cakes.

The Roman Emperors used to say that if you cannot give the people bread give them circuses. Much of our media seems to say, if you cannot give the people bread give them film stars and cricket. Cricket today is the opium of the Indian masses, doled out by the media to the gullible public.

Today India is passing through a terrible transitional period in its history,transition from feudal agricultural society to modern industrial society,which in my opinion will last another 20 years or so. The transitional era is a very painful and turbulent period in history. If one reads the history of Europe from the 16th to the 19th centuries ( when Europe was passing through its transition) one finds that it was full of turmoil, wars, revolutions, social chaos, intellectual ferment,etc. It was only after going through this fire that modern society emerged in Europe. 

India is presently going through that fire. We are going through a very painful period in our history, which I guess will last another 20 years or so. In this transitional period the role of ideas becomes very important, and therefore the role of the media becomes very important, because the media is not an ordinary business which deals in commodities, it deals with ideas. It is the duty of all patriotic Indians, including media persons, to help shorten this transitional period and make it less painful, so that India becomes a modern, powerful, industrial power, with all its people ( and not just a handful) prosperous and leading decent lives, with food, employment, healthcare, education, etc available to the masses. For this it is essential for intellectuals, including the media, to promote modern and scientific ideas and combat backward and feudal ideas and practices like casteism, communalism and superstitions.

But is the Indian media doing its patriotic duty ? No doubt there are some media persons like P. Sainath who are doing a great job, but what about others ? Filmstars and cricket dominate much of or media. Many t.v. channels show astrology, which is promoting superstitions, when the media should promote scientific ideas. At a time when our nation should be united if we are to progress, a section of the media promotes communalism by demonizing Muslims and portraying them as terrorists. 

Historically, the media arose in Europe in the 18th Century as an organ of the people against feudal oppression. At that time all the organs of power were in the hands of the feudal authorities. Hence the people in England and France had to create new organs which would represent their interests. The print media was one of those powerful organs created by the people. In England, France and America the media represented the voice of the future, as contrasted to the established feudal organs which wanted to preserve the status quo. Great writers like Voltaire attacked religious bigotry, Rousseau attacked the entire feudal social and political system, Thomas Paine proclaimed the Rights of Man.

In my opinion the Indian media should give leadership to the people in the realm of ideas, the way Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, etc did when Europe was passing through its transitional period. Instead of pandering to the low tastes of the Indian masses our media should seek to uplift its intellectual level so as to make our masses part of enlightened India.

I do not wish to comment any further on the issue. In fact it is with great reluctance that I have written this piece only because of the vicious attack on me, twisting and falsifying my views, a methodology to which I have now become quite accustomed.

Justice Katju

Situation of Press in Kashmir

Dear Omar, 

 I am forwarding the email I have received from Mr. G.M. Kaloo, President of the J&K Press Association, whom you had met several months back at my request. I have been receiving several such emails from various persons stating that newspapers are not being allowed to be published/distributed in Kashmir, cell phones and internet services have been disabled, and other restrictions placed after the hanging of Afzal Guru.

  My own thinking in the matter is this : no freedom can be absolute, and hence press freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution can also not be absolute, but is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest vide Article 19(2).

 Kashmir has a law and order problem, and ordinarily it is the state government which is the best judge of the situation and the way to handle it. Hence we should ordinarily respect the decision of the state government. The state government may have thought that for some time there should be a restraint on press freedom, because while many newspapers are responsible, some are not, and may publish inflammatory material which may create a huge law and order problem by inciting people to violence. Hence for some time a restraint order may be justified.

 However, if the restraint is continued too long it may become unreasonable and unjustified. After all, there has to be a limit to the time duration of the restraint order, and it cannot continue indefinitely. People have to be allowed to let off steam and express their grievances peacefully,otherwise their grievances will erupt violently. There is a proverb "Words break no bones".

 I would therefore request that you consider the matter and discuss it with Mr. Kaloo and other respected and responsible journalists of J&K, and then pass appropriate orders.

  You know that I hold you in respect, and I know of the difficult situation you are facing, and so I hope you will not mind my expressing my view, which I think to be in your interest.

 Regards

 Justice Katju

Subodh Mukoo wrote:

Adab,

Publication of news paper has been stopped by the government and thus people deprived of information about day to day developments in Kashmir Valley .

G. H. Kaloo

President

Jammu Kashmir Press Association(JKPA)

(Subodh K Mukoo)

National Coordinator, JKPA

CM Omar Abdullah's Reply :

Dear Justice Katju,

With reference to your emails of today please find attached below my response which I hope you will take in to consideration while making any public statements regarding the media in Kashmir. 

Best regards

Omar Abdullah

With reference to your e-mails, I fully share your concern regarding continuation of restrictions in the Kashmir Valley.

The facts are under:-

·       The execution of Afzal Guru took place on Saturday (Feb 9). On Saturday night, some local newspapers like Kashmir Images and Kashmir Reader and a few local Urdu dailies did print and publish their newspapers.

