Are we giving the press too much independence for our own good?

News of the World and the Phone Hacking Scandal

Are we giving the press too much independence for our own good?

The concept of “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Expression” are two basic principles enshrined in our country’s constitution. These principles are constitutionally guaranteed in almost all nations of the free world and are recognized by the United Nations as “inalienable human rights”.

While governments of free countries throughout the world make It their mission and habit to extend these principles of free speech to countries around the world that do not recognize these rights as fundamental to the existence of their citizens, we as citizens of the free world must also ponder around the question “Are we giving too much leeway to the media?” in our own backyards on the basis of these very principles of “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Expression”.

The answer to that question has always been a contentious one in free societies around the world. While it is generally believed that censorship is something that is eventually detrimental to the interests of society, the question I (and people like me) pose is whether there should be curtailment at times on the media’s power when interests of the public can be threatened by such a freewheeling press.

Like I pointed out earlier, these questions have been there for a long time and have always have been a rather controversial issue. But I am raising these questions in the light of the recent Phone Hacking Scandal in the United Kingdom. It has been alleged that the editors of the 160 plus year old tabloid News of the World (owned by Rupert Murdoch) had authorized private detectives and investigators to hack the phones of rape and murder victims, children victims of pedophilia, victims of the 7/7 London Bombings and even families of soldiers who had died fighting for their country in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This piece of news has just gone so viral in the public in the last few days that the British House of Commons (equivalent of India’s Lok Sabha) called a special discussion on the issue with major parties (the ruling Conservative-Lib Dem coalition) and the opposition Labour Party going at each other’s throats. British politics, being how it is today cannot be predicted as regarding to the specific actions they will take against this whole situation. But “censorship” remains a taboo word in Britain which has one of the freest presses in the western world.

The British PM has guaranteed that the guilty will be brought to justice. But, he made an even deeper point. He said in the House of Commons that the media industry has become used to these kinds of questionable tactics in the hunt for publicity of their papers in what is a highly competitive environment. Former Labour Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott made clear in an interview with the BBC on July 7th (ironically the sixth anniversary of the London Bombings of 2005) that he has produced evidence in collaboration with British intelligence about the involvement of 300 odd reporters of different media houses that have been involved in such questionable and invasive techniques to garner information for “cheap publicity”. The politicians, I believe will love going after the media for once this time rather than the usual other way round scenario.

But the happenings in Britain are in my humble opinion a warning signal for all free governments in the world that give the media a free hand in reporting basically anything (including unfounded doubts and rumours about people which may tarnish their reputation without any of their wrong doing). While “censorship” is too heavy a word to use in given its association with repression, there has to be a way in which the media can reined in to behave in a more civilized manner. The threat of media as a blackmail tool against people who have done no wrong needs to be stopped while at the same time its edges need to be sharpened against people who are involved in activities which are in essence against social good (corrupt politicians, the evil side of business and commerce etc.). That is what an ideal media organization is supposed to do anyway. It is the premise on which any media organization is found upon. If they don’t behave that way, isn’t it the job of the public to enforce their “moral constitution”?

The media will most likely scoff at these suggestions. But as an old saying goes “Too much of anything is a bad thing.” That includes too much independence.

The process of reining the “freewheeling” press has to be decided in a democratic manner with something like a joint government-media-civil society body debating and deciding as to basically “where the line should be drawn?” Such a debate and democratic decision process in itself signifies that it is not media censorship but rather “civilization of the media”.

All this internal restructuring of media rights and duties should not at the same time become a detriment to the free world’s major cause of promoting free speech in the repressed and less fortunate parts of the world that really suffer from some or the other form of censorship of individual freedom and expression.

I would like to hear the views of the readers on this issue as I think it is something everyone will have an opinion on. You have the “Freedom to Speak”!!!

Mitul Choksi

July 8th 2011

Ahmedabad, Republic of India