A brilliant interview of veteran journalist
Paranjoy Guha ThakurtaOriginal post at
http://southasia.oneworld.net/weekend/the-media-today-reflects-societys-inconsistencies"The media today reflects society's inconsistencies"
Poorva Sagar, OneWorld South Asia
30 April 2011
Ahead of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, India’s veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta throws light on the business of contemporary media hamstrung by the powerful.Yet, new technologies and new ways of journalism are making way for a more transparent world, he argues.
Veteran Indian journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta on press freedom OneWorld: The theme for this year’s World Press Freedom Day – “Silence kills democracy…But a free press talks”, underlines the importance of free press for democracy. How important is the ‘code of ethics’ in today’s market driven milieu?
Paranjoy Guha Thakurta: In India or any other part of the world, democracy is meaningless unless you have freedom of expression which is manifested in a free and independent media. In India, we have article 19[1] of the Constitution of India which guarantees the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right. The significance of this is we have a free and independent media; having said that there is also a lot of anomalies.
We are the only democracy in the world where news and current affairs programmes on the radio are still run by Prasar Bharti Corporation which is a government owned organisation. This is an anomaly in particular because the rest of the media – around 60,000 registered publications, over 600 television channels and hundred and thousands of websites are privately owned. More so, because the ownership of the 250 odd FM radio stations in India is in private hands.
The media reflects what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong about the Indian society. There are a lot of autonomous media organisations that play an adversary to those in power and authority – not just government but also corporates.
Much of the media is also commercially motivated and controlled by profit maximisation motives. These media organisations put out a lot of information in the public domain, opinions which some may consider unethical and not necessarily in public interest. According to the owners if the public is interested in sensational, trivial trash, so be it.
"We are the only democracy in the world were news and current affairs programmes on the radio are a monopoly of the government"Much of the turnover comes from advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers are also shareholders in media companies, like Bennett Coleman & Co. which publishes the Times of India.
So, overtly and covertly, they are trying to control the content of the media vehicles – newspapers, television channels end up trying to reach consumers through advertisers and not necessarily providing information to the public. To a greater or lesser extent, this has happened across the world and is also true for India.
Corruption in the media is highlighted in films like Peepli Live which portray media not as part of the solution but as part of the problem. Instead of acting to redress the grievance of the people, instead of seeking to articulate the aspirations of the people, the media becomes a part of the establishments seeking to maximise profits with no concern whatsoever for ethical norms, including norms of fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
It’s a mixed and diverse picture. There are sections of the media which are very proactive, responsive. There are also a few black sheep in that family for whom grabbing eyeballs is the only motivation. Though the media has expanded and grown, we see good and not so good practices prevailing in the media.
I have an analogy. Just as there are dogs and dogs, there are journalists and journalists. As ‘watchdogs’ of societies they are constantly on vigil. If they choose to be ‘lapdogs’, they can sit comfortably on the laps of our netas (political leaders) and babus (bureaucrats) and not bother about public interest.
To strengthen democracy, we need to have strong institutions and systems in place – the media is one of them. I do believe that regulatory mechanisms other than self-regulation should be established to strengthen the working of the media.
OW: There is also the view that free press strengthens equitable human development. What are your views on this?
PGT: This is not a simple formulation. Just because you have an independent media, your society is going to be more equal or equitable. I don’t think there is a clear relationship between media freedom and economic and social equality.
"We necessarily have to get accustomed to a world which is more transparent"If the media is controlled by the affluent and subscribes to the ideology of establishment, then it will support the status quo. Noam Chomsky describes it as the ‘corporate media’ trying to manufacture consent. So, freedom of expression in an independent media is not necessarily accompanied by reduction in inequality of wealth and income.
At the same time you could argue that if society is less unequal, the media would articulate the voices of the underprivileged and poor.
OW: With the entry of business houses in media there has been a steady erosion of the Working Journalists Act of 1955 – in fact, many are not even aware of it. Do you think this Act needs to be strengthened?
PGT: In the 80s and the 90s, a new generation of entrepreneurs emerged and media became their main business. The Anand Bazar Patrika in eastern India, The Hindu group in southern India.
The Working Journalists Act has been around for many decades. Over the years, the Act became almost redundant because journalists were given higher salaries if they agreed not be employed under the Act. So the contractual system of employment enables journalists to earn more in the short run. But in the process they give up the protection that was given to them under the provision of WJA.
What has happened over the recent years reflects a trend in the Indian society where trade unions have not gained in strength. The sector has become far more informal.
