Instead of taking a close look at its own policies that led to the recent public agitations, The government is now looking at ways to attack freedom of press, just for being the carrier of bad news.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on August 30 announced the setting up of a group that will specifically deal with regulating the media in order to make it more accountable. The decision was taken at a cabinet meeting, which saw some adamant pressure from members who were upset with the way the media covered the anti-corruption agitation of Anna Hazare. According to sources, there was also a strong belief among a majority of the PM’s colleagues that the entire movement was actually fuelled by the media. In the wake of these developments, the government is now looking to devise ways and means to address the issue by curtailing exaggerations in press reports. Some of the ministers have even been critical of the ‘anti-government’ slant in the coverage, and have been pressing for curbs both in the Cabinet meeting as well as in the newly-constituted Group of Ministers (GoM) on media and paid news. The composition and powers of the group are not clear yet. Interestingly, the government says it wants to put curbs on the media without curbing the freedom of the press.
The last time that India witnessed a regime of media censorship was in the 1970s when Indira Gandhi had imposed emergency rule in the country. The suspension of all civil and political rights soon followed and so did political censorship. In fact, this continues to be the only dictatorship that modern India has ever witnessed till date. To be fair, the recent move by the present government cannot be compared with the Emergency, but the agenda to control free speech looks alarmingly similar and, as experts put it, deplorable and regressive.
The Anna Hazare movement is not the first instance where the government failed to gauge public sentiment. Neither is this the first instance that the government has tried to curb the freedom of the press. In 2007, the government came out with a draft Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, tagged as the country’s ‘most sweeping attempt to infringe on free speech’. Serious concerns were voiced on the belief that live telecast of the 26/11 Mumbai strikes had helped the Pakistani terrorists. The government had then proposed restrictions on live telecast of such emergency situations, permitting only “authorised feeds” to be telecast. The proposed law, which is still under consideration, is actually the result of a Supreme Court decision in 1995 when the court mediated a dispute over telecasting rights of a live cricket match. The court deemed India’s airwaves a scarce resource and “public property”, which should not be monopolised by the government or private broadcasters, but regulated for national interest. The Apex court recommended that the government create an independent statutory body to act as the custodian of airwaves. The proposed move saw some stiff opposition from media agencies who took up the matter with the PM. In their representation, the editors said the proposed measures to “gag the electronic media” had caused immense disquiet in the journalistic fraternity and among all those who believe in the right to freedom of expression.
The Indian Constitution extends the right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 to the press as well. Post-independence, the Indian media has been a watchdog of democracy and is instrumental in generating public interest in the government and its operations. However, similar to individual rights of expression, the Indian press is barred from reporting an incident or expressing an idea if it violates the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. This legal right also applies to instances that jeopardise India’s friendly relations with foreign nations, disrupts public order or is capable of inciting an offence. However, like everything else, there is a flip side to this as well. Over the last few years, yellow journalism has crept into Indian press leading to widespread misconduct. The leaked Nira Radia tape is among the most recent examples that have rightly sparked a fresh debate on media ethics. “There ought to be a mechanism to ensure objectivity so that information does not get mixed with opinion,” says former Chief Justice of India J. S. Verma, a vocal supporter of self-regulation. “The impact of media, particularly electronic media, is huge. It just needs to be more circumspect,” says Verma, who is also the chairman of News Broadcasting Standards Authority – a self-regulatory body for news channels.
It is important for the press to realise that the freedom it enjoys is not absolute. Indeed there are black sheep within the fraternity that pose a serious threat to the objectivity and fairness quotient of this institution. There is also no doubt in the fact that the menace of paid news has flourished in recent years and definitely needs to be curbed. However, is imposing government regulation on the media the only solution?
“The mandate to me from the PM is that we should impose self-regulation. I have always felt the same way. In June 2011, we put in place a self-regulatory apparatus – the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council. It is a task force headed by the Information & Broadcasting Secretary and includes broadcasters and representatives of cable operators along with government officials,” Ambika Soni, Union Minister for I&B told B&E during a recent interaction. However, the latest decision by the PM to form a committee to regulate media has drawn some sharp criticism from the opposition benches. Reacting to the government’s move, senior BJP leader and the party’s national spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad said that the timing of the move was suspicious, and that the real problem was the government’s failure to recognise the loss of its credibility. “Any government strategy that is devoid of credibility is bound to fail”, said the BJP leader. CPM leader Sitaram Yechury also had some staunch criticism for the proposed move. “The policing of media would not help,” he said. Significantly, both the BJP and Yechury also stressed that they did have issues with the conduct of the media. They listed issues like paid news, TRP management and sources of fund for some of the media ventures. However, they have categorically maintained that they are against the government playing the arbiter. “The remedy has to come from within the media”, echoes Prasad, adding, “a view can be taken if it does not work, but government cannot arrogate to itself the right to play the cop.” Yechury also made an observation that although self-regulation had not been effective against the unhealthy practices that have crept in sections of the media, allowing the government to regulate media should not be allowed.
