Politics, they say in India, is the worst of all evils. Yet, it is considered to be a necessary evil. Indian democracy though seeming almost always in disarray is one of the biggest reasons for our nation’s physical, intellectual and economic strength. Even the harshest critics of our political system would agree with that.
What I said about politics above would also be applicable to the Indian media. It is a key pillar of our democracy which is enshrined by the basic right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is a vital organ of a vibrant democracy. But, it too appears to be completely in shambles riddled with more or less the same problems that our government is facing. Infighting, propagation of baseless claims against almost anyone, extreme polarization, bullying in the form of blackmail by what some label as the “media mafia” and “paid” (read corrupt and mostly incorrect) news for select political or business entities. These are some of the myriad sets of problems plaguing the media today.
What can be done to alleviate these problems? A simple answer to this question in my opinion would be to have a independent media regulator in this country. Now, we do have existing regulators for the media but these regulators are practically arms of Information & Broadcasting (I&B) ministry and therefore are clearly not independent in any sense of the word.
What the media requires is something more on the lines of what the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is for the banking sector. The RBI is a statutory body established by an act of parliament which is totally independent from the government and free to make its own decisions in relation to its primary objective of regulating the banks and inflation targeting. Yes, I know some would say that even the RBI is not totally independent and is in times in cahoots with the government. But the RBI is the best example of what a media regulator should be based on in terms of operational and strategic independence.
The regulator also needs to be kept as far as possible from government meddling. If not, it might as well be an arm of the I&B ministry! An advisory board made up of members of civil society like university deans, professors and even retired media personnel to name a few could be nominated to the board in order to ensure that a balanced weight is employed in the selection of various topics as news. This would help stop the sensationalization of certain news directed towards or against some person or entity. This would also help ensure that certain information that is never openly accessed or accepted as being news (whereas it really is news) is brought forward in front of the nation and the world.
An independent media regulator would have checks and balances in place to make sure that “paid news” is only restricted to advertisements and not to to shadow advertisements in the forms of “expose’s”, “stings” and “special features” on some unsuspecting individual, organization, country or party. This is the bane of media today (especially TV) which has led to a strong polarization in the country towards and against certain media outlets which are keen to portray only one side of the story and conveniently neglect the rest of it. Attacks on media personnel on social networks like Twitter and sometimes even on the streets are getting all too common these days and this trend of paid media is one of the primary reasons.
Another aspect that might be curbed via the establishment of an independent media regulator would be the blackmail techniques employed by almost all media houses (print and electronic) to extort money from people from all walks of life in order to publish or not publish certain information that might be detrimental to their social or economic interests. This kind of immoral behaviour has led to the mass media being compared to criminals, prostitutes or worse in fiction and in the independent media.
Just like the Lokpal was meant to be a weapon against corruption and a tool to regulate the activities of politicians, the media regulator would be a check on the mass media of not stepping beyond certain boundaries and remaining and working as desired in the framework of our constitution.
Special care needs to be taken though of making sure that the regulator does not become a “Big Brother” of sorts and deprive the media of the independence that is regularly requires. The biggest danger of having a media regulator is making sure that it does not get infiltrated or even influenced by politicians or their proxies. If that would happen, then the entire media landscape would change and harp back to the horrible conditions that we find ourselves in today with various media outlets practically being in the pockets of big business and politicians.
All in all, the regulator’s job would be like a tight balancing act with its duty to balance the media’s coverage and at the same time ensure its independence and unbiased attitude.
Let’s hope that such a day actually comes.
Mitul Choksi
Ahmedabad, India
29-Oct-2012
