Time for a round of introspection

- Somnath Chatterjee

Newspapers, TV channels and Internet news providers need to institute a process of continuous introspection to ensure that they remain transparent and truthful purveyors of information.
In pre-Independence India, there were two kinds of newspapers and journals. One set was supportive of the colonial power, if not overtly then covertly. The other spoke of the aspirations of the people, pointed out injustice and oppression. Draconian laws were put in place to muzzle the latter. Those who started or owned or published or edited them were themselves actively involved in the freedom movement in one way or the other. The number of copies and the number of publi cations were limited, partly because of administrative obstruction and partly because of technological limitations. Yet the effect of what was printed and circulated was profound, even inspirational.

Independence brought with it within a few years our Constitution, which guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. Thus the shackles on press freedom were done away with, except for the ‘reasonable restrictions’ provided for in Article 19(2).

The press in India in the early years of Independence showed its commitment to truth and transparency. The initial years saw the emergence of a new feature: the ownership of some newspapers passed from the founders and editor-publishers to commercial concerns. For some years, while the interest of some of the owners did shift to the revenue earned by the newspapers, the editors were free to determine the editorial policy. That was an age of great editors, who virtually set the standards of impartiality and independence that became an integral part of the print media.

Other factors came into play. Chief among them was the advent of technology that made it possible to print millions of copies, and set pages on computers, making production not only fast but more economical. Then the satellite age made it possible to send content from one office to another, so that local editions could be produced simultaneously. Another factor was the burgeoning advertising industry and the enormous amounts of money it poured into newspapers and journals. Indeed it is said that today some newspapers can afford to give away their copies for free, since their main revenue, that may run to crores of rupees daily, comes from advertising, not from the sale of the newspaper — as used to be the case in pre-Independence India.

In sections of the press, it appears that more importance is now given to the marketing divisions than to editors. It is said that in some newspapers, the marketing division decides what will ‘sell’ the paper in terms of news — and how they will do it. Thus it is that we are no longer surprised to read, on the front pages of some leading newspapers, of the eating habits of some personality from the entertainment industry, or of someone who has won some much publicised contest of some kind. Sadly, news relating to the state of the country is relegated to the inside pages.
But overshadowing all that has been happening to the newspapers is television. From a modest beginning of being the handmaiden of the Central government of the day, television has, since much of it went into private hands, grown exponentially, especially the news channels in different languages. But one has to think whether the development of television, especially television news, in the country has been in the right direction.

Private channels are not merely news providers. They make no secret of the fact that they are entirely dependent on advertising revenue, and it appears that advertisers have poured enormous amounts of money into those channels they perceive as getting the larger numbers of viewers. This has had two effects. One is that in the fierce competition to get more viewers, some channels have not hesitated to compromise with the truth. Others have taken recourse to sensationalism, and all manner of stories are shown as news.

Of course, we have a number of channels that maintain high standards of journalistic integrity, and have as a consequence retained the trust of the viewers. But these are not many in number.
The basic feature of post-Independence media is the change in the nature of ownership. A channel or a newspaper is now seen as a profit-making venture, as indeed it is in all countries where advertising ensures the profitability of a channel or newspaper. This in itself is not necessarily antithetical to credibility. There are owners who are committed to their newspapers and channels observing the highest standards of journalistic propriety. But they are few in number, and the number of those who see the ‘packaging’ of news as an essential requirement to earning more money seems to be growing.

A feature that merits highlighting is the fact that, owing to the single-minded obsession with perceived market requirements, those elements of the governance of our country that were at one time considered to be of vital importance — the proper functioning of the three arms of our democracy, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive — no longer warrant the attention they got in earlier years. They are noticed, by and large, only when there is something of sensationalist value in some event relating to them.

This is not only unfortunate but undesirable, as the power of the media, especially of television, is great in influencing the perceptions of viewers, and the images that remain with people in general are not just negative but incorrect.
Today, newspapers and private channels cover the stock markets in obsessive detail. But they do not do the same with the debates in Parliament on major policy issues. Thus debates have ceased to be reported.

Press freedom is not without responsibility; the media must desist from distorted or concocted reporting that highlights only those aspects of an issue that suit it. The editorial policy of a newspaper should not be dictated by the prejudices of media moguls and media barons. While profit is indeed a motive in the media world, that in itself should not be the sole criterion when it comes to news and views on the issues before the nation. The increasing levels of certain types of content in the print and electronic media are a matter of concern.

It is for the media themselves to ponder on the long-term implications of their acts on society at large. More than ever before, today there is an imperative to strengthen our national fabric and the ideals we cherish, such as democracy, secularism and pluralism. Unfortunately, of late we find a tendency among a section of the media to project partisan points of view in the name of dissemination of views, rather than news that is factual and objective. The glory of the media is in their presentation of information based on truth. Sadly, this basic duty is at times forgotten by sections of the press. Except for some honourable exceptions, today the political leanings and political predilections of newspapers and TV channels are well known, and these obviously affect dispassionate presentation of news and also views.

Democracy is unthinkable without a free press and its success depends to a large extent on the kind of role the media play as an interface between Parliament and the people. Parliament is at the heart of a democracy. That being so, it deserves serious attention from all quarters, be it the people, the executive, the judiciary, civil society groups or the media. It is in Parliament that important decisions are taken and the government is made accountable. It is the responsibility of the media to inform and educate people on various issues that are before Parliament. While trying to expose the misdeeds and corrupt practices of public authorities, including people’s representatives, the media would do well to report their commendable initiatives and work as well. Giving publicity only to interruptions, disturbances and adjournments in Parliament, as if nothing else takes place there, gives a distorted picture of our elected representatives, and projects Parliament and parliamentarians in a negative, even derogatory, manner.

It has been a remarkable journey that the media have had as the voice of the people. That is indeed what they were in the pre-Independence days, and what some newspapers and television channels still are. But what is mentioned in many quarters is that market forces have come into and affected the credibility of the media and done considerable damage — damage that affects even those dedicated, principled newspapers and channels that do not stoop low.
While we can applaud the media for their independence in most matters, it is necessary for all those involved, from newspapers to television channels to Internet news providers, to institute a process of continuous introspection to ensure that they remain transparent and truthful purveyors of information. We have come to expect this of our media and we would like to continue to be as proud of them as we have been in the past.

In this very challenging task the Press Council of India has a key role. It may not need to have draconian powers — indeed, it should not — but it needs to have the respect of all newspapers and news channels, and it is for all of them to sit together to determine how best this can be done. As we have seen time and again, where law has not been effective, consent has been. It is time this matter was given serious thought by all those who profess to abide by the truth above everything else.

(-Based on an address by Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee at a discussion on ‘Media’s role as the people’s voice — Pre and Post-Independence,’ organised by the Press Council of India on the occasion of National Press Day on November 16, in New Delhi.)