No need for a censor

The publicity given to the reported use of social networking sites like Facebook in consolidating public opinion against the government in Egypt seems to have made even the government of Democratic India nervous. So much so that Union Minister Kapil Sibal was authorised to hold a meeting with the top executives of these sites asking them to edit (a more realistic word is censor) offensive references to the Congress leadership on these sites. Fortunately, the executives did not entertain his request and the government has not succeeded in its vain, and admittedly stupid attempt, to control internet content.

It is true that there is a side to the web that is vulgar and ugly. Obscenity, pornography, communalism, racism, sheer nastiness can all be found in cyber space. At the same time, however, the internet is being overtaken by humour, great music, clever videos, irreverent and often valid criticism of political leaders as well as free and frank debate. 

There are any number of sites carrying news analysis, comments and reports on all possible issues that bring invaluable depth to discourse. In fact it has become the alternative to the mainstream, the last being controlled by the Indian government and the first finally finding an outlet for free and democratic expression.

People in troubled areas like Jammu and Kashmir, and the north east, are increasingly using the internet to pour out their problems, as are democratic forces in the rest of India. This clearly has become a source of worry for the government not just here but in other countries like China, that want to muzzle free opinion and do not look at criticism as a wake up call. Laws are formulated and exercised to curb democratic voices with a free print and television media being at best an illusion. News is blocked out on a daily basis but now those at the receiving end of state arrogance have moved to the internet sites with the result that while information might occasionally be delayed, it is certainly no longer denied.

According to reports India has a 100 million internet users, third only to China and the United States. Facebook, Twitter and Google are all amazing expressions of freedom with individuals having the facility of blocking out the offensive. 

One can only hope that good sense has dawned and the government has realised that interference of this kind is neither judicious nor welcome. One hopes that instead of imposing restraints, the government imbibes the democratic spirit of India to encourage a free and fair information flow.

Katju has a point

The war of words between the new Press Council of India chairman Justice Markandey Katju and various media organisations is unfortunate. Justice Katju’s criticism of the media would have been wholesome had he refrained from voicing his desire to acquire controlling authority of a kind that is not acceptable to journalists and their organisations. However, at the same time the media bodies would have done well to take some of the criticism on board for a deep introspection of the misuse of power, and the failure to inform as an impartial watchdog of the Indian democracy. Instead the media decided to lock horn with the former Judge, and willfully throw out the baby with the bath water.

Many of us must be wondering why in the elite drawing rooms of Delhi we are not hearing an equally loud condemnation of Justice Katju and his rather brash views. It is simply because the general public is secretly rather happy about the criticism, as they are fed up of a media that distorts the truth, resorts to sensationalism, and has little respect for sobriety and facts. And some of this evident in the personalised attack on the Judge whose demand for a regulatory authority to curb in some of the channels posing as news television, needs serious consideration.

At the same time the Judge must realise that as the PCI chairman he is dealing with the media that has been ultra sensitive about its freedom since the dark days of the Emergency. Hence, the words and phrases of a courtroom will have to be tempered, and issues put on the table for discussion without unbridled rhetoric raising hackles. He is right in arguing that the Press Council, currently a redundant body, should have some more teeth but how sharp these should be, can only be determined in consultation with journalists. Currently the PCI can only admonish and censure, the powers being far out of tune with the increasing violations of basic ethical norms.

However, apart from the question of authority the entire structure of the Press Council needs to be examined and perhaps, overhauled. It has become a defunct body and needs a larger representation of journalists and editors. More powers cannot be possible if these rest only in the one government appointee, the chairman, but can be looked at if the PCI is brought under a board of eminent persons with a say in related matters.
It is, thus, important for both sides to withdraw from the brink and instead of grand standing use the opportunity to see what can be done to make the media more accountable and ethical without government control..

Let’s clean it up

The professional media was always very shy of the word “I”. Across the world editors cautioned reporters against this, pointing out that their job was to communicate the news, inform the people, and not ever, ever try to become more important than the story itself. So, if reporters were beaten up by the police, or if they were hurt in a mob or in the line of duty, the newspaper would protest, would ensure action quietly, but would not make a hero of the individual as s/he was merely doing what s/he was in place to do. In fact, one entered the profession towards the end of a major internal debate between editors who felt that reporters should not be given bylines as this would take away from the story, and others who insisted that the facelessness was a deterrent and a byline ensured a certain responsibility. Eventually the debate settled in favour of the latter view, as reporters floated automatically towards newspapers who did away with complete anonymity.

The advent made all this appear obsolete as the first few channels launched in Delhi decided to turn reporters into stars. The advertisements, the coverage of news, the discussions were all made to revolve around the individual whose views, tears, anger, excitement made the news as much as the story itself. So viewers, with the enthusiasm of the new voyeurs, spoke more of a particular television reporter/anchor’s histrionics than about the story the person had set out to cover. This trend was strengthened over the years, with reporters on television becoming unabashed campaigners. Like the Bollywood movies, many of the television news channels turn news into drama, making it impossible for the viewers to sift between the facts and the disinformation.

