Trying to strangulate media

- Anil Narendra

 

When my grandfather late Mahashay Krishanji started Pratap newspaper, journalism used to be a mission. The mission at that time was the freedom of India. Whatever he had, he committed to this mission. But, today, when I look around, I find that journalism is no more a mission, but it has become a profession. Especially after the advent of these electronic channels, it has turned into a predominantly business activity. But, then every profession or business has its rules and ethics. With this in mind, the Indian Press Council was established. It prepared a Code of Conduct for newspapers and news agencies and journalism fifteen years ago and later, after a few years it made certain amendments to this Code. The guidelines enumerated in this Code of Conduct have always been inspired by larger public interest. For example, what precautions are to be taken while reporting communal incidents, under no circumstance violence should be eulogized, interference into privacy of persons should be avoided, clarifications from the person affected by the news or allegations to be given due place in reporting, name and address of raped woman not to be made public etc. The print media did accept these guidelines, but with the advent of electronic media, the scenario changed. Vying for TRP, channels got into a rat race to score over other channels and they violated the accepted norms on a number of times. Then came the phase of scandals and it provided the channels with the opportunity to highlight the scams and affected parties were embarrassed with newer revelations. Most affected with these revelations was the government. Now the Press Council has put forth such an advice, which may create bitterness between it and the media. It may be mentioned that the Chairman of the Press Council, Justice Markandey Katju commented last week that there is growing notion among the government, private sector and intelligentsia that a section of media is acting in an irresponsible manner. The tendency towards misleading and incorrect reporting, presenting exaggerated accounts of incidents and sensationalism is on the increase. In an interview to a TV Channel a few days before, Justice Katju said that he had written a letter to the Prime Minister suggesting to bringing electronic media under the ambit of the Press Council. He has advised to change the name of the Council to Media Council and asked for more powers to the Council. He said that he has received a reply to his letter and the Prime Minister has intimated to him that the matter is under consideration. Justice Katju also told that in this connection he has also met the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Ms Sushma Swaraj, who has told him that probably consensus on this matter will be reached. He said that the Council should be empowered to cancel the license of the media organization acting in an irresponsible manner and suspension of government advertisements to it. When asked, if it will not affect the freedom of media, Justice Katju said everyone is responsible towards democracy and every freedom is not unrestricted. I am responsible, so you are. We, all are responsible to the public. He said that discussions on TV Channels are senseless. These smack of competitions to make noise. Quoting a chaupai of  Tulsidas, he said that there should be some fear in the media. He said, sometimes media works against public interest. Quoting an example, he said that whenever there is a bomb blast in Delhi, Bangalore or some other place, within hours, every channel start saying that they have received e-mail or SMS from Indian Mujahideen, Jash-e-Mohammed or Harkat-ul-Mujahideen claiming responsibility for the blast. He said that this could be an act of some mischievous element, but it is projected on TV as if all the Muslims are terrorists or suicide bombers. Justice Katju expressed apprehension that all this is being done to create rift among public and this is completely an anti-national act.

 

We respect Justice Katju very much, but with due apology, we would like to say that we do not agree with his views and comments. It is media's duty to project truth, howsoever bitter it may be. To blame media for purposely promoting communalism is totally wrong and unfortunate. We would like to say that the Press Council should not become government's mouthpiece. The concerns of the government should not be the concerns of the Council. It is satisfying that language and tone of both are quite similar. The only difference is that the government considers entire media as irresponsible, whereas Justice Katju has blamed a section of the media (electronic media). Measures being suggested by Justice Katju are detrimental for the freedom of the media. Will the government try to run every newspaper and every channel according to its wishes? If they do not fall in line, will they be threatened with stopping of ads putting them to loss? Justice Katju agrees that media cannot be pressurize, but if the suggestions which he is putting forward are enacted, the UPA government of Manmohan Singh will not hesitate in using these as a threat. Every newspaper and channel has to ensure observance of norms of journalism, but no such measure should be contemplated, which may prove to be a means of putting its will on media. The government must avoid strangulating the media. It would be better to learn from the history. Earlier such an effort has failed.