Afzal Guru, convicted and sentenced to death in the Parliament House attack case, has condemned the bomb blast at the Delhi High Court and deplored attempts to drag his name into the matter.
The following is the text of the statement:
Date. 8.9.2011
From Tihar jail No.3
It is a serious matter of concern that some criminal elements and anti-social persons committed that heinous and barbarous crime of bomb blast in Delhi High Court. It is a cowardly act and must be condemned by all. No religion permits killing of innocent persons.
I am disturbed that my name has been unnecessarily dragged in this connection. Some agencies/groups are playing dirty game by falsely involving my name. This is not for the first time that my name has been dragged by some mischievous persons /groups for such
heinous crimes. It has become a routine that whenever such blasts take place my
name is sought to be dragged in in order to de-characterize and malign me to cultivate public opinion against me.
I am sending this statement through Shri N.D.Pancholi, my advocate, and request the
press to publish this statement.
Sd/- Afzal Guru
s/o Habibullah
W. No. 8 (H.S.W.)
Jail No.3. Tihar.
Statement by Afzal Guru’s lawyer
The following is a communication from Mr Pancholi, forwarding Afzal Guru’s statement:
In my capacity of Mohammad Afzal Guru’s lawyer and as a member of the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, I am enclosing the statement of Afzal Guru.
There is no doubt that the attack on the Parliament was to be condemned as totally unjustifiable on several basic grounds. But there were several questions about the way the entire investigation into the crime was carried out and how the accused were sought to be demonized via the electronic media even before the trial was started.
And once again within hours of the horrific bomb blast outside the Delhi High Court on 7th September,2011 in which so many lives were blown up, the name of Afzal Guru has been dragged in. The media, quoting an e mail whose veracity has not even been established, are broadcasting on prime time that the blast was motivated by a group supporting Afzal Guru.
The corporate media is not accountable to anyone, and there is no effective authority to monitor the functioning of the 24 hour TV channels and protect victims of violations of basic journalistic ethics. All the discussions on the talk shows are heavily loaded against anyone trying to put forward any view that the anchor does not support. Though electronic media talk loudly against corruption, yet it does not realize its own corruption of having power without any responsibility.
The media portrays anyone talking on behalf of Afzal Guru as anti-Indian as if
patriotism is the monopoly of the national security experts, anchors of the corporate media and the Hindu Right alone.
Our Save Afzal Guru Campaign brought into focus the following aspects of Indian democracy:
1. The corruption of the investigating agencies and the lack of professionalism in their work was exposed. The Investigating Officer in the Parliament attack case was many times decorated but later he was shot dead because of his involvement in shady real estate dealings involving crores of rupees. By hanging Afzal we will take away attention
from the corruption of the policemen of the Special cell.
2. The fact that the judiciary was more influenced by the media campaign rather than
constitutional and legal principles with the result that the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence only to “satisfy the national conscience of the country”. This is not a legal ground for sentencing anyone to death. By hanging Afzal it would mean Indian citizens can be hanged to satisfy Indian right-wing and corporate interests.
3. The chargesheet in the Parliament attack case accused three Pakistanies i.e. Maulana Masood Azhar, Ghazi Baba and Tariq Ahmed as masterminds of the attack. The said masterminds were not caught. Those who were involved in the actual killing were
dead. And so even if Afzal was a part of the conspiracy he could not be given a death sentence because he neither masterminded the attack nor participated in it. By hanging Afzal the responsibility of finding the real culprits and dealing with real causes of
terrorism would be put aside.
4. The human rights campaigners proved that two persons arrested were innocent. This included a pregnant Sikh woman who gave birth to her baby in the jail. Her life has been completely wrecked. We never saw her on the TV channels and the terrible tragedy of her life. It showed how dispensable some citizens are.
5. The people of Kashmir saw that there were people in Delhi and other parts of the country who genuinely showed solidarity with them and campaigned for justice in the
case. Hanging Afzal will breach such delicate bridges built between the people of Kashmir and the people in rest of India. .
6. Afzal Guru was never given a fair trial and he was not represented by any lawyer of his choice because lawyers were not willing to take up his case. Even the most important witnesses were not crossexamined. By hanging Afzal we will undermine the right to fair trial which is guaranteed to every person under the Indian Constitution.
The whole experience of the Parliament attack case exposed the weakness of our democratic institutions but it also showed that if a small group of committed activists and lawyers choose to fight for democratic space it was possible. If Afzal Guru is hanged that space would be jeopardized. The Hindu right-wing can celebrate with fireworks; the corporate media may get something dramatic to report on for a few days but Indian democracy would suffer a body blow. That is why Afzal Guru must not be hanged.
I enclose his statement for publication as requested by him so that people may hear the voice of a man who has been wronged.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
11 September, 2011
29 November, 2010
The Radia Tapes: How did we get here? How do we get out of here?
B.R.P. Bhaskar
The Niira Radia tapes have exposed the rot in politics, business and the media. The decay in the realm of politics was well known to the public already, thanks to the skeletons tumbling out of the cupboard from time to time. No party, big or small, remains untouched by the canker of corruption, which has spread widely, fuelled as much by the private ambitions of politicians as by the rising cost of elections. The media has played a big part in exposing political corruption.
The decay in the realm of business was not equally well known as operations generally take place away from public gaze. Besides, there are well endowed outfits engaged in brand building, which covers business houses as much as their products. The media do not look closely at their doings big business because they are big advertisers too -- unless a major scam like the Mundhra deal of the 1950s or the Harshad Mehta affair of the 1990s compels them to take note of them.
The decay in the media has not come into public view because, even in the midst of seemingly intense competition, they respect one another’s privacy, aware that they are living in glass houses and should not throw stones. They generally shy away from open discussion on professional matters of direct interest to the public.
The existence of tapes of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia’s conversations with various persons, including media celebrities, recorded by an official agency during 2008-09, was known to many for months. As early as last May, a Delhi-based journalist, Girish Nikam, wrote in his website why the mainstream media were not interested in them. Some of the highest profiled media figures, newspaper owners and editors were Radia’s friends and she dictates the media policy of three of the richest corporations, he said. has friends in the media .
Some small publications did look at the tapes and as the 2G spectrum scandal was hotting up they put them in the public dominion. The political class responded along familiar lines: they issued ritualistic statements calculated to reinforce their respective positions on the 2G scam. Businessmen remained silent. So did the mainstream media. When the public reacted with anguish and anger in available space, like blogs and social networks, they untied their tongues just enough to ward off the charge of conspiracy of silence. In the guarded formal discussions on news channels, they studiously avoided inconvenient questions like how did we get here and how do we get out of here.
Predictably, long-time critics of the journalists and media institutions concerned seized the opportunity provided by the tapes to discredit them. Much of the uproar in the public domain was based on inadequate appreciation of the facts. Some went so far as to imagine the problem lay in the close relationship between politicians and media persons.
The press has been involved with politicians in the power game for a long time. It was in the 18th century that Burke reportedly pointed to the Reporters’ Gallery in the Commons and spoke of a “fourth estate, far more powerful than the other three”. It was around that time that Hickey started India’s first newspaper and took on the Governor General, apparently with the support of an incipient opposition within the emergent British Indian establishment. On the eve of Independence, there were two streams in the Indian press: one consisted of British-owned newspapers whose interests were largely identical to those of the colonial establishment and the other of newspapers which inclined towards the emergent nationalist establishment. As the colonial power pulled out and the state machinery it created became the instruments of Free India, the two streams merged to form an Indian media establishment. Soon it broke, once again creating two streams of vastly differing strength. There was a major stream whose interests were largely identical to those of the emergent Indian capitalist establishment. The minor stream mainly consisted of small and medium newspapers in various Indian languages. As the small and medium newspapers grew, their interests increasingly coincided with those of the main stream. In all the political contentions of the last six decades, both the streams played their part, sometimes with a degree of professional sophistication, but more often in a partisan manner. Against this background, it is ridiculous for any one to pretend to be scandalized by the Niira Radia tapes which provide telltale evidence of the ties between politics, business and journalism.
This is not to suggest that the tapes are of no great significance or that the public uproar they have provoked is unjustified. They are significant since they give us a keyhole view of the incestuous affairs of the power wielders. The strong reactions reverberating in the unregulated cyber world is quite justified as the tapes throw light on goings-on inimical to public interest. If A. Raja was planted in the Cabinet by shadowy king-makers to serve corporate interests and his handling of 2G spectrum allocation resulted in losses of billions of rupees, some of the conversations caught on the tape tantamount to evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the nation.
The tapes are also important as they reveal a qualitative change in the nature of the engagement between those involved in politics, business and journalism. This aspect deserves to be examined carefully to understand how we reached where we are and to be able to find ways to get out.
The nature of the relationship between the various players has been varied. The Dalmia Jains, owners of the Times of India group, had a troubled relationship with the political leadership and were hauled up for breach of the law more than once. One of them landed in jail and another was in risk of going to jail when the news of his death was announced. The Birlas, owners of the Hindustan Times group, had an easy relationship. When a Birla wanted to enter the Rajya Sabha from Rajasthan the Congress made available to him the surplus votes of party legislators and he was resourceful enough to find from among the large number of Independent MLAs sufficient additional votes to win.
Owners who used the clout of the newspapers to further their business interests generally dealt with political leaders directly. However, from time to time they also enlisted the services of editors or correspondents. N. J. Nanporia of the Times of India and B. G. Verghese of the Hindustan Times ran into trouble as they could not measure up to the owners’ non-professional expectations. Ramnath Goenka of the Indian Express group had a complex and chequered relationship with politicians. He was elected to the Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu on the Congress ticket in 1952. He provided free accommodation for the reception committee of the Avadi Congress which declared a socialist pattern of society as the party’s goal. In 1971, he went to the Lok Sabha again, this time from Madhya Pradesh as a Jana Sangh candidate. In the 1980s he allowed Ram Jethamalani to hang a name board at the Indian Express guest house in Bangalore so that he could claim to be a Karnataka resident and take advantage of Janata Dal Chief Minister Ramakrishna Hegde’s offer of a Rajya Sabha seat from that state. Some letters Goenka exchanged with political and business leaders, published posthumously, throw light on the way he used his influence to further his business interests and his friends’ political interests. Some aspects of Dhirubhai Ambani’s climb to the top got into print only because of his partisan interest in corporate rivalries Today he is remembered as a newspaper owner who stood up to the Emergency regime. Few even know that after Indira Gandhi’s comeback he had tried in vain to get into her good books. The long arm of the law reached up to him at one stage. While he was acquitted, the court found his son and co-accused Bhagwandas guilty and gave him a jail term, from which premature death saved him.
The first Press Commission, appointed in the 1950s, made certain proposals to protect the editor from under pressure from the owner but they could not be given effect to. It also made recommendations to provide a level playing field for big and small newspapers. A law enacted for the purpose was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In the age of economic liberalization such measures are unthinkable. Newspaper managements now ignore laws nonchalantly. The law requires all newspapers to publish the names of individuals who own more than one per cent of the shares. Some give the names of only companies, not of individuals. A newspaper group brought out an Indian edition of a foreign daily flouting rules framed by the government.
Politics, business and the press interacted closely not only at the national level but also lower down, from Kashmir to Kerala. Political parties and ambitious politicians, instead of relying on established newspapers, started their own publications. Some bought newspapers which were on sale. More than 80 per cent of the newspapers now in the field began publication after Independence. They were all launched with political motives or business motives or both. Many newspaper owners found it easier to succeed on the political front than on the business front. However, it deserves to be noted that most of the parties that wield power in the states did not rise to the top by piggy-riding on newspapers. On the contrary, they grew overcoming the indifference – and, in some cases, even the open hostility -- of the newspapers that dominate the region. Dravidian politicians still recount how in the 1950s The Hindu had dismissed their legendary leader’s speech in these words “Mr. C. N. Annadurai also spoke”. If newspapers could decide the outcome of elections the Communist Party of India in Kerala and the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh could not have come to power. The only known instance of a newspaper playing a decisive role in elections occurred in Andhra Pradesh, where Ramoji Rao, owner of Eenadu daily, helped N. T. Rama Rao’s Telugu Desam Party to come to power within a year of its formation.
Influential politicians are known to have helped journalists in various ways. Sometimes they helped them land plum jobs without even being asked. Khushwant Singh has publicly acknowledged Sanjay Gandhi’s role in his appointment as the Editor of the Hindustan Times. A chief minister had only to threaten to cut off a measly subscription of Rs 1500 a month to set the UNI’s general manager thinking about transferring \the news agency’s bureau chief in the state. At election time media persons could be seen hanging out at the houses of Congress leaders hoping for the party ticket to contest for Parliament or the State Assembly. However, the possibility of journalists trying to influence the choice of ministers at the Centre or in the states, at the behest of business interests, was unimaginable in those days. That possibility has been created by the developments of the past two decades.
Money now plays a bigger role in politics than at any time before. There are politicians like M. Karunanidhi who have been in the field for years and emerged as billionaires (he was simultaneously active in the cinema field too) and there are billionaires who have come in, knowing that their riches will stand them in good stead. Editors and lesser journalists now had more opportunities than before to trade their skills and influence for political or personal favours.
The change in the field of business is exemplified by Dhirubhai Ambani, who was well placed to take full advantage of the opportunities that globalization presented. All the top business houses had maintained large public relations outfits in Delhi since long with separate executives to liaise with media persons, bureaucrats, legislators and judges. Ambani, who had built the company with the widest base of shareholders, went on to set up the country’s largest publicity and public relations machinery. Liquor flowed so freely that in journalistic circles Dhirubhai’s PR man came to be known as darubhai. Ambani’s media advisors drew up a plan to establish a satellite-linked nationwide newspaper chain. For some reason, it was not put into effect. The Ambanis’ low-key entry into the media world was a disaster and they discovered that news management was a lot easier and cheaper than media management.
Samir Jain of the Times of India also made a discovery. He proclaimed that the newspaper was just another product to be sold in the market and that the managers who helped increase his profits by selling the newspaper and newspaper space were smarter people than the editors and other journalists who produced it. He rewrote the rules of newspaper competition and forced reluctant owners and editors to change the way they were functioning. Every bit of space in the newspaper, including the editorial column, became saleable. Today you may get the biggest news stories of the day wrapped up in an advertisement sheet. Newspapers are still growing but journalism was declining.
And then satellite television arrived. Even before the government, which had a monopoly over air waves, was ready to let private operations in, entrepreneurs brought satellite television into homes. There was an influx into the electronic media from other sectors as well. Television created media stars. They are not mere media persons. They are also entrepreneurs and media owners.
