Basic theories of political science suggest that as society grows economically and gets mature in democratic experiences, institutions become more tolerant to criticism and more libertarian in their approaches. In Indian context too growing public consciousness, logic power and resultant aspiration have been putting pressure on the democratic institutions for better and honest performance. The net result is that all institutions are under constant scrutiny.
But instead of improving their own performance, institutions have started denigrating other institutions and seeking to adopt “holier-than-thou” approach. Executive criticizes judiciary and seeks to show them their “Lakshman Rekha”; judiciary’s riposte is “Had Sita not crossed Lakshman Rekha, Rawana would not have been killed”. When media shows visuals of some ministers watching pornography during session of the House on serious issues, camera entry was banned. Both Central and States legislatures have grudges against various formal and non-formal institutions. They publicly criticize what they term as judicial overreach and seek to retain their supremacy vis-à-vis all other institutions. Non-formal institutions like Media or Civil Society find no favor with any of these institutions. Ironically, in the process there appears massive inter-institution, nay, intra-institution trust deficit and resultant public contempt. The net upshot of this dwindling trust deficit is depletion of what Robert Putnam phrased as “social capital”.
In such a situation, the right approach would have been that each institution embarks on a massive self-corrective path on its own. But, of late, it has been observed that every institution has started going overboard to denigrate other institutions and thereby seeking to position itself on a high moral pedestal so as to suggest that it is not the one to be denigrated.
There is a mythical adage. During Mahabharat war, Arjun and Karn were facing each-other. When Karn shot arrow its impact dragged arjuna’s rath a small distance but when arjun did the same, karn’s rath got pushed to a longer distance yet after every arrow shot by Karn, Krishna praised him. Baffled as he was, Arjun asked friend and charioteer Krishna “why do you praise Karn, my enemy, despite the fact that his arrow does not impact as much as does mine”. Krishna smiled and said “remove the Lord Hunuman’s flag (pataka) from your chariot and see the result”. Many State institutions, shielded by various protectionist laws and majestic aura, may face the same public criticism as non-formal institutions like media if such shields are taken off. These laws and illegitimately created majestic aura act as Lord Hanuman’s Pataka.
In such an atmosphere, the apex court has sought to explore the possibility of guiding media. “Guiding” implies direct or indirect control of the flow of information at a time when it is impossible to do so in an era of internet which has transnational dimension. Webster dictionary defines word “guide” as one that leads or directs another’s way b : a person who exhibits and explains points of interest c : something that provides a person with guiding information d : signpost 1 e : a person who directs another’s conduct or course of life .
We need to recall Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen’s famous revelation that 1943 famine, in which over seven million persons had died, was largely a result of faulty Government policy and not due to food shortage. Sen had argued that it was the functioning of democratic institutions (including the media) that have ensured that independent India has not suffered a famine, although it continues to have droughts as well as malnutrition and chronic hunger. It is the media pressure-generated public opinion that forces any government to rush supplies, should food shortage assume famine proportion.
It is in this light that, on scores of occasions, the honorable court had endorsed media freedom as had the US and European courts (in Sullivan and other cases).
In a polity where corruption has shifted from shake-down system to pay-off system (or to use the phrase coercive corruption to collusive corruption mentioned in Administrative Reforms Commission report) , the powers –that-be enjoy sufficient clout to wilt the law enforcing agencies to work in their interest. A culprit may go unnoticed if media develops the tendency of ignoring such incidents in the name of the rights of the accused. The voice of the poor victim, who also has similar rights as has the accused, may never be heard in the din of money power and a corrupt and exploitative system.
Whether a law is justified or not can be best tested on the touchstone of stock premise “what could be the attendant fallout/aberration in society in the absence of such law”. Conversely, if we reverse this logic we can test any restriction on the touchstone of stock premise “what could be the resultant effect for society should such restriction is imposed”.
Wrong concepts about media delivery system
(a) Balancing the story — Across the world it is an abiding principle that version of both sides should be taken in order to avoid lop-sided news. This concept was developed in 1920 in the US to avoid growing power and influence of the newspapers which were dyed in socialist and egalitarian fervor. The powers-that-be found it difficult to counter the new menace. So some editors-owners huddled together and decided to block stories against the high and the mighty.
