Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Limits to Media:Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

Limits to Media
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
A recent write-up in a English weekly Outlook, obviously in an abusive, cheap and slanderous language, on a woman IAS Officer working in Telangana Chief Minister’s Office is a negative shift in the concerns and priorities of media. In the process the larger endeavors of the State are sidelined. Against the background of such attempts, it requires a nationwide debate on “Should not there be limits to Media”? Or, in the alternate, should there be some watchdog role for an independent civil society and professional group to limit media? The basic premise is that such issues should be debated from a larger perspective of constitutional, moral, ethical and legal provisions.
If there is one notable achievement of independent India, which can be described as the greatest, it is the ‘Indian Democracy’. No doubt that, Indian Press has played a glorious part in this process of maintenance of Indian Democracy in the phase of great provocations and temptations. However, in later days, the media scene has undergone not only dramatic change but also traumatic change.  Its reach has gone up. Its coverage techniques have undergone dramatic changes. Its crossing limits too have gone up multifold. Media in a democracy has enormous power and responsibility. But, Power without responsibility can never do well for the democratic system. 

The concept of limits like a Laxmanrekha implies that there is need for certain equilibrium between relationships and responsibilities of various pillars of democracy within the provisions of the Constitution. Laxmanrekha also implies operating not only with certain responsibility and accountability but also with certain concerns for the consequences of what is being done or not done today, on the larger values to do with freedom, objectivity, equity and ethics. It involves both legal and ethical dimensions. Most elected democracies in the world have one or other restraint on the operations of media even when they are relatively free from the Government’s interference. In India a free and independent media is inherent in the freedom of speech and even guaranteed by the Constitution. It assumes that media is fair, free and responsible and operates under certain checks and balances, a hall mark of Indian Constitution.  It is expected that media observes certain standards of objectivity, responsibility and responsiveness inherent in the concept of Fourth Estate.  The media itself is expected to maintain its own code of conduct and philosophy of self-restraint in such a way that dignity and privacy of individuals are in no way adversely affected.
As observed by a Former Chief Justice, freedom without responsibility denigrates into license. The very role the media plays as a disseminator of news, educator of the public and creator of public opinion imposes onerous duties of a high order. High ethical standards the media must adhere to.  Truthfulness in the reporting of news and objectivity in the presentation of facts without any bias are some of the minimum ethical standards expected of the media. New definition, new news values and new priorities dictate media today. It is in this context that the question of limits to media arises. It is against this background that Laxmanrekha becomes relevant. Laxmanrekha is to be drawn by the press, not by the government-not by the Parliament.  It could be through few good and eminent journalists. 
It is high time there is a national debate.  A Laxmanrekha, however, should not mean curbing or curtailing freedom of press or that of any Constitutional guarantees or enhancing power of government or its agencies. But if an independent body could help promote responsibility, standards of behavior and self-discipline, it deserves to be considered. When the society at large and the three pillars of democracy have been, time and again pointing out, that, the media by and large has been crossing the boundaries on many occasions, it is time for everyone in the media to think of this and correct themselves rather than somebody else doing it.
Undeniably, no fora can function unless it is able to establish and achieve a balance between its rights and privileges on the one hand and its duties and obligations on the other. Print media is an extremely important limb in a democracy – rightly termed as the fourth limb of democracy. While the freedom of press can by no means be under-estimated, the journalists and everyone associated with the media must also appreciate that, liberty is not a license. Every right has a corresponding duty and a sacred obligation to the society. The media has no special power or immunities. It enjoys the same privileges and constitutional rights that are available to citizens. However, it must be noted that, these provisions do not envisage unbridled right to free speech and expression.
Finally the question is who should regulate? Who should put this regulation? Who should take the responsibility? Is it the working journalists, the managements, the government or an independent organization or somebody else?  Should the situation be allowed to drift further? Or should we think of some corrective measures. Do we agree for a government regulation?
It is high time that an organization-governmental or non-governmental or semi governmental or working journalists’ organization or a combination of more than one- with high reputation and unbiased track record is identified and entrusted with the responsibility to define, design and implement the limits to media. Together they may identify news by a methodology of periodical review, which crossed the limits and make them public and expose. This may create awareness in both the reader and contributor.
Against this background such writings of extremely disturbing and mischievous nature that the Outlook magazine published on the women IAS officer are to be condemned. End


No comments:

Post a Comment