The Supreme Court is hearing this important question on reporting by the media, and this has invited many diverse reactions. While one extreme position is that the media should be free to write what they want, there is a strong feeling that some kind of self regulation or self censorship should be exercised by those responsible for the media in particular. The problem seems more applicable to the electronic media who are constantly claiming to be the "first with the news" and are on for 24 hours!. What is important is not being first but being correct and right. Sensationalizing news on the basis of having got some inside information is not always what one wants to hear. The listener wants to hear the truth.and not a version or a partial truth. We have had a news channel claiming to have a copies of reports which are yet confidential and in some cases the information has been only partly true. And these anchors do not believe in admitting if they were wrong except giving a weak apology when taken to the Court!
The other issue is the reporting of cases as they are being argued or presented in Courts as well as remarks made by Judges while hearing such arguments. Quite often it is premature to report matters that are yet to be heard in full and till the Court passes its orders. We have some political parties with a direct line to these channels and within minutes of the news the spokesman is ready to give his reaction. The recent sensational news by one paper though sketchy and full of holes has had the editor justify their action by saying as is the usual song- "we stand by our correspondent ". Such news may give temporary attention but if the news item is proved to be unsupported by solid evidence, then that channel or newspaper will lose their creditability.
The other important issue is publication of news which can affect the security of the country like in defence matters or an interpretation on foreign affairs that can affect our diplomatic relations. Henry Denker in his book "Judge Spencer Dissents" makes this point about news channels who behave as though they can determine the foreign policy of the country. Most debates on such matters turn out to be of no consequence as the participants are chosen who have diametrically opposite views and the debate becomes a shouting match and it is impossible to get a balanced view on any issue. On defence matters, one has to be careful not to create a panic situation but rather evolve a positive solution to the issue under discussion.
The question therefore is how can our media exercise some restraint and avoid sensationalizing any news. External censorship or control can be avoided if the media themselves frame guidelines. The Editors Guild had sent a team of five eminent journalists to Gujarat after the 2002 riots and had made several positive suggestions in their report. However, no one has taken serious note of these suggestions though the Guild now has a Chairman from the electronic media and there is also a body to monitor broadcast contents. Perhaps this question has been raised in the Supreme Court. to try and evolve guidelines which will be respected though not enforceable.
There is a very thin line between exercising one's freedom of speech but in the process affecting the freedom which is the right of others for their privacy or honour!
The other issue is the reporting of cases as they are being argued or presented in Courts as well as remarks made by Judges while hearing such arguments. Quite often it is premature to report matters that are yet to be heard in full and till the Court passes its orders. We have some political parties with a direct line to these channels and within minutes of the news the spokesman is ready to give his reaction. The recent sensational news by one paper though sketchy and full of holes has had the editor justify their action by saying as is the usual song- "we stand by our correspondent ". Such news may give temporary attention but if the news item is proved to be unsupported by solid evidence, then that channel or newspaper will lose their creditability.
The other important issue is publication of news which can affect the security of the country like in defence matters or an interpretation on foreign affairs that can affect our diplomatic relations. Henry Denker in his book "Judge Spencer Dissents" makes this point about news channels who behave as though they can determine the foreign policy of the country. Most debates on such matters turn out to be of no consequence as the participants are chosen who have diametrically opposite views and the debate becomes a shouting match and it is impossible to get a balanced view on any issue. On defence matters, one has to be careful not to create a panic situation but rather evolve a positive solution to the issue under discussion.
The question therefore is how can our media exercise some restraint and avoid sensationalizing any news. External censorship or control can be avoided if the media themselves frame guidelines. The Editors Guild had sent a team of five eminent journalists to Gujarat after the 2002 riots and had made several positive suggestions in their report. However, no one has taken serious note of these suggestions though the Guild now has a Chairman from the electronic media and there is also a body to monitor broadcast contents. Perhaps this question has been raised in the Supreme Court. to try and evolve guidelines which will be respected though not enforceable.
There is a very thin line between exercising one's freedom of speech but in the process affecting the freedom which is the right of others for their privacy or honour!
No comments:
Post a Comment