They asked the field staff not to give any story which did not carry both versions. Now when the reporter brought a story how management’s highhandedness and exploitation led to labor movement, the owner-editor adopted a moralistic position and asked him to get the version of the management. Now management was not available for comment. And the owner who was in league with the management conveniently spiked the story.
If South block conduct is suspect in a case of corruption, you can imagine how difficult it is to take the version as accessibility remains denied in the name of security.
(b) Objectivity—–Media theorist Stuart Allen describes objectivity in journalism as denoting a set of rhetorical devices and procedures used in composing a news story, and in this sense having no bearing on the truthfulness or validity of the story. Objective reporting, Allen argues, means avoiding as much as possible the overt intrusion of the reporter’s personal values into a news story and minimizing explicit interpretation in writing up the story.
There is a difference between dictionary and literature. Dictionary may be hundred percent truth but cannot become literature. Under the doctrine of objectivity an attempt is sought to be made to reduce news story to the status of dictionary. It deprives the news story of historical and societal context.
In the mid-1970s the Glasgow University Media Group analyzed hundreds of hours of recorded news broadcast focused on industrial items such as strikes. They found that news consistently favored the interpretations of already powerful because journalists share assumption with them about the real world which are rarely seriously questioned, such as strikes being harmful and disruptive.
News sources that are needed to fulfill the requirement of `objective reportage’ are usually drawn from existing power structures and therefore tend to support the status quo. News judgment requires journalists to share assumption about what is normal in society, and , by focusing negatively on the deviant, journalists implicitly support the norms and values of the society. Michael Schudson, in his book Discovering the News—A social history of American Newspapers, emphasizes that belief in objectivity in journalism is not a claim about what kind of knowledge is reliable but clearly points to a direction of thinking that journalists are expected to engage in—a direction that often is that of maintaining the status quo.
Why court cannot lay down guidelines?
(A) Media creats a market –place for competing ideas. Blocking this free-flow of information so as to educate masses on all aspects of an issue, would render entire democratic discourse in public sphere sterile.
(B) Whether a law is justified or not can be best tested on the touchstone of stock premise “what could be the attendant fallout/aberration in society in the absence of such law”. Conversely, if we reverse this logic we can test any restriction on the touchstone of stock premise “what could be the resultant effects for society should such restriction is imposed”.
Dangerous proposition
———————————
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Such restrictions are bound to cast a deterrent effect on our basic job alarm the otherwise somnolent system. Such restrictions will result in media getting disinterested in showing required enthusiasm to cover courts. A case in point is gradually declining coverage of Parliament and political and development issues.
Examples:
1. Suppose a TV channel gets an information from hotel records that a day before the Union Govt awarded 2-g spectrum contract to Swan Telecom, a close aide of Shahid Balwa met Minister A Raja. The channel also got footage of CCTV in which Raja is shown alighting from his private car and goes to a room with this aide. Date and time is also shown in the footage. The hotel room was booked in the name of this aide. Now this channel cannot air it because the matter is sub judice. The net result of this will be that not only the people of this country will be deprived of a vital information/news as the matter will not be brought in public sphere nor will the court be apprised of these vital facts.
2. Government departments act in a hectoring manner with scant regard to what promises it has made to hapless allottees earlier or what laws are under operation. Now suppose a development authority allots a large piece of land earlier earmarked for park to a colonizer under the most “effective way of corruption “collusive corruption”. The officers may ask this colonizer to get a small fake case of registered against the government. Now even if the media digs out certain new facts to prove this nexus it cannot do anything as the matter is sub judice.
3. A criminal who is terror in a locality or a district or region has scores of cases against him and yet he contests elections. Is it not the duty of the media to apprise the society of his collateral menacing conduct? Under the faulty defamation law and new perception of the court anything said about him in public domain to educate the voters will amount to infringement of his right under article 21 of the constitution. The clash in between public interest and individual rights of a criminal who can hop from one court to another for decades to stall in discussion.
4. In most cases of collusive corruption, a corrupt officer may ask his collusive partner –a contractor, to file a case against the department on some frivolous petty issue thereby blocking all future exposes by the media on the grounds of sub judice. We know about a few cases where a corrupt minister got a matter against himself brought in the high court and subsequently blocked any further raid/investigation by the Lok Ayukta.
NK Singh
Group Editor
Sadhna News
Email- [email protected]
