The media has a very vital role to play in a
democracy. Especially in a democracy because
democracy survives on public opinion and it is
the creation of public opinion which is the
prerogative of the media. Particularly in a
situation where people are not organized, it is
the job of the media to comprehend and reflect
public opinion. Further, the media is also
instrumental in grievance redressal of the people
beyond the institutions of the State, where the
institutions of the State have erred, again by
building public opinion. Moreover media also
serves as the link between the people and the
State, by airing the views of the civil society for
the State to understand, by educating people
regarding the agenda of the State and finally by
extracting accountability from the State for the
people as in a democracy ultimate sovereignty
lies with the people. Thus media is rightly called
the fourth estate of the society and has a major
role to play in the good governance movement
spearheaded by public participation in the
contemporary era.
However the important issue in this section
again is as to whether the contemporary media
has been reasonably successful in performing its
duties particularly that of extracting
accountability from the State for the public. This
issue pans out into the debate between media
sympathizers and media critics.
Critics argue that media in current times is
driven by vested interests and the rich and
influential use the platform to extract mileage
for themselves and further their own political or
commercial interests. This point could be best
described by the happenings which occurred
between Reliance Industries and Nusli Wadia at
the time of emergency and the role which The
Indian Express played in ‘exposing’ the ‘unfair
trade practices’ of Reliance Industries. Not only
the Goenkas but most of the media houses of
India are driven by some or the other political or
business groups and their affiliations come at the
costs of media freedom and neutrality.
Further media is also accused of running
behind yellow journalism to earn more and more
money and in the process compromising on the
professional ethics of media. Be it newspapers,
magazines or electronic media all of them could
be found to be filled with events from cricket,
astrology, cinema and about personal lives of the
celebrities depicted in a scandal mongering
manner. Further even if it contains any news
they are covered in the most sensational manner,
trying to create anxiety, fear and frenzied reactions in the public. At the same time real
issues which are of vital importance are either
not covered or covered just for the sake of it, for
example, the issue of farmers’ suicides has been
around since 1997 but other than some selected
media houses, most of the visible media has either
not covered it or has accorded only scant
attention to it. Moreover, media has been also
blamed of improper treatment i.e., not portraying
the issues in the most holistic sense and
frequently falling short of explaining the details
in a reasonably critical manner. As a result the
functionalities of bringing an issue in the public
domain are not addressed properly. For example,
the issue of media trials in which it seems as if
media knows all the facts even before the
evidence is tested under the light of law and
whatever it pronounces is the final judgment.
For example, in case of Abhinav Bharat activities
the media accused the RSS for its involvement
before the law could take its own course.
Otherwise, in terms of holistic analysis the issue
of the effects of futures market on the farmers,
consumers and the entire productionconsumption
chain of agriculture is yet to be
explored despite the presence of this issue in the
public domain for a reasonable amount of time.
This is an issue which has bothered particularly
the intelligentsia and the politicians of course in
different senses, while the intelligentsia
complains of insufficient criticality, the
politicians complain of frequently being
misinterpreted and being quoted out of context.
This could be either attributed to the deficiencies
of skills in the journalists or the factors of implicit
biases or yellow journalism as already mentioned
above.
Nevertheless sympathizers of media not only
explain the reasons of the shortfall of media on
various accounts, but also find areas to
appreciate the work of the media. For example
on the issue of insufficient criticality the
sympathizers raise another issue of insufficient
media freedom especially in the context of law
of contempt of courts, corporate ownerships,
excessive commercialization and demands of the
market and above all influence peddling from
the rich and powerful lobbies in the society, all
this in a composite manner make the neutral and
professional operation of the media almost
impossible. On the issue of media trials they feel
that media has been instrumental in bringing
justice to those people who have been wronged
by the institutions of the State. The role of media
in getting justice for the families of Jessica Lal
and Priyadarshini Mattoo has been commended
even by the courts. Further it was the media
which brought the farmers suicide into limelight
and made it a national issue, only after which
the governments and other non - state
institutions swung into action. Moreover, the
media does not target honest legislatures and
judges for baseless criticism, it only brings the
allegations into the public domain and
galvanizes the institutional machinery to take
action.
Thus, it is difficult to label the media either
way, it is neither totally irresponsible and
unethical nor it is totally neutral and
professional, it is actually a mixed bag of both
these attributes, what we need to do is to carve
out a space for the media in which its ‘deviant’
characteristics are evened out and its noble
attributes are amplified and this could be
achieved only if media is subjected to some sort
of regulation. The present body of the Press
Council of India (PCI) only enforces a moral code
of conduct, it has no coercive powers. Thus, there
is a need for a fresh regulatory body which shall
strive to provide that space to the media.
