It is rather disturbing to find Twittererati framing the refusal of Jignesh Mevani, a newly elected Member of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly, to speak to a section of media in Chennai last week as a freedom of press debate. Mr. Mevani had taken objection to the presence of Republic TV’s microphone at the event. Dawood Mian Khan, founder of the Quaide Milleth International Academy of Media Studies and the host of the event, and activist Nityanand Jayaraman, in a press release and an article for the news website, thewire.in, respectively, have explained the sequence of events and have established clearly that it was not a press conference but an impromptu interaction.
In July 1988, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi introduced a defamation bill that sought to create new offences of “criminal imputation” and “scurrilous writings”. As a young reporter, I was a part of the nationwide agitation that forced the government to withdraw the bill. Later, I played a role against the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly’s decision to invoke an uncodified privilege to punish journalists. This note is in anticipation of questions indulging in whataboutery. As a journalist, I not only cherish the freedom of the press but I am also committed to protecting it from multiple assaults. However, my notion of press freedom does not circumscribe all other freedoms.
Ethical journalism
I learnt about fairness in journalism from Aidan White of the Ethical Journalism Network. He makes an important distinction between free expression and journalism: “Journalism is not free expression, it is a constrained expression — you can’t just say whatever you want to say.” According to him, good journalism is guided by truth, independence, impartiality, accountability, and humanity.
Journalistic freedom is inextricably and inalienably linked to good practices and it has no space for any kind of witch-hunt or targeted slander. How do we understand some of the prime-time television programmes nowadays? Do they uphold any of the principles of journalism? Can we call gladiatorial sport, which is designed to draw blood rather than hold those in power accountable, journalism, and accord all the privileges that are inherent to a free press to it? Can a channel that advocates the abrogation of others’ freedom invoke the freedom of press argument when someone chooses not to speak to it? What happens to the rights of individuals, including of political activists, to choose who they don’t want to talk to and avoid in their private space? Is it right to invoke the rules of a press meet, which has to be open and non-discriminatory across media houses and platforms, to an informal discussion forum?
On tolerance and intolerance
This column has been a champion for the means of journalism as much as it is about fair and accurate journalistic content. John Rawls, the celebrated moral and political philosopher, has dealt with one of the salient issues which arose from the Mevani versus Republic TV debate. In A Theory of Justice , he explained the vexatious question of tolerating intolerance: “First, there is the question whether an intolerant sect has any title to complain if it is not tolerated; second, under what conditions tolerant sects have a right not to tolerate those which are intolerant; and last, when they have the right not to tolerate them, for what ends it should be exercised.” Professor Rawls, a champion of tolerance, agreed to a small window for the tolerant to curb the intolerant: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.” His argument was that the just should be guided by the principles of justice and not by the fact that the unjust cannot complain.
One has learnt to acknowledge that most principles get refined over a period of time. For instance, the Supreme Court, which defined Article 21 in a narrow manner in the early 1950s in the A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras case, expanded its scope to bring in due process as an essential element in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case in 1978. Freedom of press is of paramount importance and should be guarded at all cost. We cannot safeguard this hard-won right by flouting journalistic principles and values.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