There was now a new India with new politics, new business, new bureaucracy and new media. Boundaries were crumbling, facilitating a convergence. A Marathi regional party could send a Bengali media person or a Keralite bureaucrat to Parliament. It was in this new India that Niira Radia incarnated as a catalyst promoting speedy interaction among its various constituents.
The people view the media not as just another estate of the realm but as one will act as a watchdog and blow the whistle when things go wrong in other fields. When media decays, it loses the ability to raise its voice against decay elsewhere. In the final analysis, in the absence of reliable a regulatory mechanism in any field, situations of the kind exposed by Radia’s taped conversations cannot be avoided. The regulatory mechanism set up for the print media has lost its relevance. The mechanism for self-regulation established by the electronic media is ineffective. The sooner an appropriate media regulatory mechanism is created the better.
This article, posted at CounterMedia (www.countermedia.in)on November 28, 2010, is a revised and enlarged version of one originally written in Malayalam for Madhyamam daily. The newspaper had sought the views of several experienced media persons on issues arising from the Radia tapes.
The Niira Radia tapes have exposed the rot in politics, business and the media. The decay in the realm of politics was well known to the public already, thanks to the skeletons tumbling out of the cupboard from time to time. No party, big or small, remains untouched by the canker of corruption, which has spread widely, fuelled as much by the private ambitions of politicians as by the rising cost of elections. The media has played a big part in exposing political corruption.
The decay in the realm of business was not equally well known as operations generally take place away from public gaze. Besides, there are well endowed outfits engaged in brand building, which covers business houses as much as their products. The media do not look closely at their doings big business because they are big advertisers too -- unless a major scam like the Mundhra deal of the 1950s or the Harshad Mehta affair of the 1990s compels them to take note of them.
The decay in the media has not come into public view because, even in the midst of seemingly intense competition, they respect one another’s privacy, aware that they are living in glass houses and should not throw stones. They generally shy away from open discussion on professional matters of direct interest to the public.
The existence of tapes of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia’s conversations with various persons, including media celebrities, recorded by an official agency during 2008-09, was known to many for months. As early as last May, a Delhi-based journalist, Girish Nikam, wrote in his website why the mainstream media were not interested in them. Some of the highest profiled media figures, newspaper owners and editors were Radia’s friends and she dictates the media policy of three of the richest corporations, he said. has friends in the media .
Some small publications did look at the tapes and as the 2G spectrum scandal was hotting up they put them in the public dominion. The political class responded along familiar lines: they issued ritualistic statements calculated to reinforce their respective positions on the 2G scam. Businessmen remained silent. So did the mainstream media. When the public reacted with anguish and anger in available space, like blogs and social networks, they untied their tongues just enough to ward off the charge of conspiracy of silence. In the guarded formal discussions on news channels, they studiously avoided inconvenient questions like how did we get here and how do we get out of here.
Predictably, long-time critics of the journalists and media institutions concerned seized the opportunity provided by the tapes to discredit them. Much of the uproar in the public domain was based on inadequate appreciation of the facts. Some went so far as to imagine the problem lay in the close relationship between politicians and media persons.
The press has been involved with politicians in the power game for a long time. It was in the 18th century that Burke reportedly pointed to the Reporters’ Gallery in the Commons and spoke of a “fourth estate, far more powerful than the other three”. It was around that time that Hickey started India’s first newspaper and took on the Governor General, apparently with the support of an incipient opposition within the emergent British Indian establishment. On the eve of Independence, there were two streams in the Indian press: one consisted of British-owned newspapers whose interests were largely identical to those of the colonial establishment and the other of newspapers which inclined towards the emergent nationalist establishment. As the colonial power pulled out and the state machinery it created became the instruments of Free India, the two streams merged to form an Indian media establishment. Soon it broke, once again creating two streams of vastly differing strength. There was a major stream whose interests were largely identical to those of the emergent Indian capitalist establishment. The minor stream mainly consisted of small and medium newspapers in various Indian languages. As the small and medium newspapers grew, their interests increasingly coincided with those of the main stream. In all the political contentions of the last six decades, both the streams played their part, sometimes with a degree of professional sophistication, but more often in a partisan manner. Against this background, it is ridiculous for any one to pretend to be scandalized by the Niira Radia tapes which provide telltale evidence of the ties between politics, business and journalism.
This is not to suggest that the tapes are of no great significance or that the public uproar they have provoked is unjustified. They are significant since they give us a keyhole view of the incestuous affairs of the power wielders. The strong reactions reverberating in the unregulated cyber world is quite justified as the tapes throw light on goings-on inimical to public interest. If A. Raja was planted in the Cabinet by shadowy king-makers to serve corporate interests and his handling of 2G spectrum allocation resulted in losses of billions of rupees, some of the conversations caught on the tape tantamount to evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the nation.
The tapes are also important as they reveal a qualitative change in the nature of the engagement between those involved in politics, business and journalism. This aspect deserves to be examined carefully to understand how we reached where we are and to be able to find ways to get out.
The nature of the relationship between the various players has been varied. The Dalmia Jains, owners of the Times of India group, had a troubled relationship with the political leadership and were hauled up for breach of the law more than once. One of them landed in jail and another was in risk of going to jail when the news of his death was announced. The Birlas, owners of the Hindustan Times group, had an easy relationship. When a Birla wanted to enter the Rajya Sabha from Rajasthan the Congress made available to him the surplus votes of party legislators and he was resourceful enough to find from among the large number of Independent MLAs sufficient additional votes to win.
Owners who used the clout of the newspapers to further their business interests generally dealt with political leaders directly. However, from time to time they also enlisted the services of editors or correspondents. N. J. Nanporia of the Times of India and B. G. Verghese of the Hindustan Times ran into trouble as they could not measure up to the owners’ non-professional expectations. Ramnath Goenka of the Indian Express group had a complex and chequered relationship with politicians. He was elected to the Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu on the Congress ticket in 1952. He provided free accommodation for the reception committee of the Avadi Congress which declared a socialist pattern of society as the party’s goal. In 1971, he went to the Lok Sabha again, this time from Madhya Pradesh as a Jana Sangh candidate. In the 1980s he allowed Ram Jethamalani to hang a name board at the Indian Express guest house in Bangalore so that he could claim to be a Karnataka resident and take advantage of Janata Dal Chief Minister Ramakrishna Hegde’s offer of a Rajya Sabha seat from that state. Some letters Goenka exchanged with political and business leaders, published posthumously, throw light on the way he used his influence to further his business interests and his friends’ political interests. Some aspects of Dhirubhai Ambani’s climb to the top got into print only because of his partisan interest in corporate rivalries Today he is remembered as a newspaper owner who stood up to the Emergency regime. Few even know that after Indira Gandhi’s comeback he had tried in vain to get into her good books. The long arm of the law reached up to him at one stage. While he was acquitted, the court found his son and co-accused Bhagwandas guilty and gave him a jail term, from which premature death saved him.
The first Press Commission, appointed in the 1950s, made certain proposals to protect the editor from under pressure from the owner but they could not be given effect to. It also made recommendations to provide a level playing field for big and small newspapers. A law enacted for the purpose was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In the age of economic liberalization such measures are unthinkable. Newspaper managements now ignore laws nonchalantly. The law requires all newspapers to publish the names of individuals who own more than one per cent of the shares. Some give the names of only companies, not of individuals. A newspaper group brought out an Indian edition of a foreign daily flouting rules framed by the government.
Politics, business and the press interacted closely not only at the national level but also lower down, from Kashmir to Kerala. Political parties and ambitious politicians, instead of relying on established newspapers, started their own publications. Some bought newspapers which were on sale. More than 80 per cent of the newspapers now in the field began publication after Independence. They were all launched with political motives or business motives or both. Many newspaper owners found it easier to succeed on the political front than on the business front. However, it deserves to be noted that most of the parties that wield power in the states did not rise to the top by piggy-riding on newspapers. On the contrary, they grew overcoming the indifference – and, in some cases, even the open hostility -- of the newspapers that dominate the region. Dravidian politicians still recount how in the 1950s The Hindu had dismissed their legendary leader’s speech in these words “Mr. C. N. Annadurai also spoke”. If newspapers could decide the outcome of elections the Communist Party of India in Kerala and the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh could not have come to power. The only known instance of a newspaper playing a decisive role in elections occurred in Andhra Pradesh, where Ramoji Rao, owner of Eenadu daily, helped N. T. Rama Rao’s Telugu Desam Party to come to power within a year of its formation.
Influential politicians are known to have helped journalists in various ways. Sometimes they helped them land plum jobs without even being asked. Khushwant Singh has publicly acknowledged Sanjay Gandhi’s role in his appointment as the Editor of the Hindustan Times. A chief minister had only to threaten to cut off a measly subscription of Rs 1500 a month to set the UNI’s general manager thinking about transferring \the news agency’s bureau chief in the state. At election time media persons could be seen hanging out at the houses of Congress leaders hoping for the party ticket to contest for Parliament or the State Assembly. However, the possibility of journalists trying to influence the choice of ministers at the Centre or in the states, at the behest of business interests, was unimaginable in those days. That possibility has been created by the developments of the past two decades.
Money now plays a bigger role in politics than at any time before. There are politicians like M. Karunanidhi who have been in the field for years and emerged as billionaires (he was simultaneously active in the cinema field too) and there are billionaires who have come in, knowing that their riches will stand them in good stead. Editors and lesser journalists now had more opportunities than before to trade their skills and influence for political or personal favours.
The change in the field of business is exemplified by Dhirubhai Ambani, who was well placed to take full advantage of the opportunities that globalization presented. All the top business houses had maintained large public relations outfits in Delhi since long with separate executives to liaise with media persons, bureaucrats, legislators and judges. Ambani, who had built the company with the widest base of shareholders, went on to set up the country’s largest publicity and public relations machinery. Liquor flowed so freely that in journalistic circles Dhirubhai’s PR man came to be known as darubhai. Ambani’s media advisors drew up a plan to establish a satellite-linked nationwide newspaper chain. For some reason, it was not put into effect. The Ambanis’ low-key entry into the media world was a disaster and they discovered that news management was a lot easier and cheaper than media management.
Samir Jain of the Times of India also made a discovery. He proclaimed that the newspaper was just another product to be sold in the market and that the managers who helped increase his profits by selling the newspaper and newspaper space were smarter people than the editors and other journalists who produced it. He rewrote the rules of newspaper competition and forced reluctant owners and editors to change the way they were functioning. Every bit of space in the newspaper, including the editorial column, became saleable. Today you may get the biggest news stories of the day wrapped up in an advertisement sheet. Newspapers are still growing but journalism was declining.
And then satellite television arrived. Even before the government, which had a monopoly over air waves, was ready to let private operations in, entrepreneurs brought satellite television into homes. There was an influx into the electronic media from other sectors as well. Television created media stars. They are not mere media persons. They are also entrepreneurs and media owners.
There was now a new India with new politics, new business, new bureaucracy and new media. Boundaries were crumbling, facilitating a convergence. A Marathi regional party could send a Bengali media person or a Keralite bureaucrat to Parliament. It was in this new India that Niira Radia incarnated as a catalyst promoting speedy interaction among its various constituents.
The people view the media not as just another estate of the realm but as one will act as a watchdog and blow the whistle when things go wrong in other fields. When media decays, it loses the ability to raise its voice against decay elsewhere. In the final analysis, in the absence of reliable a regulatory mechanism in any field, situations of the kind exposed by Radia’s taped conversations cannot be avoided. The regulatory mechanism set up for the print media has lost its relevance. The mechanism for self-regulation established by the electronic media is ineffective. The sooner an appropriate media regulatory mechanism is created the better.
This article, posted at CounterMedia (www.countermedia.in)on November 28, 2010, is a revised and enlarged version of one originally written in Malayalam for Madhyamam daily. The newspaper had sought the views of several experienced media persons on issues arising from the Radia tapes.
07 December, 2009
Indian media must wake up to violence committed by the state
The Asian Human Rights Commission says in a statement:
The existence of independent and strong media is a prerequisite for the working of a free and just society that governs itself by the rule of law. The role of media in establishing such a society is to act as the eyes and ears of the people, forming the collective conscience of the nation. After all what else does a democracy mean than letting its citizens make decisions that affect their lives? Independent media help the citizens in making informed choices by bringing news and perspectives to them. In short, free and impartial media is an important component to a democratic framework like its justice institutions.
The relative success of the democratic experiment in India in comparison to its neighbors owes considerable debt to its media. The robust resistance of the media to the declaration of emergency, one of the darkest hours in Indian democracy, is an example. It was the media that had the courage, augmented with exemplary resistance put up by all political and social forces, that openly opposed the dictatorial declaration of the emergency by the then prime minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
The Indian media did not spare even Jawaharlal Nehru, the first and perhaps the most loved prime minister of the country, when few of his cabinet colleagues were accused of corruption. It was the media that had courage to expose the gruesome events during the Gujarat state-led pogrom of innocent Muslims in that State. Bringing out the fascist nature of the rightwing Hindutva groups leading the carnage was perhaps the singular achievement of the media, leading to the erosion of support for the politics of hatred in India.
Viewed in this context, the recent developments in the Indian media are worrying to say the least. This is in spite of the contributions the media have made in exposing corruption, for instance, the shady arms deal during the National Democratic Alliance regime by the Tehelka, the petrol pump allotment scam during the same period by the Indian Express and the telecom allocation scam by the current United Progressive Alliance regime.
Similarly unambiguous is the media’s role in fighting against communalism, by continuously reacting against the witch hunt of the minorities by some political groups. Equally substantial is the role the media played in publishing the criminal and financial backgrounds of many candidates, who contested and eventually lost, in the recently held parliament elections. While the media has definitely held its ground and stood true to its prestigious past, on many current issues it has been regularly faltering.
Unfortunately, the media do not appear to be caring for its own record when it comes to the reporting of acts of terror committed by the state, while it comes down heavily on those committed by non-state actors. The media, both electronic and print versions, have been instrumental in enlightening the citizenry about the use of dastardly and mindless violence committed by non-state actors upon innocent civilian populations.
The argument put forward by the media to condemn the violence is plain and simple, that there are no issues in a democracy which cannot be sorted out by deliberations and peaceful means of protest, and that dissent can always be dealt with politically and democratically and violence, not sanctioned by the law, is intolerable in a democratic set up.
