InfoChange India News & Features development news India - The tricky road to media regulation

| PDF |

The tricky road to media regulation

By Siddharth Narrain

Does the media – particularly the broadcast media -- need regulation, and if so, of what kind? India TV’s recent rejection of the Broadcasting Standards Disputes Redressal Authority ruling, and the proposal by the home minister of Karnataka of a state-appointed media ombudsman, show just how perilous is the path to regulation

India TV’s recent decision to withdraw from the National Broadcasting Association’s (NBA) self-regulatory mechanism, the News Broadcasting Standards Disputes Redressal Authority, is a huge blow for the fledgling body, and for attempts to make the Indian broadcast media accountable for their mistakes.

The channel’s extreme measure was a result of a decision by the Authority, which found India TV guilty of misusing and misquoting an interview with Farhana Ali, an international policy analyst. Ali had issued the notice on the grounds that the channel had misused the interview given by her to the international news agency Reuters by broadcasting it on India TV. The channel had picked up the interview and aired it after dubbing it in Hindi. The channel had also downloaded Ali’s picture from the Internet and used it in the story, giving the false impression that she had given the interview to India TV.

Further, India TV said in its story that Ali was a spy for the United States government and also exaggerated the statement made by Ali that portrayed her as pro-India and anti-Pakistan. The channel was fined Rs 1 lakh. In addition, the Authority has directed the news channel to run an apology five times between 8 and 9 pm with a 12-minute interval between each. The apology should say: “India TV apologises for the story run on Ms Farhana Ali in December 2008 since the same was a misrepresentation of facts. Any harm caused to Ms Farhana Ali is regretted.”

The Authority’s decision has been taken under the chairmanship of Justice (Retd) J S Verma and other members who include former Nasscom chief Kiran Karnik, sociologist Dipankar Gupta and economist and former undersecretary-general of the United Nations, Nitin Desai.

Upset with this decision, the channel accused the authority of bias, claiming that it had become a voice for the TV Today group.

Attempts at self-regulation

The nine-member News Broadcasting Standards Disputes Redressal Authority came into being in October 2008, and includes four editors from different news channels and four ‘eminent persons’ drawn from different walks of life. However, this body failed its first major test when television coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008 flouted a number of guidelines that broadcasters had themselves just instituted.

In February 2009, the NBA issued a fresh set of guidelines dealing with a wide range of issues, including accuracy, privacy, impartiality and fairness, decency and good taste. The new guidelines were meant to elaborate on the principles of self-regulation contained in the code of ethics and broadcasting standards put in place in October 2008.

The NBA’s self-regulatory mechanism is one of many methods that have been attempted to regulate a rapidly growing broadcast sector. The problem with the attempts made so far is that they are either ineffectual or too heavy-handed, attempting to censor the media rather than trying to make it more accountable.

In January 2009, the Karnataka home minister, V S Acharya, in response to the electronic media’s criticism of the government’s handling of the attack by an extremist group on the Amnesia pub in Mangalore, said that the state needed a media ombudsman. Acharya’s proposal was in response to what he perceived as “overreaction” and “unnecessary hype” by the media in their coverage of the Sri Ram Sene’s violent act of moral policing. The strong opposition to the statement from various quarters, including the respected former judge Michael Saldanha, ensured that Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa quickly shot down the proposal.

The Mangalore pub attack opened a floodgate of reports in the media, which had not covered such incidents very regularly before. Through increased media coverage and campaigns such as Fearless Karnataka, the link between what is happening in Mangalore and vigilante attacks on women in Bangalore is becoming clearer. The link seems to be that the state is unwilling to take action against those who break the law and threaten young couples from different communities who are together, friends from different communities, and women dressed ‘indecently’ and in ‘Western attire’. By going soft on these moral vigilante groups (many of whom have links to the RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal), the Karnataka government is sending out the message that such groups will enjoy impunity for their actions. Given this background, for the home minister to suddenly propose the creation of a media ombudsman seemed irresponsible, and nothing but a disguised attempt at censoring television channels.

Role of an ombudsman

An ombudsman is usually an authority appointed to investigate public complaints against public authorities. Ian Mayes of the British newspaper The Guardian, writing about a conference on media ombudsman in Madrid convened by the Federation of Press Associations of Spain (FAPE) describes an ombudsman as a body that works independently within news organisations at the interface between readers, listeners and viewers on one side, and journalists and editors on the other. “It is the only kind of self-regulation that can have the effect of building trust between a specific news organisation and its readership or audience. It does that through the systematic and impartial handling of complaints, and the open discussion of issues raised by readers. It offers a real chance to build a new, stronger relationship between journalist and reader,” he says.

