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