The last time that India witnessed a regime of media censorship was in the 1970s when Indira Gandhi had imposed emergency rule in the country. The suspension of all civil and political rights soon followed and so did political censorship. In fact, this continues to be the only dictatorship that modern India has ever witnessed till date. To be fair, the recent move by the present government cannot be compared with the Emergency, but the agenda to control free speech looks alarmingly similar and, as experts put it, deplorable and regressive.
The Anna Hazare movement is not the first instance where the government failed to gauge public sentiment. Neither is this the first instance that the government has tried to curb the freedom of the press. In 2007, the government came out with a draft Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, tagged as the country’s ‘most sweeping attempt to infringe on free speech’. Serious concerns were voiced on the belief that live telecast of the 26/11 Mumbai strikes had helped the Pakistani terrorists. The government had then proposed restrictions on live telecast of such emergency situations, permitting only “authorised feeds” to be telecast. The proposed law, which is still under consideration, is actually the result of a Supreme Court decision in 1995 when the court mediated a dispute over telecasting rights of a live cricket match. The court deemed India’s airwaves a scarce resource and “public property”, which should not be monopolised by the government or private broadcasters, but regulated for national interest. The Apex court recommended that the government create an independent statutory body to act as the custodian of airwaves. The proposed move saw some stiff opposition from media agencies who took up the matter with the PM. In their representation, the editors said the proposed measures to “gag the electronic media” had caused immense disquiet in the journalistic fraternity and among all those who believe in the right to freedom of expression.
The Indian Constitution extends the right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 to the press as well. Post-independence, the Indian media has been a watchdog of democracy and is instrumental in generating public interest in the government and its operations. However, similar to individual rights of expression, the Indian press is barred from reporting an incident or expressing an idea if it violates the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. This legal right also applies to instances that jeopardise India’s friendly relations with foreign nations, disrupts public order or is capable of inciting an offence. However, like everything else, there is a flip side to this as well. Over the last few years, yellow journalism has crept into Indian press leading to widespread misconduct. The leaked Nira Radia tape is among the most recent examples that have rightly sparked a fresh debate on media ethics. “There ought to be a mechanism to ensure objectivity so that information does not get mixed with opinion,” says former Chief Justice of India J. S. Verma, a vocal supporter of self-regulation. “The impact of media, particularly electronic media, is huge. It just needs to be more circumspect,” says Verma, who is also the chairman of News Broadcasting Standards Authority – a self-regulatory body for news channels.
It is important for the press to realise that the freedom it enjoys is not absolute. Indeed there are black sheep within the fraternity that pose a serious threat to the objectivity and fairness quotient of this institution. There is also no doubt in the fact that the menace of paid news has flourished in recent years and definitely needs to be curbed. However, is imposing government regulation on the media the only solution?
“The mandate to me from the PM is that we should impose self-regulation. I have always felt the same way. In June 2011, we put in place a self-regulatory apparatus – the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council. It is a task force headed by the Information & Broadcasting Secretary and includes broadcasters and representatives of cable operators along with government officials,” Ambika Soni, Union Minister for I&B told B&E during a recent interaction. However, the latest decision by the PM to form a committee to regulate media has drawn some sharp criticism from the opposition benches. Reacting to the government’s move, senior BJP leader and the party’s national spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad said that the timing of the move was suspicious, and that the real problem was the government’s failure to recognise the loss of its credibility. “Any government strategy that is devoid of credibility is bound to fail”, said the BJP leader. CPM leader Sitaram Yechury also had some staunch criticism for the proposed move. “The policing of media would not help,” he said. Significantly, both the BJP and Yechury also stressed that they did have issues with the conduct of the media. They listed issues like paid news, TRP management and sources of fund for some of the media ventures. However, they have categorically maintained that they are against the government playing the arbiter. “The remedy has to come from within the media”, echoes Prasad, adding, “a view can be taken if it does not work, but government cannot arrogate to itself the right to play the cop.” Yechury also made an observation that although self-regulation had not been effective against the unhealthy practices that have crept in sections of the media, allowing the government to regulate media should not be allowed.
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Prof. Rajita Chaudhuri's Website
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
Arindam Chaudhuri's Portfolio - he is at his candid best by Society Magazine
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
IIPM B-School Detail
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Prof. Rajita Chaudhuri's Website
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
Arindam Chaudhuri's Portfolio - he is at his candid best by Society Magazine
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
IIPM B-School Detail