The only existing media ombudsman in India is The Hindu’s in-house ombudsman, an authority appointed to look into complaints from readers of biases and other problems with the newspaper’s reportage. This authority has functioned as a self-regulatory authority, sometimes criticised for not being powerful enough to challenge editorial decisions, but still the only one of its kind in the country. Thus, the term ‘media ombudsman’ is associated with self-regulation of the media, an in-house mechanism that media houses can use to ensure accountability to the public.

Government attempts at regulating electronic media

Broadcasting Bill. Draft circulated in 2007. Heavily criticised by media and civil society.
Media Consultative Committee. Set up by the I&B ministry in February 2008 to function as a forum for regular consultations between the government and professional media bodies.
Electronic Media Monitoring Centre. Set up by the I&B ministry in Delhi in June 2008. It monitors channels and signals, and can record content and retrieve recorded footage.
Media Commission. Mooted by the central government; still under consideration.

Government attempts at regulation

The central government has also been actively considering various models of regulating the media. In 2007, the government re-initiated an attempt to enact a comprehensive law to regulate the broadcast sector. However, the draft Broadcasting Bill met with stiff opposition from the media industry, and civil society organisations.

The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, in February 2008, set up a Media Consultative Committee under the chairmanship of the secretary of the ministry. The committee is supposed to function as a forum for regular consultations between the government and professional media bodies. According to the terms of reference announced by the ministry, the committee will meet twice a year to discuss concerns of media organisations on various regulatory, policy and procedural matters.

According to the I&B ministry, committee members would be drawn from bodies like the Press Council of India, the Editors Guild, the Indian Newspapers Society, the News Broadcasters Association, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, the All India Newspapers Editors’ Conference, the All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, the Indian Language Newspapers Association and the Indian Women Press Corps, besides noted journalists. It would also reportedly include representatives of civil society, NGOs and other stakeholders, including educationists, child rights activists and the National Commission for Women.

This mechanism differs from the proposal for an ombudsman, which aims to link media audiences with media professionals.

The ministry has also set up a media-monitoring centre to monitor programmes shown by broadcasters. The Rs 16 crore Electronic Media Monitoring Centre of the ministry, which was set up at the Prasar Bharati office near Indraprastha Extension, New Delhi, can monitor over 100 televisions channels simultaneously. According to media reports, the centre has been designed on a web-based system, which facilitates monitoring of channels and signals, can record content and retrieve recorded footage.

The central government is also considering setting up a Media Commission to regulate the industry, keeping in mind the diversification of the industry. A meeting to discuss this was chaired by Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Anand Sharma in early 2009.

Judicial activism

Media regulation has also been the subject of judicial activism. In one such case in 2007 (Court On Its Own Motion v State), the Delhi High Court, in response to a fake sting operation related to Uma Khurana, a school teacher in Uttar Pradesh, asked the I&B ministry to examine the proposed guidelines placed before it by the amicus curae, and to include proposals they deemed fit in the current exercise to draft a statute or code of conduct to regulate sting operations. The court, taking up the matter (of “the depiction of women in an undignified manner by the media”) suo moto directed the I&B ministry, the director-general of Doordarshan and the registrar of newspapers, to submit affidavits of the concerned authorities indicating how the menace was being controlled and eradicated.

In 2004, the Rajasthan High Court (Suo Moto v State of Rajasthan) taking up the matter suo moto, directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Director General of Doordarshan and the Registrar of Newspapers, to submit affidavits of the concerned authorities indicating how the menace of depicting women in an indecent manner in newspapers, magazines, advertisements, television programmes, posters and music videos. was being controlled and eradicated. The Court directed the Government of India and the state of Rajasthan to offer concrete suggestions on how to curb the menace.

Based on the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, the central government had issued orders to set up district and state-level committees in all states in September 2005. The committees were meant to enforce the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The committees were envisaged to provide a forum for the public to lodge complaints regarding the content aired over cable television and take action.

While there is a pressing need for an effective and independent media regulatory authority, there has to be a political consensus on this issue. This process must involve a wide range of civil society organisations, as well as academics, and media professionals. The Supreme Court in the landmark Cricket Association case (Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v Cricket Association, Bengal AIR 1996 SC 1236) has held that since airwaves are public property there is a need to regulate it for the benefit of the public. The court directed the central government to set up an independent broadcasting authority that would give access to all interests and groups. However, the proposals for an independent regulator have been in deep freeze, since there has not been any consensus on the composition and powers of such a body. The latest proposal for an independent regulatory body was the suggested Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) in the proposed Broadcasting Bill, 2007.

(Siddharth Narrain is a legal researcher with the Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore)