Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Messenger In The Scales by Anuradha Raman

Messenger In The Scales by Anuradha Raman

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Nov 14, 2011   modified Modified on Nov 14, 2011

Till a few years ago, the final arbiter of what is and is not permissible programming was the Union information & broadcasting ministry. In this scrupulous act of discernment, it was aided by the central monitoring services: college students would be appointed as monitors to watch television programmes and listen to radio shows round the clock and report to the ministry. Any channel or radio show that transgressed the programme codes of Doordarshan and All India Radio, drawn up more than 30 years ago, would be pulled up. Over the last three years, however, that painstaking, onerous task has been given over to retired senior judges.

The Press Council of India, set up by an act of Parliament to oversee the print media, is headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and has some 25 members, the broadcast media has set up two other regulatory bodies, again headed by former judges. The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) is headed by Justice J.S. Verma, a former CJI, and the Broadcast Content Complaints Council, which oversees general entertainment channels, is headed by Justice A.P. Shah, a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court. Their integrity is, of course, beyond question, but should judges be the final arbiters of news on television channels and in the press?

Justice G.N. Ray, a former chairman of the Press Council, offers one plausible reason why people, including the media, reposes faith in the judiciary, “Judges, after all, are also members of society and, despite some criticism, have credibility on their side.” This is a view echoed by Union information and broadcasting minister Ambika Soni, who in an earlier interview to the magazine, described judges as “men of high integrity”.

But there is a difference. Generally, judges speak only through their judgements. So it was quite a surprise to many in the media when Justice Markanday Katju—though he’s no longer a judge in the strict sense—was harshly critical of the media, calling print journalists ill-informed and uneducated and the broadcast media partisan. He did ask questions, however, that many of us have often asked: Why does the media focus more on the likes of actress Kareena Kapoor and singer Lady Gaga? Why do television channels inflict such a plethora of astrology-related and obscurantist programmes on viewers? Why do debates on TV look so one-sided? He also focused on important issues such as trial by the media and paid news.

What galled media professionals was that this outburst came from someone who is expected to work in joint partnership with the press seeking greater powers to tick off those who transgressed. When a gentle judge, who usually spouts Faiz and Shakespeare, launches into harsh and sweeping criticism, everyone takes note. Justice Katju also sought powers to freeze advertisements and suspend licences if a media house behaves obnoxiously. Leave aside the general idea of a patriarchal authority taming truant kids. Coming in the backdrop of concerns raised by the government over coverage of what it deemed sensitive, Justice Katju’s words raised both eyebrows and hackles.

Many feel the Press Council should not go beyond its advisory role and take punitive action. Says Justice Ray, “The council cannot be converted into a penal forum. It’s not a question of punishing an errant child. The council has to the play the role of a guide.” He also adds that regulatory bodies have to be sensitive to the freedom of the media. “Freedom of speech and expression of the media must be maintained,” he says, refusing to comment on Katju’s statements, preferring instead to focus on the institution.

What Ray emphasises is self-regulation in the media to foster freedom and responsibility. “Self-regulation can’t be underestimated,” he says. “It’s essential to an independent media. Whether statutory or voluntary, a self-regulatory body—free from government and media influence—is a must.” He adds that when the media has behaved irresponsibly, public criticism has led to some course correction.

Justice Verma, too, has emphasised the need for self-regulation. As far as former judges being arbiters goes, he says the panel he heads has other notables such as Kiran Karnik, former nasscom chief, and former diplomat Chokila Iyer too, and that the decision-making was mostly unanimous.

Sociologist Dipankar Gupta, who is on NBSA, sees danger in Katju’s prescriptions, which verge on an endorsement of governmental control, through punishment for stepping out of line. “The danger in prescribing what should be shown or written is that it’s a short step away from heavy-handed censorship,” he says, adding that NBSA only tells channels what not to do, rather than lay down a prescription for what needs to be done. “When we start speaking about what should be put out, we are, in effect, determining the news. If you don’t like the news, switch off the channel.”

Katju’s comments about bringing both TV and the print media under the council has few takers. Ray says the ethics that informs print and TV is the same, but it may not be possible to effectively regulate both under one organisation. Rajdeep Sardesai, editor-in-chief of CNN-IBN, emphasises the importance of a self-regulatory body on the lines of the British media authority, Ofcom (short for Office of Communication), which has members of civil society on board. While there are many broadcasters who recommend making it mandatory for licensed broadcasters to be members of a self-regulating body—they are clear such organisations should be free of the government. According to Sardesai, while there is a need for “taking a good, hard reasoned look at ourselves, there is no need for either self-righteous indignation or knee-jerk media-bashing. Course correction is needed. Well, the judiciary needs it, and so does the legislature.”

Turning the mirror on oneself has often been an exercise fraught with difficulties, specially when it comes to the media. But, as those who champion press freedom say it’s far better to set our own homes in order than have an outsider wield the danda.


Outlook, 21 November, 2011, http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278923


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close