·         Circulation of these papers by the vendors was not possible as there were severe restrictions on any kind of movement in Srinagar city, in particular, and all over Kashmir valley at large.

·         We have been given to understand that on Sunday newspapers have not printed their editions as restrictions were continuing in Kashmir valley and circulation of the same would not have been possible, even if they were to be printed.

·        It may be mentioned that Jammu editions of the Kashmir based papers did get circulated.

·      The Information Department has not issued any directive to the publishers by putting any restrictions.

·         It is true that the internet facilities on GPRS enabled phones  have suffered, but Broadband  Desktop internet facilities are available and the newspapers are updating their editions online.

·        With the Government proposing to ease restrictions in Kashmir valley as the situation improves, movement of vehicles would also be getting facilitated and we are sure that the media publications would also get circulated.

·        The security/ law and order concerns and the restrictions in Kashmir Valley has well been appreciated by you and we acknowledge it with all humility. 

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

                                                                                               

                       

             

           

  

A jury of their peers

Media freedoms come with responsibilities. A stronger Press Council, composed of media professionals, would be the best regulator

The Indian Express carried a report about two television reporters, from India TV and ABP News, accused of blackmail for allegedly trying to extort Rs 20 lakh from a person by threatening to implicate him in a false case of rape (‘Two television reporters accused of sting and blackmail: ‘Rs 20 lakh or we air sex tape’’, November 9). Earlier, Jindal Steel alleged that Zee News attempted to extort Rs 100 crore from it. There are other allegations of such practices by media personnel. Paid news is apparently a common practice. Madhu Kishwar, a senior journalist herself, said on Rajya Sabha TV that many media people are bribable and manipulable.

When I spoke of regulating the media, there was a hue and cry in a section of it, which painted me as some kind of dictator who, at the behest of the government, wanted to gag or muzzle the media and crush media freedom.

Although I have expressed my views earlier, I would like to give a comprehensive clarification.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. In our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a), which provides for media freedom (as part of freedom of speech), is subject to Article 19(2), which states that the freedom in Article 19(1) (a) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. Thus, there cannot be freedom to defame, incite religious riots, or extort and blackmail.

There is a difference between control and regulation. Where there is control, there is no freedom; while under regulation, there is freedom but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. I am in favour of regulation and am opposed to control. The question arises: who is to do this regulation? I am opposed to regulation by the government, but am in favour of regulation by an independent statutory authority like the Press Council of India.

The Press Council has, apart from its chairman, 28 members, 20 of whom are representatives of the press (six owners, six editors, seven working journalists and one from a news agency). These 20 members are not appointed by the government but elected by the press. Of the other eight members, five are members of Parliament and there is one person each from the Bar Council of India, the UGC and the Sahitya Akademi. Decisions in the Press Council are taken by majority vote and even I have to respect the verdict of the majority.

If the Press Council Act is amended and broadcast media comes under the Press Council (which can be renamed the “Media Council”), it can have an additional 20 members from broadcast media. Hence, 40 of 48 members will be media representatives. If this media council decides to take penal action by majority vote against a media person or media house, it will be a judgment by one’s peers and thus a form of self-regulation.

It may be mentioned that the Bar Council can suspend the licence of a lawyer, but Bar Council members are themselves lawyers. Similarly, the Medical Council has doctors as its members and can suspend a doctor’s licence. The proposed media council should have the power to suspend the licence of a media person or outlet, but such a suspension should be by majority vote of the media council.

This media council must be statutory and have penal powers, including the power to suspend licences. The News Broadcasting Standards Authority, which professes “self-regulation”, is a non-statutory body with no penal powers and is therefore toothless.

The Press Council has only the power of admonition or censure and no power to impose a fine or suspend a licence. I have advocated enlarging this body and making it a media council with penal powers, but the penal power should not be exercised by the chairman or the government, but by a majority of members. It will thus be a judgment by one’s peers. What reasonable objection can there be to this suggestion? Objecting to it implies that some media houses do not even trust their peers.

Those who accuse me of trying to crush media freedom can see my track record. I have fought for media freedom every time it was threatened, whether in Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, the Karnataka legislative assembly, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, etc. I was the strongest critic of the arrest of the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Virbhadra Singh’s statement that he would break the camera of a media person. I genuinely believe that the media should be broadly free, and I have appreciated the good work done by the media in exposing scams. There are many excellent journalists who are doing a good job.

At the same time, I have also said that freedom comes hand-in-hand with responsibility. Evidently, media owners accustomed to having a free ride and making a lot of money (through advertisement revenue, etc), or who are using their media house to protect their other businesses where they are under suspicion of malpractice (one newspaper owner is said to have several other businesses, like sugar factories, coal blocks, etc), do not want any kind of regulation. If this attitude continues, I am afraid it will be counterproductive and may ultimately result in the severe curtailment of media freedom.

Published in The Indian EXPRESS on 17/11/2012

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