Although it will be confronted with a big
challenge of balancing freedom of speech of the
media with the goal of disciplining its content
but we need to take a start by letting such an
enforceable code of conduct to evolve in the
public domain after extensive deliberations and
consultations of which the media itself may be a
party. Only then the media can become the true
reflection of the public opinion and become
instrumental in holding the State accountable for
its actions before the people.
democracy. Especially in a democracy because
democracy survives on public opinion and it is
the creation of public opinion which is the
prerogative of the media. Particularly in a
situation where people are not organized, it is
the job of the media to comprehend and reflect
public opinion. Further, the media is also
instrumental in grievance redressal of the people
beyond the institutions of the State, where the
institutions of the State have erred, again by
building public opinion. Moreover media also
serves as the link between the people and the
State, by airing the views of the civil society for
the State to understand, by educating people
regarding the agenda of the State and finally by
extracting accountability from the State for the
people as in a democracy ultimate sovereignty
lies with the people. Thus media is rightly called
the fourth estate of the society and has a major
role to play in the good governance movement
spearheaded by public participation in the
contemporary era.
However the important issue in this section
again is as to whether the contemporary media
has been reasonably successful in performing its
duties particularly that of extracting
accountability from the State for the public. This
issue pans out into the debate between media
sympathizers and media critics.
Critics argue that media in current times is
driven by vested interests and the rich and
influential use the platform to extract mileage
for themselves and further their own political or
commercial interests. This point could be best
described by the happenings which occurred
between Reliance Industries and Nusli Wadia at
the time of emergency and the role which The
Indian Express played in ‘exposing’ the ‘unfair
trade practices’ of Reliance Industries. Not only
the Goenkas but most of the media houses of
India are driven by some or the other political or
business groups and their affiliations come at the
costs of media freedom and neutrality.
Further media is also accused of running
behind yellow journalism to earn more and more
money and in the process compromising on the
professional ethics of media. Be it newspapers,
magazines or electronic media all of them could
be found to be filled with events from cricket,
astrology, cinema and about personal lives of the
celebrities depicted in a scandal mongering
manner. Further even if it contains any news
they are covered in the most sensational manner,
trying to create anxiety, fear and frenzied reactions in the public. At the same time real
issues which are of vital importance are either
not covered or covered just for the sake of it, for
example, the issue of farmers’ suicides has been
around since 1997 but other than some selected
media houses, most of the visible media has either
not covered it or has accorded only scant
attention to it. Moreover, media has been also
blamed of improper treatment i.e., not portraying
the issues in the most holistic sense and
frequently falling short of explaining the details
in a reasonably critical manner. As a result the
functionalities of bringing an issue in the public
domain are not addressed properly. For example,
the issue of media trials in which it seems as if
media knows all the facts even before the
evidence is tested under the light of law and
whatever it pronounces is the final judgment.
For example, in case of Abhinav Bharat activities
the media accused the RSS for its involvement
before the law could take its own course.
Otherwise, in terms of holistic analysis the issue
of the effects of futures market on the farmers,
consumers and the entire productionconsumption
chain of agriculture is yet to be
explored despite the presence of this issue in the
public domain for a reasonable amount of time.
This is an issue which has bothered particularly
the intelligentsia and the politicians of course in
different senses, while the intelligentsia
complains of insufficient criticality, the
politicians complain of frequently being
misinterpreted and being quoted out of context.
This could be either attributed to the deficiencies
of skills in the journalists or the factors of implicit
biases or yellow journalism as already mentioned
above.
Nevertheless sympathizers of media not only
explain the reasons of the shortfall of media on
various accounts, but also find areas to
appreciate the work of the media. For example
on the issue of insufficient criticality the
sympathizers raise another issue of insufficient
media freedom especially in the context of law
of contempt of courts, corporate ownerships,
excessive commercialization and demands of the
market and above all influence peddling from
the rich and powerful lobbies in the society, all
this in a composite manner make the neutral and
professional operation of the media almost
impossible. On the issue of media trials they feel
that media has been instrumental in bringing
justice to those people who have been wronged
by the institutions of the State. The role of media
in getting justice for the families of Jessica Lal
and Priyadarshini Mattoo has been commended
even by the courts. Further it was the media
which brought the farmers suicide into limelight
and made it a national issue, only after which
the governments and other non - state
institutions swung into action. Moreover, the
media does not target honest legislatures and
judges for baseless criticism, it only brings the
allegations into the public domain and
galvanizes the institutional machinery to take
action.
Thus, it is difficult to label the media either
way, it is neither totally irresponsible and
unethical nor it is totally neutral and
professional, it is actually a mixed bag of both
these attributes, what we need to do is to carve
out a space for the media in which its ‘deviant’
characteristics are evened out and its noble
attributes are amplified and this could be
achieved only if media is subjected to some sort
of regulation. The present body of the Press
Council of India (PCI) only enforces a moral code
of conduct, it has no coercive powers. Thus, there
is a need for a fresh regulatory body which shall
strive to provide that space to the media.
Although it will be confronted with a big
challenge of balancing freedom of speech of the
media with the goal of disciplining its content
but we need to take a start by letting such an
enforceable code of conduct to evolve in the
public domain after extensive deliberations and
consultations of which the media itself may be a
party. Only then the media can become the true
reflection of the public opinion and become
instrumental in holding the State accountable for
its actions before the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment