Freedom and Regulation of Media
Meraj Ahmad
Date: 21.11.11
Thank to the present leadership of Chair of PCI. He rightly pointed out and initiated debate about role of media. In the country like ours, media is expected to play a very meaningful role. Socio-Economic data are known to all of us, reflects how far we are behind from even other contemporary developing economies. Justice M. Katju highlighted the role of media in the present juncture of time as we moving from agrarian economy to industrial economy, a "very agonizing period". Media must be regulated externally like other democracy, pleas of unfettered freedom of speech is not desirable. It should be more sensitive to public cause, and should not only highlight the socio-economic problems of our country but also initiate intellectual debate, especially in “visual media”.
Presently, new crops of media channels, as many wish to call it, are not in fact media channel in true sense. Sad truism is that these channels serve the business and entertainment houses because their very survival is depending on those monetary and political backing. These channels have no character of "press", as most of time they are broadcasting unnecessary "news". They lie in between. Between the "entertainment" and "news". Between “good” and “bad” news. This is the genesis of the problem. And if these media channels are having problems with the notion and dictas of what should be broadcasted or what not, they must be desist from calling themselves as media or press. Would it be better to tag as semi-media or semi-entertainment channel? This middle position creates regulatory problems- about agency, law and authority, and of course, about genuine democracy.
The real question is, “why there is need to demarcate between news channel and entertainment channel?” How is it possible? Whether through law and institutional mechanisms? How will it work? Who will determine the "content" of news? Will it not be autocratic, and imposition of particular values and notions? The best solution seems lies in bringing in appropriate demarcation and certification of channels.
So far electronic media has been self-regulatory, results of which are in front of all of us. Middle character creates problem of accountability and responsibility, in the absence of clear cut demarcation. Although water tight compartmentalization is neither desirable nor possible, major character may be defined (as per coverage). For example, if electronic media comes under the purview of PCI, after it broader mandate, it could be given proper certificate of its real identity and character, so that accountability and responsibility could be determined.
The rationale for such certification is that it is very difficult to distinguish what is public or private. If the notion is imposed about “content”, there could be huge hue and cry. The biggest problem is how to iron out the terrain of diverse content, and at the same time protect the freedom of speech.
Every people must have right to information, an unfettered flow of information. He/ She should know and be free what he would wish to watch or see. Overdose of entertainment in the name of news is a social crime. Posing the whole debate of media regulation in this context provides very useful insight and justification for external regulation.
The issue of fake and irresponsible news should also be taken into account under the proposed regime, so that guilty may be booked, for fine and imprisonment both. The real fact appears that these so called media/ news channels are not reflecting the mood of common middle class people (to be entertained in such a way), but are shaping it, to divert attention from real democratic issues like poverty, health, employment etc. Therefore, time has come for identification, in turn, certification of "real mass media", required to strengthen the constitutional values and to sustain and cherish democratic institutions.
I am agreeing that self-regulation is better than external regulation at individual level. But the real question is, “how to ensure self-regulation in democratic set-up?” if any entity is not abiding by the values of “self-regulation”, what is the remedy available to public at large? The notion of self-regulation may work well in non-democratic set-up but as far as democracy is concerned, external public regulation through representative institutions is essential. Whether all other democratic institutions viz. Parliament, Executive and Judiciary should be left for self-regulation? I think, no. Regulation should not be misunderstood as an autocratic harassment. Regulation is required on sustainable basis.
With all my sincerity and respect I would like to be disagreeing to those who are against external regulation. I am very much convinced that time has come for effective external regulation for media, esp. visual media, as it affects more. Proper regulation comes from awareness. This is true for all public institutions. This has been the ideal duty of press and media. The present media is completely averse of it. I am also very much agree that responsibility should be shared. But in this respect, media is NOT sharing it real duty, required for prosperity and happiness. Of course Parliament and judiciary is bound by self-regulation, but it must also be remembered at the same time that there so many "external" and "internal" regulatory structures, one of them WAS media. I must also say that external regulation of media is absolute necessity.
Meraj Ahmad
*Views are welcome