The media however appear to be swallowing its logic by failing to give equal seriousness against state-sponsored violence. Extrajudicial executions, torturing of suspects, murder of prisoners and under trials, and disappearances are quite rampant in India. These characters of a failing state require equal treatment or probably more attention than that is given to violence committed by non-state actors. Yet, the media do not give enough time and space to discuss these issues.
India has witnessed more than 1184 deaths in police custody according to the data published by the National Human Rights Commission. The data is concerning cases reported to the Commission between April 2001 and March 2009. Of these, 601 custodial deaths have taken place in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, all peaceful states with no insurgency or other armed militia operating within. Yet, this news appeared in an almost invisible corner in the print media as a single column news in the inside pages. The electronic media ignored the news all together.
Similar is the case of fake encounters. Instead of condemning it and demanding prosecutions the media have actually been instrumental in the glorifying the killers in uniform. 'Encounter specialist and super cop' are media inventions in their attempt in showering accolades upon murderer police officers for 'successful' encounters. Some of these media heroes are now in jail or killed. For instance, the former Assistant Commissioner of Delhi Police, Mr. Rajbir Singh, was killed by a friend allegedly over disputes regarding his illegal investments, Mr. Daya Nayak of Maharashtra police, is in jail facing corruption charges and for his alleged nexus with the underworld. Mr. D.G. Banjara, Deputy Inspector General of Gujarat Police is in jail for his proven role in fake encounters. Even after the exposure of the real faces of these murderers in uniform, the media have singularly failed to get its act together barring a few exceptions.
After all, just how many times can one find such brazen acts of lawlessness like a live recording of the murder of two civilians by the police as it happened in Manipur? Just how many times the police, paramilitary forces and the army will let the media impartially cover their operations exposing their utter disregard for the rule of law as well as the constitution?
Any act of terror, violence, and extrajudicial executions is a crime against humanity. The question who did it is irrelevant. No law or ideology can legitimise the killings of innocent civilians, unfortunately caught between the state and its opponents. Murder or other forms of violence by the non-state actors based on whatever justifications - religion, ethnicity or ideology - should be unambiguously condemned. So should be the case with extrajudicial and illegal killings and other forms of violence committed by the state.
For one fact, unlike the non-state actors, the state warrants even sterner criticism for torture, killings and disappearances of its citizens as it is the state's duty to protect, promote and fulfil constitutional guarantees. The state deserves a far stricter scrutiny as it derives the legitimacy to use force by being the custodian of the law, guaranteeing to use it only for the protection of the citizens and not for killing them.
The studied silence maintained by the media, in this context, is unfortunate. A single murder, unsanctioned by the law, committed by state agents should let the press hit the panic button. 1184, is an exception. Yet the country's media chose to observe blissful silence. This prevents the possibility of exposing the countless unreported ones, which the media could have exposed.
The Asian Human Rights Commission expects that this silence is not from complicity, and that the Indian media will wake up to its legacy of standing by the people and the truth that they have the right to know.
The existence of independent and strong media is a prerequisite for the working of a free and just society that governs itself by the rule of law. The role of media in establishing such a society is to act as the eyes and ears of the people, forming the collective conscience of the nation. After all what else does a democracy mean than letting its citizens make decisions that affect their lives? Independent media help the citizens in making informed choices by bringing news and perspectives to them. In short, free and impartial media is an important component to a democratic framework like its justice institutions.
The relative success of the democratic experiment in India in comparison to its neighbors owes considerable debt to its media. The robust resistance of the media to the declaration of emergency, one of the darkest hours in Indian democracy, is an example. It was the media that had the courage, augmented with exemplary resistance put up by all political and social forces, that openly opposed the dictatorial declaration of the emergency by the then prime minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
The Indian media did not spare even Jawaharlal Nehru, the first and perhaps the most loved prime minister of the country, when few of his cabinet colleagues were accused of corruption. It was the media that had courage to expose the gruesome events during the Gujarat state-led pogrom of innocent Muslims in that State. Bringing out the fascist nature of the rightwing Hindutva groups leading the carnage was perhaps the singular achievement of the media, leading to the erosion of support for the politics of hatred in India.
Viewed in this context, the recent developments in the Indian media are worrying to say the least. This is in spite of the contributions the media have made in exposing corruption, for instance, the shady arms deal during the National Democratic Alliance regime by the Tehelka, the petrol pump allotment scam during the same period by the Indian Express and the telecom allocation scam by the current United Progressive Alliance regime.
Similarly unambiguous is the media’s role in fighting against communalism, by continuously reacting against the witch hunt of the minorities by some political groups. Equally substantial is the role the media played in publishing the criminal and financial backgrounds of many candidates, who contested and eventually lost, in the recently held parliament elections. While the media has definitely held its ground and stood true to its prestigious past, on many current issues it has been regularly faltering.
Unfortunately, the media do not appear to be caring for its own record when it comes to the reporting of acts of terror committed by the state, while it comes down heavily on those committed by non-state actors. The media, both electronic and print versions, have been instrumental in enlightening the citizenry about the use of dastardly and mindless violence committed by non-state actors upon innocent civilian populations.
The argument put forward by the media to condemn the violence is plain and simple, that there are no issues in a democracy which cannot be sorted out by deliberations and peaceful means of protest, and that dissent can always be dealt with politically and democratically and violence, not sanctioned by the law, is intolerable in a democratic set up.
The media however appear to be swallowing its logic by failing to give equal seriousness against state-sponsored violence. Extrajudicial executions, torturing of suspects, murder of prisoners and under trials, and disappearances are quite rampant in India. These characters of a failing state require equal treatment or probably more attention than that is given to violence committed by non-state actors. Yet, the media do not give enough time and space to discuss these issues.
India has witnessed more than 1184 deaths in police custody according to the data published by the National Human Rights Commission. The data is concerning cases reported to the Commission between April 2001 and March 2009. Of these, 601 custodial deaths have taken place in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, all peaceful states with no insurgency or other armed militia operating within. Yet, this news appeared in an almost invisible corner in the print media as a single column news in the inside pages. The electronic media ignored the news all together.
Similar is the case of fake encounters. Instead of condemning it and demanding prosecutions the media have actually been instrumental in the glorifying the killers in uniform. 'Encounter specialist and super cop' are media inventions in their attempt in showering accolades upon murderer police officers for 'successful' encounters. Some of these media heroes are now in jail or killed. For instance, the former Assistant Commissioner of Delhi Police, Mr. Rajbir Singh, was killed by a friend allegedly over disputes regarding his illegal investments, Mr. Daya Nayak of Maharashtra police, is in jail facing corruption charges and for his alleged nexus with the underworld. Mr. D.G. Banjara, Deputy Inspector General of Gujarat Police is in jail for his proven role in fake encounters. Even after the exposure of the real faces of these murderers in uniform, the media have singularly failed to get its act together barring a few exceptions.
After all, just how many times can one find such brazen acts of lawlessness like a live recording of the murder of two civilians by the police as it happened in Manipur? Just how many times the police, paramilitary forces and the army will let the media impartially cover their operations exposing their utter disregard for the rule of law as well as the constitution?
Any act of terror, violence, and extrajudicial executions is a crime against humanity. The question who did it is irrelevant. No law or ideology can legitimise the killings of innocent civilians, unfortunately caught between the state and its opponents. Murder or other forms of violence by the non-state actors based on whatever justifications - religion, ethnicity or ideology - should be unambiguously condemned. So should be the case with extrajudicial and illegal killings and other forms of violence committed by the state.
For one fact, unlike the non-state actors, the state warrants even sterner criticism for torture, killings and disappearances of its citizens as it is the state's duty to protect, promote and fulfil constitutional guarantees. The state deserves a far stricter scrutiny as it derives the legitimacy to use force by being the custodian of the law, guaranteeing to use it only for the protection of the citizens and not for killing them.
The studied silence maintained by the media, in this context, is unfortunate. A single murder, unsanctioned by the law, committed by state agents should let the press hit the panic button. 1184, is an exception. Yet the country's media chose to observe blissful silence. This prevents the possibility of exposing the countless unreported ones, which the media could have exposed.
The Asian Human Rights Commission expects that this silence is not from complicity, and that the Indian media will wake up to its legacy of standing by the people and the truth that they have the right to know.
29 April, 2009
Media kept on tight leash in Sri Lanka
As the latest round of Asia’s longest-running guerrilla war winds down, scores of journalists in Sri Lanka are experiencing intimidation and harassment for being critical of the military campaign against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), according to correspondents of the Inter Press Service (IPS).
The issues currently in focus are the rising number of civilian casualties, repeated calls for a ‘ceasefire’ by the U.N. and the international community, and a government plea for international humanitarian assistance to tackle a mounting crisis.
"Maybe journalists don’t want to talk about these things given the fear psychosis that has engulfed the media," noted a veteran journalist, who declined to be named for fear of reprisal. Some journalists have even opted to leave the country.
To read the rest of the story please go to the Countercurrents site
The issues currently in focus are the rising number of civilian casualties, repeated calls for a ‘ceasefire’ by the U.N. and the international community, and a government plea for international humanitarian assistance to tackle a mounting crisis.
"Maybe journalists don’t want to talk about these things given the fear psychosis that has engulfed the media," noted a veteran journalist, who declined to be named for fear of reprisal. Some journalists have even opted to leave the country.
To read the rest of the story please go to the Countercurrents site
09 April, 2009
Media organizations expose role of Sri Lankan paramilitary groups
The following is a statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong:
Five media organizations in Sri Lanka, issuing an investigative report entitled, 'The Resurgence of Terror and the paramilitary forces in Sri Lanka,' stated that covert operations are carried out by paramilitary groups that have the patronage of an ultra-powerful authority in carrying out terror operations. The report referred mainly to attacks on many journalists, including assassinations. The report reveals that this terror group is able to pass barricades and checkpoints because of an efficient network that facilitates the transport of these attackers.
The report refers to various attacks, these being: the 6th January attack on the Sirasa Media Network building which was set on fire, the assassination of the editor, Lasantha Wickrematunge on 8th January, the attack on the Max TV station on 23rd February, the attack on editor Upali Tennakoon on 24th February, the abduction of editor N. Vidyadaran on 26th February and the abduction of Prof. Dhammika Ganganath Dissanayaka on 12th March. All these attacks occurred this year. Further, earlier attacks took place last year on Guruparan, a journalist with Suryan FM, the attack on Keith Noyar, Deputy Editor of the Nation newspaper, the brutal attack and attempted abduction of journalist Namal Perera and the media secretary of the British High Commission, Mahendra Ratnaweera.
In one instance an armed group that entered Max TV and brutally attacked the security personnel and journalists of the station were proved to be police officers from the Mirihana Police Station. Nothing was done by way of prosecuting these officers. Instead a senior officer arrived and expressed regret stating that it had been a mistake.
This report was presented to leaders from the Congress of Religions on the 7th April. The religious leaders, who listened to the representation of the five media organisations undertook to bring the report to the notice of the president of Sri Lanka. Earlier the US State Department, in their annual report on human rights also mentioned that: 'paramilitaries and others believed to be "working with awareness of the government "carried out unlawful killings, torture and kidnappings of civilians with impunity".'
That the Ministry of Defence has become an ultra-powerful authority and that the death squads operate under the patronage of the existing regime, are facts commonly known throughout the country. That the policing system has failed to uphold the rule of law and is in a pathetic condition is also a routinely repeated, non-controversial statement. That the politicisation of the police and the armed forces prevents their conduct from being scrutinised or investigated by any legal authority is also uncontested except by the government spokesman whose sole task is to poo-poo all allegations of the government’s involvement in criminal activities. The spokesman for the police, for example, when questioned about this report by the BBC Sinhala Service retorted that making such allegations against the police and military was an insult to war heroes.
Under normal circumstances a report of this nature would be responded to by the government which would initiate a high level inquiry into the allegations. Such a report would also be responded to by the country's judiciary which would direct the relevant authorities to respond by way of investigations and actions to such allegations. However, the condition that has been reached within Sri Lanka is that the state apparatus no longer responds to allegations of crimes by state agencies by any form of serious action.
Therefore it is not surprising that the five leading media organisations had to go before the Congress of Religions to present their report. When the legal authority completely fails people turn to those who represent the moral authority of the country to gain their interest in taking up the lost cause of investigation of crimes. What the report reveals may not be anything new to these leaders of various religions who naturally would have links to their congregations. The challenge for the Congress of Religions is as to whether they will raise their moral voice against widespread lawlessness that encourages any and every form of crime. Above all will the voices of morality in the country prove capable of raising their voices against the ultra-powerful authority that stands above the law?
The leader of the opposition also raised the issue of the suppression of media freedoms and stated that if journalists are killed and the Inspector General of Police fails to conduct effective investigations he would remove the IGP and others responsible for such inaction if he was in power. If the Congress of Religions wants to raise its voice on the present situation in a credible manner it should question as to why the government does not take action by way of the conduct of investigations into the crimes, including those mentioned in this media report. Thus, those who represent the country's moral authority needs, today, to confront those who represent the country’s legal authority who fail to uphold the law. There is today a significant conflict between the very foundations of morality and the callous neglect of the legal obligations of the state. At this juncture should the Congress of Religions and others who claim to represent the moral authority of the country fail to confront those in power who have allowed the undermining of the rule of law, they will disappoint not only the journalists but also the whole country.
While the leaders of the religions face this challenge Mr. Santha Fernando, a well known committed Christian social activist has also been held under arrest for no justifiable reason. Even attempts to engage in acts of charity and compassion have now come under attack by the same ultra-powerful authority that uses powers of arrest and detention without any regard to the principles established by law. The religious leaders may themselves come under such threat if they do not use their moral authority now to cause a change of the situation for the better.
For the full media report kindly see: http://colombotoday.com/english/articles/1375.htm
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Five media organizations in Sri Lanka, issuing an investigative report entitled, 'The Resurgence of Terror and the paramilitary forces in Sri Lanka,' stated that covert operations are carried out by paramilitary groups that have the patronage of an ultra-powerful authority in carrying out terror operations. The report referred mainly to attacks on many journalists, including assassinations. The report reveals that this terror group is able to pass barricades and checkpoints because of an efficient network that facilitates the transport of these attackers.
The report refers to various attacks, these being: the 6th January attack on the Sirasa Media Network building which was set on fire, the assassination of the editor, Lasantha Wickrematunge on 8th January, the attack on the Max TV station on 23rd February, the attack on editor Upali Tennakoon on 24th February, the abduction of editor N. Vidyadaran on 26th February and the abduction of Prof. Dhammika Ganganath Dissanayaka on 12th March. All these attacks occurred this year. Further, earlier attacks took place last year on Guruparan, a journalist with Suryan FM, the attack on Keith Noyar, Deputy Editor of the Nation newspaper, the brutal attack and attempted abduction of journalist Namal Perera and the media secretary of the British High Commission, Mahendra Ratnaweera.
In one instance an armed group that entered Max TV and brutally attacked the security personnel and journalists of the station were proved to be police officers from the Mirihana Police Station. Nothing was done by way of prosecuting these officers. Instead a senior officer arrived and expressed regret stating that it had been a mistake.
This report was presented to leaders from the Congress of Religions on the 7th April. The religious leaders, who listened to the representation of the five media organisations undertook to bring the report to the notice of the president of Sri Lanka. Earlier the US State Department, in their annual report on human rights also mentioned that: 'paramilitaries and others believed to be "working with awareness of the government "carried out unlawful killings, torture and kidnappings of civilians with impunity".'
That the Ministry of Defence has become an ultra-powerful authority and that the death squads operate under the patronage of the existing regime, are facts commonly known throughout the country. That the policing system has failed to uphold the rule of law and is in a pathetic condition is also a routinely repeated, non-controversial statement. That the politicisation of the police and the armed forces prevents their conduct from being scrutinised or investigated by any legal authority is also uncontested except by the government spokesman whose sole task is to poo-poo all allegations of the government’s involvement in criminal activities. The spokesman for the police, for example, when questioned about this report by the BBC Sinhala Service retorted that making such allegations against the police and military was an insult to war heroes.
Under normal circumstances a report of this nature would be responded to by the government which would initiate a high level inquiry into the allegations. Such a report would also be responded to by the country's judiciary which would direct the relevant authorities to respond by way of investigations and actions to such allegations. However, the condition that has been reached within Sri Lanka is that the state apparatus no longer responds to allegations of crimes by state agencies by any form of serious action.
Therefore it is not surprising that the five leading media organisations had to go before the Congress of Religions to present their report. When the legal authority completely fails people turn to those who represent the moral authority of the country to gain their interest in taking up the lost cause of investigation of crimes. What the report reveals may not be anything new to these leaders of various religions who naturally would have links to their congregations. The challenge for the Congress of Religions is as to whether they will raise their moral voice against widespread lawlessness that encourages any and every form of crime. Above all will the voices of morality in the country prove capable of raising their voices against the ultra-powerful authority that stands above the law?
The leader of the opposition also raised the issue of the suppression of media freedoms and stated that if journalists are killed and the Inspector General of Police fails to conduct effective investigations he would remove the IGP and others responsible for such inaction if he was in power. If the Congress of Religions wants to raise its voice on the present situation in a credible manner it should question as to why the government does not take action by way of the conduct of investigations into the crimes, including those mentioned in this media report. Thus, those who represent the country's moral authority needs, today, to confront those who represent the country’s legal authority who fail to uphold the law. There is today a significant conflict between the very foundations of morality and the callous neglect of the legal obligations of the state. At this juncture should the Congress of Religions and others who claim to represent the moral authority of the country fail to confront those in power who have allowed the undermining of the rule of law, they will disappoint not only the journalists but also the whole country.
While the leaders of the religions face this challenge Mr. Santha Fernando, a well known committed Christian social activist has also been held under arrest for no justifiable reason. Even attempts to engage in acts of charity and compassion have now come under attack by the same ultra-powerful authority that uses powers of arrest and detention without any regard to the principles established by law. The religious leaders may themselves come under such threat if they do not use their moral authority now to cause a change of the situation for the better.
For the full media report kindly see: http://colombotoday.com/english/articles/1375.htm
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
04 December, 2008
Media falls in the old trap
By BEENA SARWAR
The Dawn
The Mumbai nightmare has plunged the media in India and Pakistan into the dangerous, old trap in which nationalism trumps responsible reporting. This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it restricted to India and Pakistan.
American journalists fell into this trap after the attack on the Twin Towers in New York on Sept 11, 2001. They were vigorously criticised for their unquestioning over-reliance on the security establishment for information. The security establishment, with its blinkered security paradigm, fed them false information that prepared the ground for the Iraq invasion and the Afghanistan bombing.
As part of society, journalists may find it difficult to step back and see the larger picture, especially when their countries are under attack. Responsible reporting and commentary require recognising this fallibility. There is no such thing as objective journalism. All journalists have their own world views and political baggage but at least we can aspire to be fair — to our subjects, to our audiences, and perhaps to our common humanity rather than national identities."Media manipulation is less an issue of overt censorship than an internalisation of myths and mindsets," commented Rita Manchanda, summing up a radical critique of the mass media by Indian and Pakistani journalists (`Reporting conflict', South Asia Forum for Human Rights, May 2001).
If the Indian media tends to be nationalistic and trusting in its government (which Pakistan government representatives often ask the more cynical Pakistanis to emulate), the Pakistani media has clearly demarcated no-go areas. As the veteran Peshawar-based journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai said at the consultation, "Pakistani journalists never had the opportunity to professionally cover the 1965 or 1971 wars or the Rann of Kutch or Kargil conflicts." Add the conflicts in Balochistan and the northern areas to that list since then.
The Babri Masjid demolition, the nuclear tests and the Kargil conflict all fed jingoism and jingoistic reporting on both sides. Sometimes journalists are culpable more by omission than commission, ignoring or playing down certain aspects or not asking crucial questions.
Take the festering issue of prisoners. The young Indian fisherman Lakshman who died in a Karachi jail on March 10, 2008 received scant mention in the Pakistani media. The body of a Pakistani prisoner Khalid Mehmood who died in an Indian prison, sent home around the same time, made front-page news, with many journalists accusing the Indians of torture.
Prison conditions and how the police treat prisoners in both countries are no secret. It is not that we treat Indian prisoners well, while they viciously torture Pakistanis. Sometimes a prisoner's death results not from outright torture but illness arising from neglect — poor living conditions in a hostile environment, extreme temperatures, lack of medical attention, all compounded by lack of contact with loved ones back home.
When the Maharashtra government stopped two Pakistani artists from continuing their work in Mumbai, TV reporters here got sound bites from passers-by who condemned the action. The reporter did not ask, and nor did the respondents bring up, the question of what would have happened had the situation been reversed — would Indians have been allowed to continue working here in the aftermath of such an attack, in which the attackers were widely believed to have links with India?
Similarly, talk show hosts let hawkish talk go unchallenged. In one recent instance, a retired army general referred to India as Pakistan's dushman mulk (enemy country). They invite more balanced commentators also but give them get far less time and space. Channels play up Mahesh Butt's criticism of the Indian media but, as the analyst Foqia Sadiq Khan asks, would they quote someone from Pakistan criticising the Pakistani media? "They quote Shabana Azmi ad nauseum that she couldn't find a flat in Bombay being a Muslim, but not on her opinion of fundamentalism."
Media might have brought the people closer but when nationalism rears its head, the beast of 24-hour television news also fuels conflict. This is where the commercial aspect comes in. When something big happens, the public seeks answers. The channels which cater to this need improve their ratings. Sensation sells. With viewers glued to the screens, channels keep them there with a continuous virtual reality show. They fill the time with speculative commentary, `expert' guests and whatever footage is available. Sometimes such footage is repeated ad nauseum — like when the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11, when the Marriott hotel was attacked, when the FIA building in Lahore was struck.
Even when nothing big is happening, information is packaged in an exciting way in order to attract attention. This often means playing up bad news and downplaying good news. TV channels continuously showed the scene of the blasts that rocked the World Performing Arts Festival in Lahore on its second-last day, injuring two people. They did not give the artists who defied fear and went ahead on the last day the same kind of attention.
When Zardari was sworn in as president, a breaking news ticker reported: "Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh congratulates Zardari". Breaking news? At least it was true. In the rush to be the first, channels often misreport.
The Mumbai nightmare provided several examples, as Kalpana Sharma documents in her critique of the Indian media's coverage of the first 60 hours, `Unpacking the pixel' in Tehelka. She concludes, "it is essential that reporters be trained to handle such extraordinary situations, that they learn the importance of restraint and cross- checking…. Professionalism and accuracy will ensure that we don't contribute to prejudice and panic."
Some Indian channels are running the Pakistan factor like a movie trailer, complete with sound effects and watch-for-the-next-episode commentary. This obviously fuels Pakistani indignation. However, this indignation could be tempered by being less reactive and empathising with the Indians' pain and grief that many Pakistanis share. Zealous commentators could also recall the times that their own media houses sensationalised an issue.
Journalists may argue that they are just the messenger, reflecting official or public opinion. But the media must also question, and get people to think. The stakes are high in our nuclear-armed countries, in a post-9/11 world where the major players include armed and trained men around the world who subscribe to the ideology of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
As President Asif Ali Zardari said, even if elements within Pakistan were involved it is these same elements that the Pakistan government is fighting. So how much sense does it make to push the Pakistan government in a corner and divert its attention from fighting these elements?
Ms. Beena Sarwar is a well-known Pakistani journalist.
The Dawn
The Mumbai nightmare has plunged the media in India and Pakistan into the dangerous, old trap in which nationalism trumps responsible reporting. This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it restricted to India and Pakistan.
American journalists fell into this trap after the attack on the Twin Towers in New York on Sept 11, 2001. They were vigorously criticised for their unquestioning over-reliance on the security establishment for information. The security establishment, with its blinkered security paradigm, fed them false information that prepared the ground for the Iraq invasion and the Afghanistan bombing.
As part of society, journalists may find it difficult to step back and see the larger picture, especially when their countries are under attack. Responsible reporting and commentary require recognising this fallibility. There is no such thing as objective journalism. All journalists have their own world views and political baggage but at least we can aspire to be fair — to our subjects, to our audiences, and perhaps to our common humanity rather than national identities."Media manipulation is less an issue of overt censorship than an internalisation of myths and mindsets," commented Rita Manchanda, summing up a radical critique of the mass media by Indian and Pakistani journalists (`Reporting conflict', South Asia Forum for Human Rights, May 2001).
If the Indian media tends to be nationalistic and trusting in its government (which Pakistan government representatives often ask the more cynical Pakistanis to emulate), the Pakistani media has clearly demarcated no-go areas. As the veteran Peshawar-based journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai said at the consultation, "Pakistani journalists never had the opportunity to professionally cover the 1965 or 1971 wars or the Rann of Kutch or Kargil conflicts." Add the conflicts in Balochistan and the northern areas to that list since then.
The Babri Masjid demolition, the nuclear tests and the Kargil conflict all fed jingoism and jingoistic reporting on both sides. Sometimes journalists are culpable more by omission than commission, ignoring or playing down certain aspects or not asking crucial questions.
Take the festering issue of prisoners. The young Indian fisherman Lakshman who died in a Karachi jail on March 10, 2008 received scant mention in the Pakistani media. The body of a Pakistani prisoner Khalid Mehmood who died in an Indian prison, sent home around the same time, made front-page news, with many journalists accusing the Indians of torture.
Prison conditions and how the police treat prisoners in both countries are no secret. It is not that we treat Indian prisoners well, while they viciously torture Pakistanis. Sometimes a prisoner's death results not from outright torture but illness arising from neglect — poor living conditions in a hostile environment, extreme temperatures, lack of medical attention, all compounded by lack of contact with loved ones back home.
When the Maharashtra government stopped two Pakistani artists from continuing their work in Mumbai, TV reporters here got sound bites from passers-by who condemned the action. The reporter did not ask, and nor did the respondents bring up, the question of what would have happened had the situation been reversed — would Indians have been allowed to continue working here in the aftermath of such an attack, in which the attackers were widely believed to have links with India?
Similarly, talk show hosts let hawkish talk go unchallenged. In one recent instance, a retired army general referred to India as Pakistan's dushman mulk (enemy country). They invite more balanced commentators also but give them get far less time and space. Channels play up Mahesh Butt's criticism of the Indian media but, as the analyst Foqia Sadiq Khan asks, would they quote someone from Pakistan criticising the Pakistani media? "They quote Shabana Azmi ad nauseum that she couldn't find a flat in Bombay being a Muslim, but not on her opinion of fundamentalism."
Media might have brought the people closer but when nationalism rears its head, the beast of 24-hour television news also fuels conflict. This is where the commercial aspect comes in. When something big happens, the public seeks answers. The channels which cater to this need improve their ratings. Sensation sells. With viewers glued to the screens, channels keep them there with a continuous virtual reality show. They fill the time with speculative commentary, `expert' guests and whatever footage is available. Sometimes such footage is repeated ad nauseum — like when the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11, when the Marriott hotel was attacked, when the FIA building in Lahore was struck.
Even when nothing big is happening, information is packaged in an exciting way in order to attract attention. This often means playing up bad news and downplaying good news. TV channels continuously showed the scene of the blasts that rocked the World Performing Arts Festival in Lahore on its second-last day, injuring two people. They did not give the artists who defied fear and went ahead on the last day the same kind of attention.
When Zardari was sworn in as president, a breaking news ticker reported: "Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh congratulates Zardari". Breaking news? At least it was true. In the rush to be the first, channels often misreport.
The Mumbai nightmare provided several examples, as Kalpana Sharma documents in her critique of the Indian media's coverage of the first 60 hours, `Unpacking the pixel' in Tehelka. She concludes, "it is essential that reporters be trained to handle such extraordinary situations, that they learn the importance of restraint and cross- checking…. Professionalism and accuracy will ensure that we don't contribute to prejudice and panic."
Some Indian channels are running the Pakistan factor like a movie trailer, complete with sound effects and watch-for-the-next-episode commentary. This obviously fuels Pakistani indignation. However, this indignation could be tempered by being less reactive and empathising with the Indians' pain and grief that many Pakistanis share. Zealous commentators could also recall the times that their own media houses sensationalised an issue.
Journalists may argue that they are just the messenger, reflecting official or public opinion. But the media must also question, and get people to think. The stakes are high in our nuclear-armed countries, in a post-9/11 world where the major players include armed and trained men around the world who subscribe to the ideology of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
As President Asif Ali Zardari said, even if elements within Pakistan were involved it is these same elements that the Pakistan government is fighting. So how much sense does it make to push the Pakistan government in a corner and divert its attention from fighting these elements?
Ms. Beena Sarwar is a well-known Pakistani journalist.
TV blabbering is not journalism: Lessons from the live coverage
By B.R.P.BHASKAR -
Comment
Indo-Asian News Service
News channel bosses must be patting themselves on the back on their marathon terror coverage. For three days they had treated the viewers to live coverage of the multiple terror strikes in Mumbai. In doing so, they probably set a record in television history.
As the terrorists delivered the heaviest blow yet on the country, the 24×7 news channels rose to the occasion. They took the nation’s attention off everything else so that it could concentrate fully on the mayhem in Mumbai. What more could the
terrorists have asked for?
With the terrorists operating simultaneously on several fronts, there was plenty to do and the channels rushed their best talents and possibly additional equipment to Mumbai to augment the resources available locally. Cameras were deployed on all war fronts and they instantly brought into drawing rooms (or wherever else the TV sets were) the sights and sounds that they picked up. The reporters kept up an incessant flow of words, either on their own or in response to questions posed by anchors sitting in the studios. Their labour earned handsome rewards in terms of TRP ratings, and that certainly is reason enough to celebrate.
TRP is not a measure of professional performance. It is, therefore, to be hoped that when the euphoric mood wears out, the media bosses will make an effort to objectively assess their performance in strictly professional terms.
At an early stage in the live coverage, the cameras picked up the image of a gun-wielding young man, warily watching the surroundings. The reporter and the anchor helpfully informed the viewers that they did not know whether he was a terrorist or a commando!
On the second day, while all eyes were on the Taj, the Oberoi and Nariman House, the channels ‘broke’ news of fresh gunfire at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, where terrorists had mowed down scores of passengers the previous day. One anchor, with his superior knowledge of the topography of Bori Bunder, explained to viewers that it was an area with many buildings and that he was not able to state whether the shooting took place in the rail terminus or some other building near by.
Actually, at that point, his channel was scrolling a headline which said the shooting was on Platform No.8 of CST.
At that very point, on another channel, a reporter was informing viewers that the shooting was on Platforms No. 14 and No. 15, from where long distance trains leave.
Later in the day the Indian Railways denied there had been any firing at the station on that day.
In the coverage of a running story, unfolding itself simultaneously at different locations, inaccurate information creeping in is not entirely unusual. However, in this instance, there is reason to suspect that reporters, eager to break news, had gone on air without waiting for confirmation from either the police or the railways, the two sources that could be relied upon for information about a shooting incident in a railway station.
On the third day, as the Taj nightmare was drawing to a close, the anchor and reporter of a channel were engaged in a heroic effort to make sense out of sounds emerging from the hotel. According to the National Security Guard, a lone terrorist was still holding out inside the hotel at the time. The reporter, crouching on the ground, drew the viewers’ attention to gunfire. The anchor asked from which floor it was coming. “First floor,” said the reporter. More explosions followed. When the seventh explosion was reported, the anchor asked where it was coming from, the same floor or somewhere else. The reporter said this one appeared to be from the ground floor. The two then speculated on the possibility of the lone terrorist moving from one floor to another as though his precise location was a crucial matter.
Like the national channels, CNN and BBC also provided extended live coverage of the terror strike. Since they did not have their own cameras at the scenes of action, they turned to the Indian channels for visuals. While the CNN drew visuals from its local partner CNN-IBN, BBC picked feeds from the Hindi channels. However, the words the viewers heard were their own. There was no meaningless chatter by the anchors and correspondents. There was no speculation either. Instead, there were reports which bore the imprint of professional journalists.
Live television has opened up new possibilities. The marathon Mumbai terror coverage has shown that Indian news channels have yet to learn how to make effective use of the facility that technology has put at their disposal. They must realize that the media’s job is to gather and disseminate information. Seeing is not knowing, much less understanding. The sights and sounds the switched-on camera picks up have to be made intelligible to the viewers. Blabbering by anchors and reporters, howsoever entertaining, is not an adequate substitute for professional reporting.
Comment
Indo-Asian News Service
News channel bosses must be patting themselves on the back on their marathon terror coverage. For three days they had treated the viewers to live coverage of the multiple terror strikes in Mumbai. In doing so, they probably set a record in television history.
As the terrorists delivered the heaviest blow yet on the country, the 24×7 news channels rose to the occasion. They took the nation’s attention off everything else so that it could concentrate fully on the mayhem in Mumbai. What more could the
terrorists have asked for?
With the terrorists operating simultaneously on several fronts, there was plenty to do and the channels rushed their best talents and possibly additional equipment to Mumbai to augment the resources available locally. Cameras were deployed on all war fronts and they instantly brought into drawing rooms (or wherever else the TV sets were) the sights and sounds that they picked up. The reporters kept up an incessant flow of words, either on their own or in response to questions posed by anchors sitting in the studios. Their labour earned handsome rewards in terms of TRP ratings, and that certainly is reason enough to celebrate.
TRP is not a measure of professional performance. It is, therefore, to be hoped that when the euphoric mood wears out, the media bosses will make an effort to objectively assess their performance in strictly professional terms.
At an early stage in the live coverage, the cameras picked up the image of a gun-wielding young man, warily watching the surroundings. The reporter and the anchor helpfully informed the viewers that they did not know whether he was a terrorist or a commando!
On the second day, while all eyes were on the Taj, the Oberoi and Nariman House, the channels ‘broke’ news of fresh gunfire at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, where terrorists had mowed down scores of passengers the previous day. One anchor, with his superior knowledge of the topography of Bori Bunder, explained to viewers that it was an area with many buildings and that he was not able to state whether the shooting took place in the rail terminus or some other building near by.
Actually, at that point, his channel was scrolling a headline which said the shooting was on Platform No.8 of CST.
At that very point, on another channel, a reporter was informing viewers that the shooting was on Platforms No. 14 and No. 15, from where long distance trains leave.
Later in the day the Indian Railways denied there had been any firing at the station on that day.
In the coverage of a running story, unfolding itself simultaneously at different locations, inaccurate information creeping in is not entirely unusual. However, in this instance, there is reason to suspect that reporters, eager to break news, had gone on air without waiting for confirmation from either the police or the railways, the two sources that could be relied upon for information about a shooting incident in a railway station.
On the third day, as the Taj nightmare was drawing to a close, the anchor and reporter of a channel were engaged in a heroic effort to make sense out of sounds emerging from the hotel. According to the National Security Guard, a lone terrorist was still holding out inside the hotel at the time. The reporter, crouching on the ground, drew the viewers’ attention to gunfire. The anchor asked from which floor it was coming. “First floor,” said the reporter. More explosions followed. When the seventh explosion was reported, the anchor asked where it was coming from, the same floor or somewhere else. The reporter said this one appeared to be from the ground floor. The two then speculated on the possibility of the lone terrorist moving from one floor to another as though his precise location was a crucial matter.
Like the national channels, CNN and BBC also provided extended live coverage of the terror strike. Since they did not have their own cameras at the scenes of action, they turned to the Indian channels for visuals. While the CNN drew visuals from its local partner CNN-IBN, BBC picked feeds from the Hindi channels. However, the words the viewers heard were their own. There was no meaningless chatter by the anchors and correspondents. There was no speculation either. Instead, there were reports which bore the imprint of professional journalists.
Live television has opened up new possibilities. The marathon Mumbai terror coverage has shown that Indian news channels have yet to learn how to make effective use of the facility that technology has put at their disposal. They must realize that the media’s job is to gather and disseminate information. Seeing is not knowing, much less understanding. The sights and sounds the switched-on camera picks up have to be made intelligible to the viewers. Blabbering by anchors and reporters, howsoever entertaining, is not an adequate substitute for professional reporting.
15 October, 2008
Study censures Media for its reporting of Jamia Nagar encounter
by S.K. Pande
14 September, 2008
Countercurrents.org
Speakers at a meet organised by the Delhi Union of Journalists to release its interim report on media's coverage of Jamia Nagar encounter were unanimous in their opinion that the credibility of the media has touched an all-time low and the challenge before the media is how to regain this.
DUJ Ethics Council’s interim report on “Delhi Blasts: A Look At Media Coverage” was released by veteran journalist Kuldip Nayyar on October 3, 2008. The report scathingly brings out lapses in the coverage of the recent encounter at Batla House, Jamia Nagar in Delhi by both the electornic and print media.
CPI(M) MP Hannan Mollah in his remarks regretted that due to unverified, breathless reporting by the media -- without critically trying to find out actual facts -- the whole Muslim community was being projected as terrorists. This has created a fear psychosis among the community and is leading to a feeling of frustration. He called for restrained reporting and cautioned against speculation.
Kuldip Nayar said that while to some extent government pressure on the media has lessened, particularly after the experience of Emergency, the pressure of financiers, political parties and others has increased. This has affected the media’s credibility adversely. “Let us make this Report a starting point for retrieving our values”, he said.
Recalling that during the Gujarat carnage, while the Gujarati language press was found wanting in objective reporting of the incidents, the English press somewhat redeemed the situation by fair reporting and won the confidence of the community most affected. He demanded that the National Humans Rights Commission, which has taken suo moto cognizance of the Jamia Nagar encounter should hold open sittings to ensure transparency.
Professor Obaid Siddiqui of A J Kidwai Mass Communication Research Centre at Jamia University, said that the media coverage of the encounter has given rise to the feeling among Muslims that they are being targeted and projected as anti-nationals contrary to the fact that majority of the Muslims are nationalists and organisations like SIMI and Indian Mujahideen have a very negligible following.
Among others who participated in the discussion were veteran journalists Ajoy Bose, Anjali Deshpande, Sujata Madhok and Amit Prakash Singh. The discussion was moderated by DUJ president S K Pande who said while increase in communalisation was bad enough, communalisation and sensationalisation is a cause of much concern. In the present situation where terrorism was rearing its ugly head, it was time that the media itself introspects its own role and strive to be part of a solution rather than a problem.
The DUJ report strives to be a beginning of a critique of media reporting of the Batla house police operation, Pande added. It was a modest beginning and just an interim report. Associated with the report were Anjali Deshpande, Sujata Madhok, Amit Prakash Singh, Naresh Nadeem, Mohd Shamim, Dinesh Chandra, L H Naqvi and Sreekumar. There are many others who wanted to remain anonymous and more responses are coming, he informed.
The foreword of the report made it clear that the Delhi Union of Journalists and its Ethics Council are concerned at the falling standards of reporting as evident in the manner in which the police operation at Balta House on September 19, 2008 was reported by various newspapers and TV channels in the capital. The reporting in about a dozen papers, some magazines and the Urdu press was analysed in the report.
“We wish to underline that accuracy in reporting facts is the first responsibility of the media. Where facts are disputed, the discrepancies should be pointed out and the sources questioned. Presenting several versions of incidents and using multiple sources of information is an inalienable part of credible reporting.
“We also emphasise that uncovering the truth may not always be the job of the media. The media is not equipped to investigate and uncover the truth in severely complicated cases like the incident being examined in the report. But presenting different facets of events as they emerge is part of the professional responsibility of the media.
“Regrettably, in the competition to grab eyeballs we sometimes resort to hype, forgetting that some issues are too explosive for such treatment. They are volatile enough without the media adding fuel to the fire. Unfortunately there are several instances of such coverage. We cite one blatant example. On September 20, 2008, The Hindustan Times devoted all of page 3 to reports on terror, with the bold page slug saying “TERROR HUNT”. The shrieking banner headline was “India’s Bin Laden was a good- boy in school’. This was the headline for a report based on interviews with the schoolteachers of the alleged terrorist Abdus Subhan Qureshi, one of the men arrested in Mumbai for involvement in bomb blasts. The teachers claimed that he was a quiet boy and a good student. The story opens with the sentence: 'The world may be calling him India’s Bin Laden but it’s an image Abdus Subhan Quresh’s teachers find hard to reconcile with his school-day persona.' The story did not warrant the headline. Such headline-givers live in a world of their own. It is sheer exaggeration to label someone hitherto unknown to the average citizen as a ‘Bin Laden’.
“Frequently, the language used by the media to describe such incidents and suspects leaves much to be desired. It lays the media open to the charge of being judgmental and biased.
“By and large, the press has forsaken the use of certain prefixes like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’. Most newspapers have described those who were killed and arrested in Delhi as terrorists. It is a basic premise of Indian law that no person may be presumed guilty unless proved otherwise. The media’s use of epithets like “terrorist’ without the qualifying adjective ‘alleged’ or ‘suspected’ amounts to a declaration of guilt without trial in a court of law. This is equivalent to trial by the media. Journalists should know better. We understand that reporters in the field work under tremendous stress and pressure to be the first with the news. However, some editorial control of language should be exercised at the desk which is sadly missing in many reports. Television reports have been even more blatant, with the words ‘alleged’ or ‘suspected’ simply missing from the language used by both reporters and anchors.”, stated the report.
CALL FOR MEDIA COMMISSION
The postscript calls for a Media commission and a Media council for the entire media to replace the toothless Press Council. It notes that successive governments have failed to respond to countrywide appeals to constitute a Media Commission to go into the state of affairs in both the print and electronic media in the country after globalisation. The setting up of more and more news channels and growth of old and new newspapers have brought about big changes in the state of the country’s information industry. The aspirations, expectations and demands of the people, too, have grown tremendously with the strengthening of the roots of democracy in the country and their awakening of the right to information. We must recall that the country’s politics, economy and media since 1982, when the second Press Commission submitted its report, have changed as has the political structure. Even the All India Confederation of Newspapers and News Agencies has supported this stand.
The time has come for the government to appreciate the gravity and urgency of the matter and set up at the earliest a fully empowered Media Commission to go through the entire gamut of the information industry. A good beginning can be made by having a Media council through extension of the Press Council by making it more broad-based and also to have equal representation for the electronic media and a broadcast media to make it in tune with the time.
The report concludes by saying that the Jamia Nagar episode is a sad reminder of the diminishing credibility of the media. Instead of playing the role of the ‘watch dog’ of society, the media seems to be getting increasingly lazy and dependent on police handouts. The main job of the media is to question and not accept whatever is being served on a platter. Because of this increasing laziness of the print media and increasing ‘greed’ for sensationalism on the part of the visual media, news tends to be presented to the public without proper investigation which is the most important job of the media. Investigation does not mean that every media person has to become an ‘investigative journalist’. That is not the job of the daily reporter, nor is it expected from them. But what is expected is that the reporter would try to give the different sides of the incident after questioning as many eyewitnesses as possible.
In most of the papers the boys killed were declared terrorists much before any proof could be established against them. Each TV channel was competing with the other to sensationalise the raid as much as possible, perhaps with an eye firmly on the TRP ratings.
