REVIVE DISCUSSIONS ON CROSS-MEDIA RESTRICTIONS

THE media must be intolerant of censorship, but it must be seen to be equally intolerant of wrong-doing by members of the fraternity. It cannot afford to ignore public perceptions of 'paid news', financial mismanagement and behind-thescenes lobbying for b

The Indian media's perceived failure to selfregulate has impacted its credibility in the public eye. Discerning readers/viewers no longer unquestioningly swallow what they read/hear in newspapers or news channels, going by the vociferous debates on social media. Far more importantly, the media appears to have undermined its ability to withstand overt and covert attempts at censorship, whether through co-option or coercion.

An unwritten rule of the Indian media enjoins members of the fraternity to follow a hands-off approach to each other. This was a professional courtesy, such as that among medical practitioners; it was never intended – pardon the alliteration – to shield shady shenanigans perpetrated by individual journalists or media houses. (Nor was it meant to create a place of privilege for journalists in the scheme of things. Yet, which journalist has not waved a 'Press' card in the face of a traffic constable?) Anyhow, that no longer holds true. Journalists have filed suits against each other, tweeted against editors or proprietors and come under public scrutiny for alleged corruption.

For the media to do its job, an editor must be like Caeser's wife: above suspicion. The Editors' Guild of India is quick to rail against real or perceived threats to journalistic freedom and so it should – to do otherwise would be to fail both its readers and honest journalists. At the same time, to defeat the growing perception (manufactured or otherwise) that journalists are above the law, it must seriously consider making it mandatory for its members to declare their assets publicly, in the manner of elected representatives. So should the News Broadcasters' Association and perhaps all accredited journalists.

Of late, fears have been expressed that media freedom is under threat. Co-option of journalists through a variety of means, from access to the powers-that-be or discretionary favours to individuals and/or media organisations, has been a sad fact of life for decades. Coercion through violent means is rare, at least as far as the national media is concerned, unless we take into account verbal violence in the form of social media trolling. Currently, it is alleged, coercion is exercised through government abuse of power, to pressure media proprietors into toeing the line.

This brings us to the vexed question of media houses and their financials. Not too long ago, two Zee TV journalists were held for an alleged extortion bid on behalf of their channel. More recently, NDTV was raided by the CBI. The channel has been a subject of investigation and innuendo for almost a decade. Eminent journalists have subjected the channel to scrutiny and red-flagged some of its financial dealings. Against this backdrop, the knee-jerk response by certain sections of the media to the raid on NDTV may prove counter-productive.

NDTV has done seminal service in covering news for decades; a heavy responsibility of public trust rests on its shoulders and by extension, on the media as a whole. It must therefore hold itself up to higher standards than other corporates and at all costs put to rest the decade-long controversy. For their part, journalists' bodies should have called general body meetings to examine the issue, with inputs from members of the fraternity (or sorority) who have been tracking the investigation. This would have enabled an unequivocal response, instead of dividing themselves into 'for and against' camps.

The media must be intolerant of censorship, but it must be seen to be equally intolerant of wrong-doing by members of the fraternity (this is not to suggest that the allegations against Zee TV or NDTV are valid). It cannot afford to ignore public perceptions of 'paid news', financial mismanagement and behind-the-scenes lobbying for business interests or even government officials. Outrage against the perceived culture of entitlement, ham-handedly expressed on social media through obnoxious epithets such as 'pressitutes' and 'faking news', is growing.

Regaining credibility will require extraordinary rigour on the part of media professionals. With regard to media houses, oversight by regulatory agencies should suffice. But that oversight should not be questioned merely on the grounds that the subject of investigation is in the business of disseminating news. It may also be time to revive the discussion on cross-media restrictions and perhaps expand it to include cross-sectoral restrictions as well.

The most solid and impenetrable armour against excesses of the state is the media's credibility, the faith and trust reposed in it by the public on the understanding that it will report the news – and not become the news.

The author is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author