There’s case to be made for regulating media
That a free Press is crucial for the functioning of a robust democracy goes without saying. And equally so does the fact that with such great freedom, also comes great responsibility. In the Indian context, the debate on media freedom and functioning, however, has lacked a clear voice from the state.
This is because every time a political leader has suggested any sort of regulation, he or she has been accused of trampling on media freedom and forced to retreat. It is possible that Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Arun Jaitley will also face the same kind of criticism for his speech this past Sunday. So, before the usual suspects go into a tizzy over the muzzling of Press freedom, a reasoned analysis of the key issues underlined by Mr Jaitley is needed.
The most important issue here is live coverage of terror attacks and other such events. As we learnt from 26/11, irresponsible coverage in this regard can become a matter of life and death. More recently, the French media has also come under scrutiny for its coverage of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. last week, some relatives of those who had been held hostage by terrorists complained to the French media regulator that news channels put the captives’ lives in danger by disclosing their locations, in a bid to produce high ratings. The need for regulation and restrain here is without doubt.
The question is: Who should set the rulesIJ Ideally, mediapersons should self-regulate. But given the TRP frenzy that builds up during such situations, even a single misstep by one reporter can open the floodgates for others to join the ratings race, not to mention risk innocent lives. Against this backdrop, the formulation of a “strict discipline” code for covering ongoing security operations, that Mr Jaitley has suggested, is welcome.
The other issue that Mr Jaitley discussed was of a ‘trial by media' wherein some persons or groups are proclaimed guilty even before they are convicted in a court of law. The media shapes public opinion, which in turn, puts enormous pressure on the lower courts which find it difficult to function in a fair and just manner.
‘Media trials' are common when high profile individuals are involved but, as the 2014 Badaun sisters' case shows (the media had decided they were raped and murdered but the Central Bureau of Investigation later ruled that the girls had committed suicide), they are applicable to cases that happen in rural areas as well. That said, let us not forget that the Jessica lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo cases were also, essentially, trials by media but were necessary to push for justice. The key here is to find a middle-ground so that the media can continue in its role as a watchdog, without becoming an obstructionist force.