S.K. Pande is Chief of Bureau, India News Network and President, Delhi Union of Journalists
14 September, 2008
Countercurrents.org
Speakers at a meet organised by the Delhi Union of Journalists to release its interim report on media's coverage of Jamia Nagar encounter were unanimous in their opinion that the credibility of the media has touched an all-time low and the challenge before the media is how to regain this.
DUJ Ethics Council’s interim report on “Delhi Blasts: A Look At Media Coverage” was released by veteran journalist Kuldip Nayyar on October 3, 2008. The report scathingly brings out lapses in the coverage of the recent encounter at Batla House, Jamia Nagar in Delhi by both the electornic and print media.
CPI(M) MP Hannan Mollah in his remarks regretted that due to unverified, breathless reporting by the media -- without critically trying to find out actual facts -- the whole Muslim community was being projected as terrorists. This has created a fear psychosis among the community and is leading to a feeling of frustration. He called for restrained reporting and cautioned against speculation.
Kuldip Nayar said that while to some extent government pressure on the media has lessened, particularly after the experience of Emergency, the pressure of financiers, political parties and others has increased. This has affected the media’s credibility adversely. “Let us make this Report a starting point for retrieving our values”, he said.
Recalling that during the Gujarat carnage, while the Gujarati language press was found wanting in objective reporting of the incidents, the English press somewhat redeemed the situation by fair reporting and won the confidence of the community most affected. He demanded that the National Humans Rights Commission, which has taken suo moto cognizance of the Jamia Nagar encounter should hold open sittings to ensure transparency.
Professor Obaid Siddiqui of A J Kidwai Mass Communication Research Centre at Jamia University, said that the media coverage of the encounter has given rise to the feeling among Muslims that they are being targeted and projected as anti-nationals contrary to the fact that majority of the Muslims are nationalists and organisations like SIMI and Indian Mujahideen have a very negligible following.
Among others who participated in the discussion were veteran journalists Ajoy Bose, Anjali Deshpande, Sujata Madhok and Amit Prakash Singh. The discussion was moderated by DUJ president S K Pande who said while increase in communalisation was bad enough, communalisation and sensationalisation is a cause of much concern. In the present situation where terrorism was rearing its ugly head, it was time that the media itself introspects its own role and strive to be part of a solution rather than a problem.
The DUJ report strives to be a beginning of a critique of media reporting of the Batla house police operation, Pande added. It was a modest beginning and just an interim report. Associated with the report were Anjali Deshpande, Sujata Madhok, Amit Prakash Singh, Naresh Nadeem, Mohd Shamim, Dinesh Chandra, L H Naqvi and Sreekumar. There are many others who wanted to remain anonymous and more responses are coming, he informed.
The foreword of the report made it clear that the Delhi Union of Journalists and its Ethics Council are concerned at the falling standards of reporting as evident in the manner in which the police operation at Balta House on September 19, 2008 was reported by various newspapers and TV channels in the capital. The reporting in about a dozen papers, some magazines and the Urdu press was analysed in the report.
“We wish to underline that accuracy in reporting facts is the first responsibility of the media. Where facts are disputed, the discrepancies should be pointed out and the sources questioned. Presenting several versions of incidents and using multiple sources of information is an inalienable part of credible reporting.
“We also emphasise that uncovering the truth may not always be the job of the media. The media is not equipped to investigate and uncover the truth in severely complicated cases like the incident being examined in the report. But presenting different facets of events as they emerge is part of the professional responsibility of the media.
“Regrettably, in the competition to grab eyeballs we sometimes resort to hype, forgetting that some issues are too explosive for such treatment. They are volatile enough without the media adding fuel to the fire. Unfortunately there are several instances of such coverage. We cite one blatant example. On September 20, 2008, The Hindustan Times devoted all of page 3 to reports on terror, with the bold page slug saying “TERROR HUNT”. The shrieking banner headline was “India’s Bin Laden was a good- boy in school’. This was the headline for a report based on interviews with the schoolteachers of the alleged terrorist Abdus Subhan Qureshi, one of the men arrested in Mumbai for involvement in bomb blasts. The teachers claimed that he was a quiet boy and a good student. The story opens with the sentence: 'The world may be calling him India’s Bin Laden but it’s an image Abdus Subhan Quresh’s teachers find hard to reconcile with his school-day persona.' The story did not warrant the headline. Such headline-givers live in a world of their own. It is sheer exaggeration to label someone hitherto unknown to the average citizen as a ‘Bin Laden’.
“Frequently, the language used by the media to describe such incidents and suspects leaves much to be desired. It lays the media open to the charge of being judgmental and biased.
“By and large, the press has forsaken the use of certain prefixes like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’. Most newspapers have described those who were killed and arrested in Delhi as terrorists. It is a basic premise of Indian law that no person may be presumed guilty unless proved otherwise. The media’s use of epithets like “terrorist’ without the qualifying adjective ‘alleged’ or ‘suspected’ amounts to a declaration of guilt without trial in a court of law. This is equivalent to trial by the media. Journalists should know better. We understand that reporters in the field work under tremendous stress and pressure to be the first with the news. However, some editorial control of language should be exercised at the desk which is sadly missing in many reports. Television reports have been even more blatant, with the words ‘alleged’ or ‘suspected’ simply missing from the language used by both reporters and anchors.”, stated the report.
CALL FOR MEDIA COMMISSION
The postscript calls for a Media commission and a Media council for the entire media to replace the toothless Press Council. It notes that successive governments have failed to respond to countrywide appeals to constitute a Media Commission to go into the state of affairs in both the print and electronic media in the country after globalisation. The setting up of more and more news channels and growth of old and new newspapers have brought about big changes in the state of the country’s information industry. The aspirations, expectations and demands of the people, too, have grown tremendously with the strengthening of the roots of democracy in the country and their awakening of the right to information. We must recall that the country’s politics, economy and media since 1982, when the second Press Commission submitted its report, have changed as has the political structure. Even the All India Confederation of Newspapers and News Agencies has supported this stand.
The time has come for the government to appreciate the gravity and urgency of the matter and set up at the earliest a fully empowered Media Commission to go through the entire gamut of the information industry. A good beginning can be made by having a Media council through extension of the Press Council by making it more broad-based and also to have equal representation for the electronic media and a broadcast media to make it in tune with the time.
The report concludes by saying that the Jamia Nagar episode is a sad reminder of the diminishing credibility of the media. Instead of playing the role of the ‘watch dog’ of society, the media seems to be getting increasingly lazy and dependent on police handouts. The main job of the media is to question and not accept whatever is being served on a platter. Because of this increasing laziness of the print media and increasing ‘greed’ for sensationalism on the part of the visual media, news tends to be presented to the public without proper investigation which is the most important job of the media. Investigation does not mean that every media person has to become an ‘investigative journalist’. That is not the job of the daily reporter, nor is it expected from them. But what is expected is that the reporter would try to give the different sides of the incident after questioning as many eyewitnesses as possible.
In most of the papers the boys killed were declared terrorists much before any proof could be established against them. Each TV channel was competing with the other to sensationalise the raid as much as possible, perhaps with an eye firmly on the TRP ratings.
S.K. Pande is Chief of Bureau, India News Network and President, Delhi Union of Journalists
04 October, 2008
Media losing its credibility, says Delhi Union of Journalists
New Delhi, Oct 3 (IANS): Taking a hard look at media reports on the Jamia Nagar episode over the past few weeks, after two suspected terrorists and a Delhi Police Inspector were killed in a police shootout Sep 19, the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) prepared an interim report which was released in the capital Friday.
Pointing out discrepancies in various media over reporting of facts, S.K.Pande, president of DUJ, said that in what can be seen as a growing trend - albeit a dangerous one, verification of facts is quite often overlooked by reporters these days.
"To state an example, the Times of India said that there were 25 firing rounds by the police and eight by the 'terrorists'. The Indian Express, the Hindu, Dainik Hindustan, Punjab Kesari and Rashtriya Sahara say that the police fired 22 rounds. They were all silent about the rounds fired by the suspects," Pande said.
"Whether it's the time of the shootout, the duration, the number of policemen present at that time or the number of bullets that hit Police Inspector M.C. Sharma - different media have different versions. At least in the initial reportage, the source of the
information was the same, the police. Then why the difference?" he asked.
Agreeing with Pande, veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar said that because of instances such as these the 'media is losing its credibility'.
The interim report, which will be followed by a more detailed one later, was a result of intense discussion among 15 members of the DUJ and its Ethics Council, scanning of the various media - both print and electronic, and visits to the Jamia Nagar area by three members who spoke to the residents of the area.
"The purpose of this report is not to pass a judgement on the shootout, whether it was a fake one or not. The aim was to analyse the role of the media in handling such serious issues. In the age of fast news and 24/7 news channels, unfortunately we sometimes resort to hyping of news," Pande said.
The report said: 'The Hindustan Times, for instance, Sep 20 ran a story 'India's Bin Laden was a good boy in school' on alleged terrorist Abdus Subhan Qureshi. The story did not warrant that headline'.
'By and large, the press has forsaken the use of such prefixes like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’ in front of names of those who have been arrested and killed. Television reports have been even more blatant with such words simply missing from the language used by reporters and anchors'.
The report also had words of praise for certain media like the Veer Arjun which on Sep 20 gave a detailed description of the operation that is at variance with the versions in the other papers.
DUJ now plans to send the report to the National Commission of Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), among others.
"There were four-five children, all between the age of 10-17 who were picked up for questioning by the Police. One of the boys killed in the shoot out was 17 and branded as a terrorist in most papers even before any proof could be established against them. Are the NCPCR looking into the matter? We are going to send this report to the NCPCR and see what their reaction is," Pande said.
Pointing out discrepancies in various media over reporting of facts, S.K.Pande, president of DUJ, said that in what can be seen as a growing trend - albeit a dangerous one, verification of facts is quite often overlooked by reporters these days.
"To state an example, the Times of India said that there were 25 firing rounds by the police and eight by the 'terrorists'. The Indian Express, the Hindu, Dainik Hindustan, Punjab Kesari and Rashtriya Sahara say that the police fired 22 rounds. They were all silent about the rounds fired by the suspects," Pande said.
"Whether it's the time of the shootout, the duration, the number of policemen present at that time or the number of bullets that hit Police Inspector M.C. Sharma - different media have different versions. At least in the initial reportage, the source of the
information was the same, the police. Then why the difference?" he asked.
Agreeing with Pande, veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar said that because of instances such as these the 'media is losing its credibility'.
The interim report, which will be followed by a more detailed one later, was a result of intense discussion among 15 members of the DUJ and its Ethics Council, scanning of the various media - both print and electronic, and visits to the Jamia Nagar area by three members who spoke to the residents of the area.
"The purpose of this report is not to pass a judgement on the shootout, whether it was a fake one or not. The aim was to analyse the role of the media in handling such serious issues. In the age of fast news and 24/7 news channels, unfortunately we sometimes resort to hyping of news," Pande said.
The report said: 'The Hindustan Times, for instance, Sep 20 ran a story 'India's Bin Laden was a good boy in school' on alleged terrorist Abdus Subhan Qureshi. The story did not warrant that headline'.
'By and large, the press has forsaken the use of such prefixes like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’ in front of names of those who have been arrested and killed. Television reports have been even more blatant with such words simply missing from the language used by reporters and anchors'.
The report also had words of praise for certain media like the Veer Arjun which on Sep 20 gave a detailed description of the operation that is at variance with the versions in the other papers.
DUJ now plans to send the report to the National Commission of Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), among others.
"There were four-five children, all between the age of 10-17 who were picked up for questioning by the Police. One of the boys killed in the shoot out was 17 and branded as a terrorist in most papers even before any proof could be established against them. Are the NCPCR looking into the matter? We are going to send this report to the NCPCR and see what their reaction is," Pande said.
26 September, 2008
The media under the scanner
Countercurrents.org has circulated two articles on the media’s handling of the alleged encounter killings in Nw Delhi.
Finally it has happened: the main stream media in India has for the first time come out with something other than the 'official version' of the encounter killings that have taken place in the country, says L. George.
See “The Mainstream Media Questions Delhi Encounter Killings” by L. George
Monday, September 22 was an extraordinary day in the annals the Indian media, says Sadanand Menon. “I would like to call it a day of shame. For, on that day, our media collectively displayed its herd-like mentality and its entirely uncritical attitude to the use – and misuse – of the photographs it publishes”.
See ‘Media Manipulation By Police To Create A Distinct Communalized Imagery” by Sadanand Menon
Finally it has happened: the main stream media in India has for the first time come out with something other than the 'official version' of the encounter killings that have taken place in the country, says L. George.
See “The Mainstream Media Questions Delhi Encounter Killings” by L. George
Monday, September 22 was an extraordinary day in the annals the Indian media, says Sadanand Menon. “I would like to call it a day of shame. For, on that day, our media collectively displayed its herd-like mentality and its entirely uncritical attitude to the use – and misuse – of the photographs it publishes”.
See ‘Media Manipulation By Police To Create A Distinct Communalized Imagery” by Sadanand Menon
06 June, 2008
Blog devoted to India media
Dr. Kiran Thakur, who retired as professor and head of the department of Communications and Journalism, University of Pune, has started a blog devoted to the Indian media scene.
Pasted below is the message I received from him announcing the setting up of the blog:
I have started my blog http://mediasceneindia.blogspot.com/
Please visit. As you can see for yourself, it is an attempt to create a platform for journalists, students and teachers of journalism and others interested in media affairs. I request you to join and help me make it a real Media Scene of India, and not Media scene of Pune as it appears now.
Please send in your experiences, observations and comments about the events concerning media, media education and research. Also, please pass it on to your friends and colleagues with a similar request.
With regards,
Dr. Kiran Thakur
Former Professor and Head
Department of Communication and Journalism
University of Pune
Residence: 3, Indrayani, Patrakarnagar
Pune 4110 016
Maharashtra, India
Phone: + 91 20 25650225
mobile + 91 9373331733
Pasted below is the message I received from him announcing the setting up of the blog:
I have started my blog http://mediasceneindia.blogspot.com/
Please visit. As you can see for yourself, it is an attempt to create a platform for journalists, students and teachers of journalism and others interested in media affairs. I request you to join and help me make it a real Media Scene of India, and not Media scene of Pune as it appears now.
Please send in your experiences, observations and comments about the events concerning media, media education and research. Also, please pass it on to your friends and colleagues with a similar request.
