For nearly a century, the space for free media has seen a cyclical oscillation of governments’ attitude towards media. Governments create a strong legal framework to protect freedom of expression and then invent methods to subvert them. The enabling environment for media is usually followed by a restrictive and stifling one. The push-back comes from media practitioners and the public to regain the space.
Institutions that have power to impose punitive measures on news media organisations and journalists should remember some of the cardinal principles that govern this profession: ask questions, provide the context, hold those in power accountable, provide information that is both comprehensible and comprehensive. Journalism should be read as a common good and not as a crime.
A disturbing ban
The day-long ban of NDTV India raises disturbing questions about the status of the freedom of expression, its legality and long-term implications. The statement of the Editors Guild of India explained how the decision to impose the ban violated the fundamental principles of freedom and justice. This newspaper’s editorial, “Ominous curb on media freedom”, rightly argues for an independent forum to decide violations and that “a committee of officials is not the ideal body to make an independent assessment of what constitutes information that poses an imminent danger to military personnel or civilians”. In the high decibel media bashing, it is important to bear in mind the observations made by Raj Kamal Jha, editor of The Indian Express , in the presence of the Prime Minister. “Good journalism is not dying; it is getting better and bigger. It’s just bad journalism makes lot more noise than it used to do five years ago,” he said.
Is there a way to distinguish good journalism from the bad one? What are the yardsticks? Is an adversarial relationship with the government alone a marker of good journalism? From my personal experience as a journalist for three decades, the best visible distinguishing element, among numerous components that make good journalism, is the ability to accept mistakes and offer timely corrections. News organisations may be staffed with some of the most outstanding talent in the world. However, they cannot wish away mistakes, errors in editorial judgment and human frailties in this deadline-driven process. Good and ethical ones rectify the mistakes and the bad ones often camouflage them, and on occasions justify them. The idea of self-reflection, the act of holding the mirror close, the space for course correction and the constant striving for improving the quality of journalism are important in the newsrooms of respectable news organisations.
My last column, “What ails business journalism”, was a product of the same concern. It flagged a major failure. The 800-odd-word column was a call to resharpen business reporting skills. However, a long-time reader of this newspaper and editor of the Chennai-based business magazine, Industrial Economist , S. Viswanathan, felt otherwise and has written a reply twice as big as the column. This office values feedback, criticisms and contrarian views. It often engages with readers who differ from the newspaper’s position on a host of issues and strives to encourage dialogue. Given the newspaper’s reach and our own country’s diversity, we recognise that it is impossible to produce a report or an editorial or an opinion piece that satisfies every reader. But, I believe the newspaper should be seen as a whole, which may contain sections with which one agrees and those with which one disagrees. And, that’s par for the course.
There are two parts to Mr. Viswanathan’s criticism of my column. First he has a very restrictive idea of the office of the Readers’ Editor. In his introductory note to his rejoinder, he wrote: “I understood the role of the ombudsman was to respond to readers’ suggestions and criticisms. But this senior journalist with wide experience revels in functioning as a regular columnist freely commenting on all and sundry issues.” But, the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Readers’ Editor, which are binding, spell out the key objectives: “To institutionalise the practice of self-regulation, accountability, and transparency; to create a new visible framework to improve accuracy, verification, and standards in the newspaper; and to strengthen bonds between the newspaper and its millions of print platform and online readers.” The ToR makes it clear that responding to readers’ complaints is just one component of the RE’s work.
The changing ecosystem
Mr. Viswanathan’s response actually validates my column rather than repudiating it. First, he talked about the changed revenue model for publications — where substantial revenue five decades ago was from the cover price as opposed to the present situation where advertising accounts for bulk of the revenue. Second, he agreed with the column that direct interaction between the top honchos and the media is limited. “Corporates zealously guard their gates through PR agencies,” he wrote. He then listed the names of the select business leaders who broke the mould to talk to the press and then veered off into the legal cost of taking on the corporates. Then he shifted his focus to “200 year plus adoration of the superiority of phoren oracles”, citing a far more open door policy by corporates towards journalists from The Economist , Financial Times or The New York Times . His letter is a testimony to the challenges in front of business journalism in India.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