If you look outside the big cities and the situation prevailing in small towns, the journalists there are often made to work as advertising agents. Since the clout of the advertisers remains very strong, the media ends up criticise amorphous entities like the government, polity and bureaucracy are far more wary and reluctant to criticise captains of industry and corporate bigwigs. That results in curbing of independent space that exists. Yes, the Act needs to be strengthened.
OW: You were on the subcommittee of the Press Council of India to probe the paid news scandal. Your report, originally planned to release exactly a year back, was scuttled by the PCI itself. Given what happened, what do you foresee for the Indian media where money dictates and defines news?
PGT: K. Sreenivas Reddy and I prepared a detailed report on corruption in the media which was assigned to us as members of the Press Council of India which highlighted instances and collated circumstantial evidence of how corruption in the Indian media was undermining democracy.
Clearly, we only probed the allegations made. But even so a large number of major media organsiations were covered, including Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd (BCCL), HT Media, Dainik Jagaran, Daink Bhaskar, Punjab Kesari, Lokmat (headed by Congress Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda), Eenadu, Sakshi among others.
We spent over six months on this report - travelling, talking to those allegedly soliciting paid news, asking those charged to respond, taking down depositions, documenting, collating... So a lot of time and effort went into the preparation of the report and it is, therefore, disappointing not only because it was in the public interest to disclose the sub-committee’s report but also because the fact that it has been consigned to the archives is bound to raise questions about the credibility of the Press Council of India (PCI).
There is also another point that needs to be noted. The PCI is a quasi-judicial body which is often compared to a toothless tiger that cannot even whimper or punish anybody. Also, its mandate extends only to the print media. Electronic media remains out of its purview.
After the sub-committee presented its report to the PCI on April 1, 2010, the powerful lobby of publishers within the council chose not to present to the government the full report. Instead what was presented was only a tenth of the report.
It basically lacked what our report set out to do - name and shame those who have been guilty of the pernicious practice of "paid news". Second, our observation that the proliferation of the "paid news" phenomenon can be related directly to the diminution of the role and status of editors and reporters in media organisations due to erosion of freedom enjoyed by journalists under the Working Journalists Act finds no mention in the report.
It's a pity there was hardly any media coverage on this. The same powerful media which otherwise wants transparency from all - from the country’s elected representatives, from the judiciary, from the bureaucracy etc etc and which also talks loudly about the need to curb corruption in high places - can indeed be complicit in perpetuating a conspiracy of silence.
The full report however made it to the public domain. It was like a forbidden fruit. The more it was suppressed, the more people wanted to read it.
OW: Wikileaks has ushered us into the leak-age. How do you see the future of journalism in this context?
PGT: Wikileaks is an organisation of 8-10 people but it has shaken the might of the most powerful – the US administration. There are important lessons to be learnt on how media works, thanks to Wikileaks.
Whistle blowing has always existed. The significance of Wikileaks is that it has demonstrated the power of modern information technology to place in the public domain information which was shrouded in secrecy. Those are 250,000 documents! This information can be carried around in the smallest of gadgets-phones, ipods, etc.
The role of traditional media has also been highlighted. Whether it is the New York Times, the Guardian or The Hindu, you need a traditional journalist to ‘digest’ the information and then to disseminate stories out of them in public interest.
The widespread use of internet and social media has proven that it’s difficult to control the flow of information. That’s very significant. The positive side is that those in positions of power and authority and establishments have to necessarily become more transparent and therefore, less corrupt and less authoritarian. We necessarily have to get accustomed to a world which is more transparent.
OW: The recent media hype over the Lokpal bill lacked vision or intelligent debate on the real issue of corruption. In earlier media driven campaigns too, the larger issues have been sidelined. What makes the Indian media choose its battles?
PGT: The media chose to highlight the Lokpal bill for a variety of reasons. According to Yogendra Yadav from the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, “The middle class had more than its share of villains – the Rajas, the Kalmadis. Now they needed a few heroes and they found him in unlikely persona of Anna Hazare.” This, however, is one aspect of the story.
As the societies across the world are becoming more transparent, the media necessarily has to become more proactive in exposing corruption in high places. However, it doesn’t translate into media being consistent in doing so or not going by its predilections. That’s because the media reflects the inconsistencies in societies. It depends on the choice of the publisher what he/she wants to publish.
Paranjoy Guha Thakurta is a Delhi-based veteran journalist, educator, speaker and political commentator. He is the author of Media Ethics: Truth, Fairness and Objectivity.
