Ever since the Mumbai Police filed a supplementary chargesheet containing about 1,000 pages of WhatsApp messages between Republic TV Editor Arnab Goswami and former Broadcast Audience Research Council CEO Partho Dasgupta, the discussions in the media have been about ethical transgressions, manipulating institutional arrangements to show increased audience reach, and breaching the line meant to protect the autonomy and efficacy of regulating bodies and external research entities. For a news ombudsman, the main issue is that an effective institution of self-regulation for the Indian media does not exist.
Media regulation
There are four bodies in India for media regulation. The first is the Press Council of India, created through an act of Parliament. It is headed by a former Supreme Court judge. Its mandate is to preserve the freedom of the press and to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. It has 28 members — six editors; seven senior journalists; six media managers; one representative from a news agency; one nominee each from the Bar Council of India, the University Grants Commission, and the Sahitya Akademi; three members of the Lok Sabha; and two members of the Rajya Sabha. The tilt is towards the executive writ. This reminds us of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation while examining multiple ethical breaches in the U.K. media. He suggested that the regulatory body should be free of serving editors and MPs. But this idea has been rejected by governments everywhere.
The second is the News Broadcasting Standards Authority created by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), an industry body. The broadcast industry has a third body, the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council, to deal with complaints against entertainment and general segment television programmes. A fourth body was created by those who left the NBA, called the News Broadcasters Federation. This is promoted by Mr. Goswami’s Republic TV.
However, a close examination of the functioning of these bodies reveals their inability to implement their primary mandate — ensuring freedom while adhering to agreed ethical and professional standards.
In-house mechanism
If media organisations are serious about effective self-regulation that ensures freedom not only from the government, but also from other vested interests, the need of the hour is to actively build in-house mechanisms. For instance, the Readers’ Editor (RE) of The Hindu is an independent, full-time internal ombudsman. Readers and other complainants have a designated pointsperson to reach out to. As the newspaper’s RE, I not only examine all the complaints that come to us but also effect course correction if the paper errs. The Organization of News Ombudsmen and Standards Editors has spelled out the responsibility in unambiguous terms: “promote the values of accuracy, fairness and balance in news reporting for the public good... assist media organizations to provide mechanisms to ensure they remain accountable to consumers of their news...” Many studies reveal that having an internal mechanism often helps news media organisations to improve transparency and develop trust with their audience.
The latest rigorous study about media regulation happened in South Africa. The South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) commissioned a panel, headed by retired judge Kathleen Satchwell, to conduct an inquiry into the ethical challenges facing South African journalism. They commissioned this study because “when humanity is crying for facts, truth-telling, fair reporting and accountability, sometimes ethical journalism seems to be on the ropes.” The panel’s recommendation rightly observed that the statute of ombudsmen would become effective and beneficial to both the news platform and the industry in general only when “news managers heed their rulings.”
Unless the news-consuming public demands for an independent, internal ombudsman from outlets from which they receive news, the ethical conundrum will continue to haunt us. We have to remember that the legal route rarely addresses the importance of a toxic-free information ecology. A programme, ‘Bindas Bol-UPSC Jihad’, by Sudarshan TV was found offensive by almost everyone — from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to the Supreme Court. But that did not prevent the spread of venom and vitriol in our public sphere.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