With regards,
Dr. Kiran Thakur
Former Professor and Head
Department of Communication and Journalism
University of Pune
Residence: 3, Indrayani, Patrakarnagar
Pune 4110 016
Maharashtra, India
Phone: + 91 20 25650225
mobile + 91 9373331733
20 March, 2008
Indian media coverage of Arthur C. Clarke's death
The Indian media’s coverage of Arthur C. Clarke’s death is illustrative of its professional weakness. Here is a man who foresaw the technological developments which made a big difference to the way the media functions. He lived in our neighbourhood, having taken up residence in Sri Lanka in 1956. Yet no Indian newspaper had a worthwhile obituary.
The Hindu carried a three-paragraph report from its Colombo correspondent on Clarke’s death under a single-column headline. Alongside, it featured under a six-column headline the syndicated New York Times obit.
The Times of India is not a newspaper to which one turns for good reading material these days. It redeemed itself somewhat this time by publishing a write-up by one of its staffers, Narayani Ganesh. It was not an obit but an account of a meeting she had with Clarke in Colombo. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2880815.cms
(Narayani Ganesh is a daughter of the late Gemini Ganesh, eternal lover of Tamil cinema)
The poor performance of the newspapers can be attributed to bankruptcy at the higher levels. Clarke died early on Wednesday. Access to material is easy these days and most of the big newspapers have on their staff persons who are capable of producing a good write-up in time for Thursday’s edition. The editors did not put the resources at their disposal to proper use probably because such activity is not very important in their scheme of things.
Arthur C. Clarke’s death, of course, is not an event with political relevance. But even on political developments with implications for our country, the major newspapers, including The Hindu, routinely carry syndicated material from abroad.
The Hindu carried a three-paragraph report from its Colombo correspondent on Clarke’s death under a single-column headline. Alongside, it featured under a six-column headline the syndicated New York Times obit.
The Times of India is not a newspaper to which one turns for good reading material these days. It redeemed itself somewhat this time by publishing a write-up by one of its staffers, Narayani Ganesh. It was not an obit but an account of a meeting she had with Clarke in Colombo. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2880815.cms
(Narayani Ganesh is a daughter of the late Gemini Ganesh, eternal lover of Tamil cinema)
The poor performance of the newspapers can be attributed to bankruptcy at the higher levels. Clarke died early on Wednesday. Access to material is easy these days and most of the big newspapers have on their staff persons who are capable of producing a good write-up in time for Thursday’s edition. The editors did not put the resources at their disposal to proper use probably because such activity is not very important in their scheme of things.
Arthur C. Clarke’s death, of course, is not an event with political relevance. But even on political developments with implications for our country, the major newspapers, including The Hindu, routinely carry syndicated material from abroad.
06 March, 2008
A place where media academics and media professionals come together
A new Internet magazine, styled as Interjunction, has made its appearance.
Interjunction is a platform for media academics and professionals to interact -- and it will present issues of relevance to both groups, from media ethics, to effects, to education.
It is edited by Chindu Sreedharan and Rohit Chopra. Sreedharan lectures in news and feature journalism at the Media School, Bournemouth University, England. He describes himself as an accidental academic, “a journalist who strayed into academia in the line of duty”. Chopra is Assistant Professor of Media Studies at Babson College, Massachusetts, USA.
This is how they explain their mission:
Why we exist
To facilitate knowledge-exchange between media and academia
To enable interaction between and across newspeople and scholars
To comment on issues related to media and the academic study of media
To examine media coverage and academic analysis of key issues
To present political perspectives on media issues
24 January, 2008
Global media giants’ inroads continue, but there is no reverse traffic
World media giants are strengthening their hold on the Indian media. The latest entrant is NBC Universal, which has bought a 26 per cent stake in NDTV for $150 million.
According to Sreenath Sreenivasan, Profession at the Columbia Journalism School, news of the NBC investment in NDTV was first broken on January 2 by Rafat Ali on ContentSutra.com. (He describes it as “a must-read blog about the Indian media scene”. Rafat Ali also has “a must-read US blog”, named PaidContent.org, he says.)
According to The Hindu BusinessLine, announcing the strategic partnership with NDTV, Jeff Zucker, President and CEO, NBC Universal, told presspersons that NBC's goal to grow its business outside the US, and in particular India."India is one of the most important markets in the world and I think it will become more important in the months and years to come. This was another sign of our parent company, General Electric's commitment to India," said Zucker.
According to GE India's President and CEO, Mr Tejpreet Singh Chopra, the company was virtually evaluating all areas in the media space, and media would play a significant role in the company's growth plans for the country.
NDTV, which has a news channel (NDTV 24x7) and business channel (NDTV Profit), recently launched a general entertainment channel, NDTV Imagine.
Sreenath Sreenivasan notes that a day after the launch of Imagine, Prannoy Roy said, "India is a vibrant economy, alive and kicking, with a media scene that is way ahead of that of many developed countries."
Sreenivasan also quotes Peter Smith, President, NBC Universal International, as saying the $5-billion Indian TV market is growing at 16 per cent, and is expected to reach $9 billion in the next few years.
NBC’s deal with NDTV includes an option, exercisable in two years’ time, for it to increase its stake to 50 per cent in the joint venture company through which it will be investing.Other foreign media giants who have established presence on the Indian television scene are Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp (through the Star network, which includes a news channel and entertainment channels in English, Hindi and Tamil), CNBC (through TV 18, with channels in English and Hindi) and CNN through (through TV 18 and Indian Broadcast Network).
Sreenath Sreenivasan, who once worked as NDTV correspondent in New York, views NBC’s NDTV deal as “yet another sign how much interest there is in India and Indian media”. Says he: “I remember how difficult it was for me to get TV interviews for NDTV with political and business leaders in the early 90s. Few people cared about the media in India. That, of course, has changed a lot.”
Globalization permits two-way traffic, at least to a limited extent, and India happens to be one of the few countries equipped to ensure that traffic is not limited to one way. Indeed, several Indian businesses have taken advantage of the situation and established presence abroad. However, despite Prannoy Roy’s assertion about the strength of the Indian media scene, no domestic major has tried to establish even a toehold abroad.
Curiously, the only Indian newspapers that have ventured abroad are those rooted in some Indian language. Malayalam newspapers like Madhyamam and Malayala Manorama publish editions from more than one centre in the Gulf States. They are, of course, catering to migrant populations.
According to Sreenath Sreenivasan, Profession at the Columbia Journalism School, news of the NBC investment in NDTV was first broken on January 2 by Rafat Ali on ContentSutra.com. (He describes it as “a must-read blog about the Indian media scene”. Rafat Ali also has “a must-read US blog”, named PaidContent.org, he says.)
According to The Hindu BusinessLine, announcing the strategic partnership with NDTV, Jeff Zucker, President and CEO, NBC Universal, told presspersons that NBC's goal to grow its business outside the US, and in particular India."India is one of the most important markets in the world and I think it will become more important in the months and years to come. This was another sign of our parent company, General Electric's commitment to India," said Zucker.
According to GE India's President and CEO, Mr Tejpreet Singh Chopra, the company was virtually evaluating all areas in the media space, and media would play a significant role in the company's growth plans for the country.
NDTV, which has a news channel (NDTV 24x7) and business channel (NDTV Profit), recently launched a general entertainment channel, NDTV Imagine.
Sreenath Sreenivasan notes that a day after the launch of Imagine, Prannoy Roy said, "India is a vibrant economy, alive and kicking, with a media scene that is way ahead of that of many developed countries."
Sreenivasan also quotes Peter Smith, President, NBC Universal International, as saying the $5-billion Indian TV market is growing at 16 per cent, and is expected to reach $9 billion in the next few years.
NBC’s deal with NDTV includes an option, exercisable in two years’ time, for it to increase its stake to 50 per cent in the joint venture company through which it will be investing.Other foreign media giants who have established presence on the Indian television scene are Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp (through the Star network, which includes a news channel and entertainment channels in English, Hindi and Tamil), CNBC (through TV 18, with channels in English and Hindi) and CNN through (through TV 18 and Indian Broadcast Network).
Sreenath Sreenivasan, who once worked as NDTV correspondent in New York, views NBC’s NDTV deal as “yet another sign how much interest there is in India and Indian media”. Says he: “I remember how difficult it was for me to get TV interviews for NDTV with political and business leaders in the early 90s. Few people cared about the media in India. That, of course, has changed a lot.”
Globalization permits two-way traffic, at least to a limited extent, and India happens to be one of the few countries equipped to ensure that traffic is not limited to one way. Indeed, several Indian businesses have taken advantage of the situation and established presence abroad. However, despite Prannoy Roy’s assertion about the strength of the Indian media scene, no domestic major has tried to establish even a toehold abroad.
Curiously, the only Indian newspapers that have ventured abroad are those rooted in some Indian language. Malayalam newspapers like Madhyamam and Malayala Manorama publish editions from more than one centre in the Gulf States. They are, of course, catering to migrant populations.
19 January, 2008
Hooligans ransack NDTV office at Ahmedabad
A group of 15-20 people calling themselves the Hindu Samrajya Sena ransacked NDTV's office in Ahmedabad on Saturday for airing an SMS poll on Bharat Ratna with famous painter M F Husain as a contender.
See report at NDTV website.
See report at NDTV website.
16 December, 2007
An ill-advised move by the judiciary to curb media excesses
In an apparent attempt to set the parameters for “decent” investigative journalism, the Delhi High Court on Friday prohibited inducing of a person to commit an offence, which he is not known or likely to commit, and shooting it on camera as a "sting operation".
It also asked the government to consider the setting up of a panel, with members drawn from the government and the police, to clear stings before telecast.The told media houses to prohibit reporters from producing or airing any programme, which is based on entrapment of an individual or "fabricated, intrusive and sensitive".
"The media is not to test individuals by putting them through what one might call the 'inducement test' and portray it as a scoop that has uncovered a hidden or concealed truth," a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. K. Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Khanna said."No doubt the media is well within its rightful domain when it seeks to use tools of investigative journalism to bring us face to face with the ugly underbelly of the society..." the court said.”However, it is not permissible for the media to entice and try to actively induce an individual into committing an offence which otherwise he is not known and likely to commit."
In this context, the court referred to an instance of "inducement"drawn from mythology: "Sage Vishwamitra succumbed to the enchantment of Maneka".
The bench was giving its ruling on suo motu cognisance of a fake sting done on a government teacher, Uma Khurana, by Live India news channel in August 2007, which led to mob violence and physical violence against her.The court wanted the Press Council of India to take the initiative todraw up a "self-regulatory code of conduct" in this regard until the Ministry of Broadcasting finally draws up a statute.
"False and fabricated sting operations directly infringing upon a person's right to privacy should not recur because of desire to earn more and to have higher TRP ratings," it observed. "Regulation of electronic media has always invoked sharp and divergent views with emotive and logical pleas and counter arguments. We are informed that the Ministry has invited suggestions from the general public, including the media on a proposed Broadcasting Bill and Code of Conduct. A decision in this regard has to be taken by the government," the court noted.It directed the Ministry to consider a series of 12 guidelines recommended by A. S. Chandhok, who had assisted it as amicus curiae, while drafting the law to provide for prior grant of permission to a media house or channel from a committee appointed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
"Permission to telecast sting operation will be granted by the committee after satisfying itself that it is in (the) public interest to telecast the same. This safeguard is necessary since those who mount a sting operation themselves commit the offences of impersonation, criminal trespass under false pretence and making a person commit an offence," the court quoted from the guidelines submitted by the amicus.The panel, as per the guidelines, will be headed by a retired High Court Judge to be appointed by the government in consultation with the High Court and two members, one of which ought to be a person not below the rank of Additional secretary and second one being the Additional Commissioner of Police. In case of persons other than employees of the channel or media houses conducting the sting, the guidelines propose that the telecaster should obtain a certificate from the person who recorded the sting certifying that the operation was genuine to his knowledge.
In the particular case, the bench said Khurana, who was dismissed from government service as a fall-out of the sting, had "enough grounds and material to file a case for causing damage to her reputation" against the news channel. "Damages in accordance with the law can be awarded by the court in case of defamation and loss of reputation," it said, adding that it was left open to the Delhi Government to reconsider through an appropriate forum her dismissal from service.
The following are the amicus curiae's suggestions:
•If sting is outsourced, get certificate saying contents authentic
•Maintain record in writing on sting
•Committee headed by ex-HC judge to clear sting
•Unedited, edited tapes to be submitted to panel
•Avoid shocking, offending audience
•Chief Editor of channel to be responsible for self-regulation
•Compliance with Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995
•Should not invade personal or private affairs, or create public panic or offend religious feelings.•Ensure accuracy
•Observe community standards of decency
The Editors Guild of India said the High Court’s suggestions would introduce “a draconian, judicially-backed Emergency by the back door”. While expressing total agreement on the need for stringent pre-telecast self-regulatory and internal checks in news organizations, it said the remedy suggested by the court was a deadly one.
The High Court’s ruling is ill-advised. There is certainly need to regulate sting operations. This must be done by the media itself. Intrusion of any external agency in the area will be an infringement of media freedom. The Live India story, as we know, was not based on a genuine sting operation. It involved breach of the law, and must be dealt with as such.
It also asked the government to consider the setting up of a panel, with members drawn from the government and the police, to clear stings before telecast.The told media houses to prohibit reporters from producing or airing any programme, which is based on entrapment of an individual or "fabricated, intrusive and sensitive".
"The media is not to test individuals by putting them through what one might call the 'inducement test' and portray it as a scoop that has uncovered a hidden or concealed truth," a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. K. Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Khanna said."No doubt the media is well within its rightful domain when it seeks to use tools of investigative journalism to bring us face to face with the ugly underbelly of the society..." the court said.”However, it is not permissible for the media to entice and try to actively induce an individual into committing an offence which otherwise he is not known and likely to commit."
In this context, the court referred to an instance of "inducement"drawn from mythology: "Sage Vishwamitra succumbed to the enchantment of Maneka".
The bench was giving its ruling on suo motu cognisance of a fake sting done on a government teacher, Uma Khurana, by Live India news channel in August 2007, which led to mob violence and physical violence against her.The court wanted the Press Council of India to take the initiative todraw up a "self-regulatory code of conduct" in this regard until the Ministry of Broadcasting finally draws up a statute.