BBC is one of the few television channels that tries to maintain the difference, with the result that much of its coverage is seen as professional and authentic. Fox News that seems to have become the model for most of the Indian news channels offends all sensibilities and carries out campaigns that often transcend the lines between fact and fiction, as happened during the “embedded” coverage of the US invasion of Iraq. This trend is dangerous as it takes away from the credibility of the media, with its efficacy as a watch dog sadly dented.

It is therefore, imperative to restore the credibility of the media by addressing the long list of issues that seem to have stalled its growth as the fourth pillar of democracy in this country. 

This can only be done by the media itself, with bodies like the Editors Guild perhaps, taking the lead to initiate a debate, and action to restore news to a self generated and protected pedestal. There is a great deal to clean within, and perhaps a start can be made to make the story more important than the reporter/anchor once again.

Hysteria on display

Is the media a communicator, a reporter or a campaigner? Is it necessary for anchors to shout to communicate? Should opinion cross into news, or remain confined to the editorial and opinion pages? These and many more questions are raised from time to time, particularly these days when the lines are so blurred that the role of the media comes automatically under scrutiny.

The coverage of the Anna Hazare movement against corruption was one such issue where television channels turned into campaigners, and news bulletins were consumed by the ageing Gandhian’s fast. There was little – in fact nothing – of what was happening in the rest of India and the world as the channels and their anchors focused on Anna Hazare through the day and the night. TRP ratings – that are perhaps the sole motivating force behind television – of those channels that were unabashedly campaigning for Anna Hazare rose dramatically, justifying the coverage and the campaign for the owners of the 24-hour news channels.

The question, which has induced chatter in many a drawing room since, is whether Anna Hazare has been a creation of the media, or whether the media simply reported the movement as it was. To turn this on its head for a better understanding, perhaps the question one should ask is: if Hazare’s fast had been taken up as just one of the main stories of the day, along with the other news (Libya, Kashmir) that was breaking at the time, would he have become as big an icon? In my view, yes, he would have as good sober reporting of the movement would have interested viewers, and drawn the crowds regardless. 

In fact, the hysterical anchoring was a put-off and gave sufficient fodder to those seeking to belittle the popular response to Anna Hazare. Sober reporting – of the fast, of the government’s panicky manoeuvres, of the people’s response, all put together – would have generated the same level of support for the movement against corruption. It would have also saved the media from the serious accusation of becoming TRP motivated campaigners, with the strength of free and fair reportage adding to the strength of the media per se. News bulletins were instead dispensed with, and the screaming debates on television did not really add to Anna Hazare’s stature; rather, in some ways, took away from it.

It is important for the television channels to realise that nothing attracts more than unbiased reportage of news. Discussions can be organised around the top stories, with the participants allowed their share of time and space. Reporters/anchors are there to present the story, not to try and become the story themselves. When this defining line is blurred, news becomes manipulation and facts are distorted leading the media to tread on extremely dangerous ground. Media Watch organised a discussion recently, seeking to answer some of the questions raised here. Excerpts from the discussion are carried in this issue.. 

Lessons to learn...

It was a joy to see the so called media moghul Rupert Murdoch, his son James and their chief executive Rebekah Brooks grovel before the House of Commons media committee. Rubert Murdoch described it as the most “humble” day of his life, while all three tried to soft talk the British lawmakers into believing their innocence.

The answers were for the most part vague, and for those of us in the profession it is impossible to believe that payments were made to private investigators, and sensational stories published with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks being in the loop. The old man might not be aware of the finer details. But that dirty journalism was undertaken by his media group of course is beyond doubt. Rebekah Brooks at the hearing maintained that everyone else on Fleet Street was doing the same, but that does not take away from the fact that News of the World had crossed all ethical boundaries. Particularly when it hacked into and deleted voice mails of the kidnapped British school girl, subsequently killed, without informing the authorities. Her relatives thought she was alive, and the police was completely thrown off the track. Dirty, sordid journalism at its worst.

Of course the Murdochs and Brooks did the usual round of apologies at the hearing. And kept insisting that they did not know, in responses to fairly penetrating questions from the MPs. Murdoch has set up a media ‘empire’ and as the international television channels reported, Prime Ministers went up to meet him rather than the other way around.

India should learn from the Murdoch experience, as corporate monopolies over news are being encouraged and supported by the political class here. The moment any one particular business family starts dominating media vehicles of varying forms and kinds, the result could well be that news becomes censored at the onset. The fact that the corporate houses are dependent on sympathetic governments also lends a slant to the news that projects what suits both, and blacks out the inconvenient. This censorship is sinister and dangerous, as it takes away from the democratic space that should remain freely available to the people of this country, particularly the poor and the marginalised.

This is not to paint the entire media with the same brush- there are so many notable exceptions. But to point out that unless there is serious introspection and remedial action by the media and the public – note, not the government – the ailment will become a terminal disease with the Indian democracy being robbed of an invaluable pillar and watchdog. 

Why journalists are the soft targets...

A senior crime reporter, well known in all circles as a honest, hardworking journalist, is murdered in broad daylight. And all that the Mumbai police and the state home minister have to offer till date is conjecture and theories. Despite a series of arrests, it is clear from reports that the police are not at all close to cracking the case. Journalists, thus, cannot be excused for asking hard questions and floating conspiracy theories that name the powerful and the influential as having a stake in J. Dey’s death.

In India it is becoming increasingly common to kill the messenger. Journalists with a nose for the news often dig up uncomfortable facts and are killed or beaten with impunity. Their killers are rarely caught with the result that journalists are now increasingly at risk if their stories penetrate deep into the dark world of the underground. The Dey murder must be solved convincingly, and the guilty brought to task to ensure some levels of safety for journalists across the country. The Mumbai police seem quite unequal to the task, and it is time for the case to be passed to the CBI, not that it has crowned itself with glory in the recent past.

Journalists covering conflict and crime do so at their own risk. Unlike the major foreign newspapers that ensure that a journalist in a conflict zone is well equipped with bullet proof jacket and related paraphernalia, in India the reporter is on the job without even insurance cover! He is very much on his own as the pictures coming out from conflict zones like Jammu and Kashmir reveal. The journalists employed by big media houses in the Valley are reporting amidst gunfire without even a helmet on their heads. It is, therefore, imperative for journalists to come together and step up the pressure not just on governments and political parties, but also on the industrial houses running newspapers and television channels to implement basic safety norms for journalists sent out to cover conflict and violence. Reporters breaking sensitive stories should be given full support, which is not happening right now. Proprietors should make it clear to the local authorities that the reporter has their full backing, and is not alone. This does not always happen.

There is a move by the Maharashtra government to use Dey’s murder to bring in a legislation ostensibly for the safety of journalists. The issue is not the lack of laws, but the cover up operation that usually follows such deaths. For instance till date, the murder weapon that killed Dey has not been sent for forensic examination. Why?

The media to be free has to be safe. And to ensure the safety of the reporter both the government and the proprietors have to come together to create an atmosphere where no one dares hit a journalist, for fear of dire consequences. 

Now, it’s the ‘D’ Company in India

Akey lesson hammered into us during graduate studies was that distribution is the key to marketing success. We were asked to pore over copious case studies where companies with strong distribution networks lorded it over the market place. The more I interact with people in the media industry, particularly electronic, the more I am getting convinced about the importance of distribution. Quite simply, if you do not have the D-muscle, you will simply not survive the brutal competition, no matter how slick and smart your content, packaging and anchors are. TV industry in India is littered with examples of great projects dying unsung because distribution became a weakness than strength.

There are at least 500+ channels competing for eyeballs in India. If you really want to be ‘seen’ and not be invisible, you will have to be in at least the priority list of the top 100 channels of cable operators who still control more than 80% of access to households with TV sets. In a majority of Indian households, the most number of channels that can be seen on the set rarely exceeds. That gives a lot of clout to the cable operators and even the DTH operators who can show much more than 100 channels. Since this is simple demand and supply economics, owners and promoters of TV channels have to pay more and more money to cable and DTH operators. This is known as carriage fees, which has become the most worrisome cost element for TV channels. The absolute minimum that you need to spend a year to stay visible is upwards of Rs 20 crore. Many channels that want a genuine pan Indian footprint often have to set aside about Rs 50 crore a year. This has completely unhinged the economics of the TV industry in India. Firstly, you have to have very deep pockets without any guarantee of returns. Secondly, you have to have a ‘bouquet’ of channels so that you have at least some bargaining power with MSOs, cable and DTH operators. Not many can do that and hence,  you have a peculiar situation in India where the number of channels keep mushrooming even as the industry moves towards consolidation, mergers, takeovers and failures. At a recent Zee Turner-Star Den JV announcement, Puneet Goenka stated that the Zee-Star distribution fight cost the industry more than $10 billion! For a stand-alone TV channel, it is extremely difficult to solve the distribution dilemma. The other problem then is that TV channels – both in the entertainment and news genre – have much less money to invest in better programmes and quality content. In fact, many seniors in the business with whom I interact say that news channels simply do not have the money to invest in great current affairs programmes because most of it has been sucked away as carriage fees.

Will the arrival of convergence make a drastic change to this unhappy and unsustainable scenario? I am afraid, not in the immediate future!.