Paradigm of Misuse!

Perhaps the most famous Bible story about morality is that of the woman who was caught in immoral act and then brought to Jesus for him to judge whether or not it was correct to stone her. His wise answer took everyone by surprise. He did not dispute the legality of stoning the woman, but he demanded that the first stone be cast by a person who had never sinned. Chagrined, the crowd wandered off. (John 7:53.8:11)

If the hyper-active media (both print and electronic), media houses, owners and individual mediapersons, the self-acclaimed crusaders against corruption and misuse of power are posed with the same demand of Jesus, they will certainly wander off like the Biblical crowd.

The Press Council of India has admitted that corruption is all-pervasive and institutionalized in Indian media. Also, the only one field in the country where misuse of freedom is not an exception but the very norm of existence is the field of journalism – from individuals to institutions.

There was a time when journalism was a mission. Soon it became a profession and is now run as a full-fledged business activity like any other enterprise. It was passion, zeal and social consciousness which brought people into the field of journalism. But when it turned into a profession for individuals, and industry for profit-seekers and corporate companies for promotion of the interests of the high and mighty, objectivity gave way for subjectivity, neutrality became the casualty and ethical journalism fading into the oblivion in the heat and light of commercial journalism, propaganda and campaign journalism and the latest scourge of ‘paid news.’

If the Radia tapes show us anything, they show us again who runs this country. Corporates. Not even the lobbyists who do their bidding — but would have much less clout without their backing. Not journalists who crave access to corporate titans or seek to advise them on how to fix the courts. It wasn't long ago that a whole session of Parliament went by in just debating the dispute between the Ambani brothers. A private spat over a public-owned resource called natural gas. Oddly enough, Parliament has never had a whole session focussed on agriculture. Not even through the sector's worst crisis in the past decade.

The period has also seen the emergence of media themselves as major corporate entities. Today, we often have seamless movement between the personnel of some economic or financial newspapers and non-media corporations. An assistant editor goes off to Company ‘A' as a PRO, returns in a more senior post to the same newspaper. Next, goes on as chief PRO, or maybe even as chief analyst or a business manager to a bigger corporate. But the newspaper's door is open for his or her return, perhaps as resident editor.

The dominant media are not pro-corporate or pro-big business. They are corporates. They are big business. Some have margins of profit that non-media outfits might envy. Media corporations are into hundreds of businesses beyond their own realm. From real estate, hotels, mining, steel, chemicals, rubber and banks to power and sugar. Even into private treaties with other corporations in whom they acquire a stake. On the boards of India's biggest media companies are also top corporate leaders. Some who find places on the Governor's Forums of the World Economic Forum. Others heading private banks.

“The phenomenon of ‘paid news' goes beyond the corruption of individual journalists and media companies. It has become pervasive, structured and highly organised and in the process, is undermining democracy in India.” So finds the draft report of inquiry conducted into the phenomenon by the Press Council of India.

The report is titled “Paid News: How corruption in the Indian media undermines Indian democracy.” It marshals a vast amount of material on the issue and is a compendium of media malpractice. It explicitly names newspapers and channels — including some of the biggest groups in the country — seen as having indulged in the “paid news” practice.

Interestingly, many prominent politicians and public figures either deposed before the inquiry panel or made written submissions to it. Others also handed the panel their statements on the subject elsewhere. Across the spectrum, points out the report, even politicians normally loath to antagonize the media have complained bitterly about what many of them see as little more than extortion. A Sub-Committee of the Press Council, comprising Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and K. Srinivas Reddy, conducted the inquiry. Their report quotes that the “paid news” menace had “started out as an aberration, went on to become a disease and is now an epidemic”.

The report traces the emergence of the paid news phenomenon over years and phases including such forms of space selling as MediaNet and Private Treaties. “In pursuing its quest for profits,” it says, “it can be argued that certain media organizations have sacrificed good journalistic practices and ethical norms”. What began as individual or one one-off transgression, it points out, became institutionalized over the years. “Private Treaties” involve deals where corporates pay media companies in shares for advertising, plus other, favourable treatment.

The Radia Net has caught unawares one Bharkha Dutt and one Vir Singhvi. If the net (telephone tapping) is extended to cover all lobbyists and PR firms many more whales, sharks and tens of thousands of small fishes will be caught from the Ocean of Journalism.

The strength and importance of media in a democracy is well recognized. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which gives freedom of speech and expression includes within its ambit, freedom of press. The existence of a free, independent and powerful media is the cornerstone of a democracy, especially of a highly mixed society like India.

However, there are always two sides to a coin. With this increased role and importance attached to the media, the need for its accountability and professionalism in reportage cannot be emphasized enough. In a civil society no right to freedom, howsoever invaluable it might be, can be considered absolute, unlimited, or unqualified in all circumstances. The freedom of the media, like any other freedom recognized under the constitution has to be exercised within reasonable boundaries. With great power comes great responsibility. Similarly, the freedom under Article 19(1) (a) is correlative with the duty not to violate any law.

Every institution is liable to be abused, and every liberty, if left unbridled, has the tendency to become a license which would lead to disorder and anarchy. This is the threshold on which we are standing today. Television channels in a bid to increase their TRP ratings are resorting to sensationalized journalism with a view to earn a competitive edge over the others. Investigative operations have now become the order of the day. They are a part of the hectic pace at which the media is evolving, carrying with every investigation as much promise as risk. At present, there is a trend in the media, more pronouncedly in the electronic media, of “propaganda and campaign journalism” where (mostly half-baked) reporters were required to give “snap judgements” on all kinds of issues without knowing anything about the subjects and the (super-assuming) anchor persons asking all sorts of questions. Such careless treatment of important issues by the media which was expected to shape the opinion of the masses could not be taken lightly. However, though technology cannot be thwarted but it has its limits. It can not be denied that it is of practical importance that a precarious balance between the fundamental right to expression and the right to ones privacy be maintained.

The second practice which has become more of a daily occurrence now is that of Media trials. Something which was started to show to the public at large the truth about cases has now become a practice interfering dangerously with the justice delivery system. Both are tools frequented by the media. And both highlight the enormous need of what is called ‘responsible journalism’. Television channels have started a series of investigative attempts with hidden cameras and other espionage devices. Now the moot question that arises is whether it is for the media to act as the ‘law enforcement agency’!

The carrying out of an investigative story may be an expression of the right to free press but it caries with it an indomitable duty to respect the privacy of others. The individual who is the subject of a press or television ‘item’ has his or her personality, reputation or career dashed to the ground after the media exposure. He too has a fundamental right to live with dignity and respect and a right to privacy guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Today, it is being witnessed that the over-inquisitive media, which is a product of over-commercialization, is severely encroaching the individual’s right to privacy by crossing the boundaries of its freedom. Yet another observation of the court which touched this aspect of violation of right to privacy of the individuals is found in the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Labour Liberation Front v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court observed as follows:

Once an incident involving prominent person or institution takes place, the media is swinging into action and virtually leaving very little for the prosecution or the Courts to examine the matter. Recently, it has assumed dangerous proportions, to the extent of intruding into the very privacy of individuals. Gross misuse of technological advancements and the unhealthy competition in the field of journalism resulted in obliteration of norms or commitment to the noble profession. The freedom of speech and expression, which is the bedrock of journalism, is subjected to gross misuse. It must not be forgotten that only those who maintain restraint can exercise rights and freedoms effectively.

Trial by media has created a ‘problem’ because it involves a tug of war between two conflicting principles – free press and free trial, in both of which the public are vitally interested. The freedom of the press stems from the right of the public in a democracy to be involved on the issues of the day, which affect them. This is the justification for investigative and campaign journalism.

At the same time, the right to fair trial, i.e., a trial uninfluenced by extraneous pressures is recognized as a basic tenet of justice in India. Provisions aimed at safeguarding this right are contained under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India. Of particular concern to the media are restrictions which are imposed on the discussion or publication of matters relating to the merits of a case pending before a Court. A journalist may thus be liable for contempt of Court if he publishes anything which might prejudice a ‘fair trial’ or anything which impairs the impartiality of the Court to decide a case on its merits, whether the proceedings before the Court be a criminal or civil proceeding.

Similarly there have been a plethora of cases in India on the point. The observations of the Delhi High Court in Bofors Case or Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and Ors. v. State through CBI are very much relevant, as the Court weighed in favour of the accused’s right of fair trial while calculating the role of media in streamlining the criminal justice system:

It is said and to great extent correctly that through media publicity those who know about the incident may come forward with information, it prevents perjury by placing witnesses under public gaze and it reduces crime through the public expression of disapproval for crime and last but not the least it promotes the public discussion of important issues. All this is done in the interest of freedom of communication and right of information little realizing that right to a fair trial is equally valuable. Such a right has been emphatically recognized by the courts of Human Rights:

Again it cannot be excluded that the public becoming accustomed to the regular spectacle of pseudo trials in the news media might in the long run have nefarious consequences for the acceptance of the courts as the proper forum for the settlement of legal disputes.

The ever-increasing tendency to use media while the matter is sub-judice has been frowned down by the courts including the Supreme Court of India on the several occasions. In State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, the Supreme Court observed:

There is procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an offence. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice. A judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and is to be guided strictly by rules of law. If he finds the person guilty of an offence he is then to address himself to the question of sentence to be awarded to him in accordance with the provisions of law.

The position was most aptly summed up in the words of Justice H.R.Khanna:

“Certain aspects of a case are so much highlighted by the press that the publicity gives rise to strong public emotions. The inevitable effect of that is to prejudice the case of one party or the other for a fair trial. We must consider the question as to what extent are restraints necessary and have to be exercised by the press with a view to preserving the purity of judicial process.

The press must also keep in view its responsibility and see that nothing is done as may bring the courts or the legislature into disrepute and make the people lose faith in these institutions.”

Concern has been voiced about the attitude of media managements in treating news as just another ‘commodity’ and means to raise their profits. The increasing dependence of newspapers on advertisements is threatening core journalism. Some newspapers did not even appoint editors and the marketing forces decided the editorial policies resulting in cutting down in the number of journalists.

There was a time when the Indian Press was behaving like a worthwhile, valuable institution, but there is need to get out of the vicious circle where the newspapers would not be dictated to by the corporate world and political interests of the owners. The role of journalists is particularly appalling, as they are becoming increasingly corrupt, being bought over by corporate and political players to get media coverage. There seems to be no self-regulation; but for the appointment of an Ombudsman by the English daily ‘The Hindu’ to guard the readers’ interests, no other major newspapers were following the example to encourage ethical journalism. There is also the phenomenon of editorializing reports with heavy opinion and not segregating ‘advertorial materials’ from hard news for the healthy growth of media in the country.

While these are the overall trends of the media in the whole of the country, the state of affairs in the media in Tamil Nadu, is more worrisome. By and large political bias and partisanship have crippled newspapers and periodicals here. Although the media as a whole suffered heavily with more than 100 defamatory cases, raids in the offices of newspapers and houses of journalists, arrests and detentions even under draconian POTA, during the previous authoritarian regime of Jayalalitha and in spite of enjoying unbridled freedom (despite enormous provocation), under the media-friendly rule of Kalaignar, for reasons best known only to them. Certain sections of the dominant media adopt a very hostile attitude towards the DMK and in particular Kalaignar and directly promoting the interests of Jayalalitha.

Throwing to winds the fundamental objective of journalism to serve the people in a fair, accurate, unbiased, sober and decent manner and Norms of Journalists Conduct enunciated by the Press Council of India, these newspapers and periodicals work like political adversaries of the DMK government and agencies of Jayalalitha. In particular, the newspapers ‘The New Indian Express’, ‘Dinamani’ and ‘Dinamalar’ and journals ‘Junior Vikatan’, ‘Ananda Vikatan’, ‘Kalki’ and ‘Kumudam Reporter’ are overtly functioning as ADMK mouthpieces and English dailies ‘The Times of India’ and ‘Deccan Chronicle’ remain on the periphery. The writings of the Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Express, Aditya Sinha and the editor of ‘Dinamani’, K.Vaidyanathan themselves speak for their indecency, mediocrity, vulgarity, bias and partisan attitude. Their writings are mere reflections of their own feelings and political commitments. Columnists of the English daily such as Gurumurthy and Francois Gautier are known Hindu chauvinists and their writings are openly provocative. For ‘Dinamani’ any Tom, Dick and Harry can contribute articles, provided he is anti-DMK and anti-Kalaignar. With such people at the helm the standard of those dailies goes without saying.

The Press Council of India updated in 2005, the Norms of Journalistic conduct notable among which are:

“The Press shall not intrude or invade the privacy of an individual, unless outweighed by genuine overriding public interest, not being a prurient or morbid curiosity.

The newspaper should promptly and with due prominence, publish either in full or with due editing, free of cost, at the instance of the person affected or feeling aggrieved/or concerned by the impugned publication, a contradiction/reply/ clarification or rejoinder sent to the editor in the form of a letter or note. If the editor doubts the truth or factual accuracy of the contradiction/reply/clarification or rejoinder, he shall be at liberty to add separately at the end, a brief editorial comment doubting its veracity, but only when this doubt is reasonably founded on unimpeachable documentary or other evidential material in his/her possession. This is a concession which has to be availed of sparingly with due discretion and caution in appropriate cases.

Freedom of the Press involves the readers' right to know all sides of an issue of public interest. An editor, therefore, shall not refuse to publish the reply or rejoinder merely on the ground that in his opinion the story published in the newspaper was true. That is an issue to be left to the judgement of the readers. It also does not behove an editor to show contempt towards a reader.

Journalists and columnists owe a very special responsibility to their country in promoting communal peace and amity. Their writings are not a mere reflection of their own feelings but help to large extent in moulding the feelings and sentiments of the society at large. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that they use their pen with circumspection and restrain.

The role of media in such situations (Gujarat Carnage/Crisis) is to be peacemakers and not abettors, to be troubleshooters and not troublemakers. Let the media play their noble role of promoting peace and harmony among the people in crisis in the country. Any trend to disrupt the same either directly or indirectly would be an anti-national act. There is a greater moral responsibility on the media to do their best to build up the national solidarity and to recement the communal harmony at all levels remembering the noble role they had played during the pre-independence days.

In general, Provocative and sensational headlines are to be avoided;  Headings must reflect and justify the matter printed under them; Headings containing allegations made in statements should either identify the body or the source making it or at least carry quotation marks.

It is the duty of the newspaper to ensure that the tone, spirit and language of a write up is not objectionable, provocative, against the unity and integrity of the country, spirit of the constitution, seditious and inflammatory in nature or designed to promote communal disharmony. It should also not attempt to promote balkanisation of the country. One of the jobs of the journalists is also to bring forth to the public notice the plight of the weaker sections of society. They are the watchdogs on behalf of the society of its weaker sections.

Distortion or exaggeration of facts or incidents or giving currency to unverified rumours, suspicions or inferences as if they were facts and base their comments on them. Employment of intemperate or unrestrained language in the presentation of news or views, even as a piece of literary flourish or for the purpose of rhetoric or emphasis. Exaggerating actual happenings to achieve sensationalism and publication of news which adversely affect harmony with banner headlines or in distinctive types.

News reports should be devoid of comments and value judgement; Presentation of news should not be motivated or guided by partisan feelings, nor should it appear to be so; Language employed in writing the news should be temperate. Corrections should be promptly published with due prominence and regrets expressed in serious cases.”

But the norm generally followed by the media as a whole in the country and more pronouncedly in Tamil Nadu, seems to be ‘gross violation of all these norms!’

When Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948 the contemporary Prime Minister of Great Britain  Clement Attlee exclaimed:

“O Indians, the Gandhi we saved for 40 years, you could not save him even for a single year.” Immediately when he was asked whether he suggested that Indians were unfit for freedom and democracy, Attlee was reported to have said “Personally I think so…”

The people of India have belied Attlee’s suggestive remark; Are the media houses and journalists justify it?

(19-12-10)