"False and fabricated sting operations directly infringing upon a person's right to privacy should not recur because of desire to earn more and to have higher TRP ratings," it observed. "Regulation of electronic media has always invoked sharp and divergent views with emotive and logical pleas and counter arguments. We are informed that the Ministry has invited suggestions from the general public, including the media on a proposed Broadcasting Bill and Code of Conduct. A decision in this regard has to be taken by the government," the court noted.It directed the Ministry to consider a series of 12 guidelines recommended by A. S. Chandhok, who had assisted it as amicus curiae, while drafting the law to provide for prior grant of permission to a media house or channel from a committee appointed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
"Permission to telecast sting operation will be granted by the committee after satisfying itself that it is in (the) public interest to telecast the same. This safeguard is necessary since those who mount a sting operation themselves commit the offences of impersonation, criminal trespass under false pretence and making a person commit an offence," the court quoted from the guidelines submitted by the amicus.The panel, as per the guidelines, will be headed by a retired High Court Judge to be appointed by the government in consultation with the High Court and two members, one of which ought to be a person not below the rank of Additional secretary and second one being the Additional Commissioner of Police. In case of persons other than employees of the channel or media houses conducting the sting, the guidelines propose that the telecaster should obtain a certificate from the person who recorded the sting certifying that the operation was genuine to his knowledge.
In the particular case, the bench said Khurana, who was dismissed from government service as a fall-out of the sting, had "enough grounds and material to file a case for causing damage to her reputation" against the news channel. "Damages in accordance with the law can be awarded by the court in case of defamation and loss of reputation," it said, adding that it was left open to the Delhi Government to reconsider through an appropriate forum her dismissal from service.
The following are the amicus curiae's suggestions:
•If sting is outsourced, get certificate saying contents authentic
•Maintain record in writing on sting
•Committee headed by ex-HC judge to clear sting
•Unedited, edited tapes to be submitted to panel
•Avoid shocking, offending audience
•Chief Editor of channel to be responsible for self-regulation
•Compliance with Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995
•Should not invade personal or private affairs, or create public panic or offend religious feelings.•Ensure accuracy
•Observe community standards of decency
The Editors Guild of India said the High Court’s suggestions would introduce “a draconian, judicially-backed Emergency by the back door”. While expressing total agreement on the need for stringent pre-telecast self-regulatory and internal checks in news organizations, it said the remedy suggested by the court was a deadly one.
The High Court’s ruling is ill-advised. There is certainly need to regulate sting operations. This must be done by the media itself. Intrusion of any external agency in the area will be an infringement of media freedom. The Live India story, as we know, was not based on a genuine sting operation. It involved breach of the law, and must be dealt with as such.
25 September, 2007
Indian judiciary's contempt for accountability and scrutiny is a shame, says ALRC
The following is the test of a Statement issued by the Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong, on September 25, 2007
THE Delhi High Court on September 21, 2007 sentenced the editor, the resident editor, the publisher and the cartoonist of English daily Mid-Day guilty in a contempt of court case. The charge against the convicted journalists was that they published a report and a cartoon concerning the former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal. The report and the cartoon were published after Mr. Sabharwal retired from service.
The report, relying upon documentary evidence, alleged that the judge's two sons Mr. Chetan and Mr. Nitin had made material benefits out of their father's position in the Indian judiciary as a senior judge and also as the Chief Justice of the country. The report alleged that the judge’s sons managed their business from their father's official residence at 6 Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi. The report further alleged that the Chetan and Nitin also availed huge loans from a nationalised bank in favour of their business concerns without providing adequate collateral security. There were also allegations that the judge's two sons were allotted prime land by the Uttar Pradesh state government with heavy price concessions, an act which was under investigation. The investigation was however stayed later by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India is known for using the constitutional mandate and authority to initiate actions of public interest. The court in the past has even taken note of newspaper reports to initiate suo motu actions against suspected breach of law and misuse of office by public servants. This earnestness and enthusiasm has not been thus far reflected in the Indian courts' approach against scrutinising the activities of the courts and its judges. On the contrary, the Indian courts have been very parochial in its approach in facing criticism.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India had forced Mr. Vijay Shekhar, a journalist with a television news channel, who exposed the caucus of a corrupt magistrate, his court staff and some lawyers in Gujarat state in the "Warrants for Cash" scam to apologise to the court or to face a term in jail for contempt of court. The court staff and the lawyers were caught on camera negotiating and accepting bribe for the magistrate for issuing arrest warrants. In the episode which was telecast nationwide, the magistrate after accepting bribes, issued arrest warrants on false charges against the President of India and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court took up the matter and directed the Gujarat High Court to initiate an internal enquiry against the concerned judicial officer and his staff. The judge was however absolved by the Gujarat High Court without examining the complainants. Thereafter, the Supreme Court of India condemned the journalist who had carried out this operation and threatened to send him to jail for contempt unless he apologised.
The conviction and sentencing of journalists of Mid-Day for publishing information about the conduct of Mr. Sabharwal has brought to the fore the issue of judicial accountability. The Indian judiciary is one of the most powerful judiciaries of the world. The conduct of the judiciary has a direct impact upon the life of the ordinary people of the country. It is imperative in these circumstances that a state institution of such high powers must be transparent and accountable for its actions. The courts in India have however consistently avoided calls for accountability despite there being many instances of serious allegations of misconduct and misdemeanour. At one time Justice S. P. Bharucha, former Chief Justice of India, admitted that about 20 percent of the higher judiciary in India is corrupt. According to Justice Michael Saldahna of the Karnataka High Court it is 33 per cent. Despite there being such admissions, no enquiry has ever been initiated against any judge for past 15 years.
Under the Constitution of India, the only way to remove a judge from the High Court or the Supreme Court is by way of impeachment. This constitutional provision has failed miserably. Its ineffectiveness was clearly demonstrated in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami. At the same time, despite verbal homilies, the courts and judges have been the most reluctant to evolve even a self-monitoring mechanism for accountability. Such a situation has caused enormous arrogance and abuse of power.
This is reflected in the procedure adopted for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary as well. Even though the appointment is made by the President of India, the selection is made by the collegium of judges. The selection process is non-transparent and all attempts to make the process transparent have been resisted by the judiciary thus far.
Demanding judicial accountability has almost certainly caused initiation of contempt proceedings, thereby, stifling of free discussion on the issues plaguing the judiciary in India. Unwarranted use of contempt of court proceedings in fact diminishes the public perception about the judiciary's openness and transparency, of which the case against the Mid-Day publishing house is the latest.
There are judicial systems within Asia which are considered to be failed beyond the point of recovery. Of this, the most glaring example is the judiciary in Sri Lanka, which is now facing criticism on all counts including politicisation of the judiciary to meet the ends of a corrupt Chief Justice. The Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, an infamous figure in the country, is feared for abusing contempt of court proceedings against anyone who opposes his questionable actions.
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has now stooped down to a stage where public perception about the impartiality of the court and its competency to decide matters on merits is at an all time low. As a result the general public views the courts in Sri Lanka as a failed state apparatus which in fact adds to the decades long ethnic conflict in that country.
The term democracy implies the notion that the people are supreme. All state institutions, whether it be the judiciary, legislature or the executive are merely the servants of the people. The basic principle behind the contempt of court proceedings is that the use of this authority by the court must be only in circumstances where otherwise the functioning of the court is impossible or obstructed.
In India under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the term 'contempt' is not defined. Therefore if any person makes adverse comments against the court or a judge, the power to punish for "scandalising the court…" is frequently invoked. This approach is considered obscure in most established jurisdictions.
The contempt of court action must not be an attempt to protect the dignity of the court, but to promote the administration of justice. The dignity of the court is promoted by the court being humble enough to face criticism, whereas promotion of justice is to be carried out by removing all hindrances in the delivery of justice. By the unrestrained use of contempt of court actions the courts in India are in fact derogating from their duty to safeguard the Constitution of the country, which also guarantees freedom of speech and expression in Article 19 (1).
The honour of the judge and the judiciary - a state institution through which a judge is supposed to serve the people - is promoted and protected by the openness of the judge and the judiciary to face any criticism. Intolerance to scrutiny and lack of openness equates the judge and the judiciary with a dictator.
At this pace the Indian judiciary once known for its eloquence and its contribution to the advancement of free thought and expression will soon be reduced to an egotistical institution. Such a judiciary is definitely not what modern India aspires for. India as of today requires a transparent, accountable and sensitive judiciary.
The imperatives for the judiciary in India are obvious. It has a duty to protect, promote and fulfil the Constitutional guarantees. The judiciary must be open and transparent with a clear conscience that it is not beyond criticism. For this, it must be accountable to the people, which it is bound to serve. The judiciary in India is the last hope of a fragmented society, which when fails to respect its responsibilities, will soon bring insurmountable peril to the country and its people.
# # #
About ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at local and national levels throughout Asia.
THE Delhi High Court on September 21, 2007 sentenced the editor, the resident editor, the publisher and the cartoonist of English daily Mid-Day guilty in a contempt of court case. The charge against the convicted journalists was that they published a report and a cartoon concerning the former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal. The report and the cartoon were published after Mr. Sabharwal retired from service.
The report, relying upon documentary evidence, alleged that the judge's two sons Mr. Chetan and Mr. Nitin had made material benefits out of their father's position in the Indian judiciary as a senior judge and also as the Chief Justice of the country. The report alleged that the judge’s sons managed their business from their father's official residence at 6 Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi. The report further alleged that the Chetan and Nitin also availed huge loans from a nationalised bank in favour of their business concerns without providing adequate collateral security. There were also allegations that the judge's two sons were allotted prime land by the Uttar Pradesh state government with heavy price concessions, an act which was under investigation. The investigation was however stayed later by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India is known for using the constitutional mandate and authority to initiate actions of public interest. The court in the past has even taken note of newspaper reports to initiate suo motu actions against suspected breach of law and misuse of office by public servants. This earnestness and enthusiasm has not been thus far reflected in the Indian courts' approach against scrutinising the activities of the courts and its judges. On the contrary, the Indian courts have been very parochial in its approach in facing criticism.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India had forced Mr. Vijay Shekhar, a journalist with a television news channel, who exposed the caucus of a corrupt magistrate, his court staff and some lawyers in Gujarat state in the "Warrants for Cash" scam to apologise to the court or to face a term in jail for contempt of court. The court staff and the lawyers were caught on camera negotiating and accepting bribe for the magistrate for issuing arrest warrants. In the episode which was telecast nationwide, the magistrate after accepting bribes, issued arrest warrants on false charges against the President of India and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court took up the matter and directed the Gujarat High Court to initiate an internal enquiry against the concerned judicial officer and his staff. The judge was however absolved by the Gujarat High Court without examining the complainants. Thereafter, the Supreme Court of India condemned the journalist who had carried out this operation and threatened to send him to jail for contempt unless he apologised.
The conviction and sentencing of journalists of Mid-Day for publishing information about the conduct of Mr. Sabharwal has brought to the fore the issue of judicial accountability. The Indian judiciary is one of the most powerful judiciaries of the world. The conduct of the judiciary has a direct impact upon the life of the ordinary people of the country. It is imperative in these circumstances that a state institution of such high powers must be transparent and accountable for its actions. The courts in India have however consistently avoided calls for accountability despite there being many instances of serious allegations of misconduct and misdemeanour. At one time Justice S. P. Bharucha, former Chief Justice of India, admitted that about 20 percent of the higher judiciary in India is corrupt. According to Justice Michael Saldahna of the Karnataka High Court it is 33 per cent. Despite there being such admissions, no enquiry has ever been initiated against any judge for past 15 years.
Under the Constitution of India, the only way to remove a judge from the High Court or the Supreme Court is by way of impeachment. This constitutional provision has failed miserably. Its ineffectiveness was clearly demonstrated in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami. At the same time, despite verbal homilies, the courts and judges have been the most reluctant to evolve even a self-monitoring mechanism for accountability. Such a situation has caused enormous arrogance and abuse of power.
This is reflected in the procedure adopted for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary as well. Even though the appointment is made by the President of India, the selection is made by the collegium of judges. The selection process is non-transparent and all attempts to make the process transparent have been resisted by the judiciary thus far.
Demanding judicial accountability has almost certainly caused initiation of contempt proceedings, thereby, stifling of free discussion on the issues plaguing the judiciary in India. Unwarranted use of contempt of court proceedings in fact diminishes the public perception about the judiciary's openness and transparency, of which the case against the Mid-Day publishing house is the latest.
There are judicial systems within Asia which are considered to be failed beyond the point of recovery. Of this, the most glaring example is the judiciary in Sri Lanka, which is now facing criticism on all counts including politicisation of the judiciary to meet the ends of a corrupt Chief Justice. The Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, an infamous figure in the country, is feared for abusing contempt of court proceedings against anyone who opposes his questionable actions.
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has now stooped down to a stage where public perception about the impartiality of the court and its competency to decide matters on merits is at an all time low. As a result the general public views the courts in Sri Lanka as a failed state apparatus which in fact adds to the decades long ethnic conflict in that country.
The term democracy implies the notion that the people are supreme. All state institutions, whether it be the judiciary, legislature or the executive are merely the servants of the people. The basic principle behind the contempt of court proceedings is that the use of this authority by the court must be only in circumstances where otherwise the functioning of the court is impossible or obstructed.
In India under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the term 'contempt' is not defined. Therefore if any person makes adverse comments against the court or a judge, the power to punish for "scandalising the court…" is frequently invoked. This approach is considered obscure in most established jurisdictions.
The contempt of court action must not be an attempt to protect the dignity of the court, but to promote the administration of justice. The dignity of the court is promoted by the court being humble enough to face criticism, whereas promotion of justice is to be carried out by removing all hindrances in the delivery of justice. By the unrestrained use of contempt of court actions the courts in India are in fact derogating from their duty to safeguard the Constitution of the country, which also guarantees freedom of speech and expression in Article 19 (1).
The honour of the judge and the judiciary - a state institution through which a judge is supposed to serve the people - is promoted and protected by the openness of the judge and the judiciary to face any criticism. Intolerance to scrutiny and lack of openness equates the judge and the judiciary with a dictator.
At this pace the Indian judiciary once known for its eloquence and its contribution to the advancement of free thought and expression will soon be reduced to an egotistical institution. Such a judiciary is definitely not what modern India aspires for. India as of today requires a transparent, accountable and sensitive judiciary.
The imperatives for the judiciary in India are obvious. It has a duty to protect, promote and fulfil the Constitutional guarantees. The judiciary must be open and transparent with a clear conscience that it is not beyond criticism. For this, it must be accountable to the people, which it is bound to serve. The judiciary in India is the last hope of a fragmented society, which when fails to respect its responsibilities, will soon bring insurmountable peril to the country and its people.
# # #
About ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at local and national levels throughout Asia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)