Statement by Mediapersons - Naked Bias Threatens Media’s Credibility // Aditya Nigam: Time For a Code of Conduct for Media
'Big Media in India does not merely report; it is a player in Indian politics in general and elections in particular' - Aditya Nigam
NB - This is an apt summary of the political manipulation being played out in current Indian politics. I have appended some comments at the bottom of this post - Dilip
An Appeal to Indian Journalist Fraternity by a Group of Media persons, released in Chandigarh, 16 March, 2014
In a terse comment, Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal said that a part of the media, particularly some TV channels “sold itself to Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) and is indulging in running a propaganda spree in favor of BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi”. As has happened earlier in many cases relating to deprived and unprivileged sections of the Indian society, that section of media took an undue offence to the comment that was completely out of proportion, and it launched a virulent campaign against AAP. This section of media is peeved at Arvind Kerjriwal’s remarks that if his party came to power, a punitive action would be taken against those media outlets which have been biased in their news coverage and suppressed the anti Modi news stories projecting his false claim to an ‘unparalleled development of Gujarat’.
During his field tour to Gujarat, Kejriwal started taking on Modi , attempting to expose the chinks in ‘Gujarat Vikas’, which according to him, is a ‘hollow projection’ made with ‘active support’ of a section of media. In what could be called an overreaction, a naked anti-Kejriwal slant became a routine affair in the coverage of some media outlets. It is not difficult to smell from the reports and debates of these media outlets that their journalists (by order from above or own their own) have shamelessly started walking in the footsteps of Hitler’s notorious spin doctor Joseph Goebbels, who also did a stint in journalism.
Some dailies including those priding themselves as ‘ national dailies’ are also carrying selected news stories and pictures aimed at showing Aam Aadami Party in bad light. Some electronic media outlets in their orchestrated debate shows are inviting the BJP, Congress and other anti-AAP politicians and providing them platforms for the use of even abusive language against Kejriwal calling him ‘a liar, opportunist and an autocrat’. They are trying to cow down Kejriwal by repeatedly claiming that he and his party was a “creation of the media’’ suggesting that if they can create AAP they can kill it also. And now they have loaded their news presentation and debates in favor of Modi. This is obviously a biased and propagandistic reportage which no sane professional will agree with. India is a largest democracy of the world where political parties are made and dismantled by people and not by the media which do has an important role but a peripheral one.
By using unconcealed media tactics to paint Kejriwal and his party in black, it would be difficult for the above media outlets to shield themselves behind the proverbial neutrality of the profession, which everyone knows, is easily compromised in this profit oriented age of the present media. Now media is less of a mission, more a business with maximizing profit as its goal. For revenue, the media outlets depend upon advertisements, which mostly come from the corporate sector. On the other hand, to protect and promote their business interests in the Centre and State Governments, the corporate and business houses fund political parties and their candidates in the elections. Hence, an underhand barter system operates among media outlets, business houses and politicians. The bitter truth is that in this kind of atmosphere, attempting to maintain impartiality and objectivity by a media outlet has become an arduous proposition.
Hence, instead of attempting to project a ‘holier-than-thou’ image through retaliatory criticism of AAP, the media-outlets should view Kejriwal’s remark in a holistic perspective. And they should understand that AAP catapulted into a discernible political force out of peculiar circumstance crisscrossed by corruption, lawlessness and political despondency. Yes, the media deserves due credit in highlighting its activities which, to some extent, propelled it to a startling victory in the Delhi assembly polls. But it is also fact that by reading the public mood and supporting it, the media also earned credibility on the sly. Credibility, which is blood and breath for any media organization .That is why, the media should not expect ‘an explicit expression of indebtedness and gratefulness’ for highlighting Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption campaign which gave birth to AAP, as it was a part of a bigger democratic upsurge which also brought into focus the independence, credibility and freedom of the media. The motivated campaign on the behest of some political forces or sponsors can jeopardize this hard earned credibility of the media outlets.
In the present state of things when the media managements rarely ignore the power of money and politics, maintaining of impartiality and objectivity has become a very difficult task and the need of the hour is to safeguard the sacred divide between propaganda and journalism. A journalist working on any level and position is duty bound to push back the hand which is eager to choke Citizens’ right to free and unbiased information.
They say it easy to light a candle in normal climate but the brave do so even in gale.
Click link for signatories: http://kafila.org/2014/03/19/naked-bias-threatens-medias-credibility-a-statement-by-some-mediapersons/
Let us make no mistake, the Big Media in India does not merely report; it is a player in Indian politics in general and elections in particular. Now that the debate is out in public it is time to insist on a code of conduct for the media as well. After Arvind Kejriwal’s recent allegations against four television channels that have been blown out of proportion and misrepresented, there has been an uproar. A burst of righteous anger, not only from those accused by Kejriwal of having been bought out by a particular party, but also by professional bodies like the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), the Editor’s Guild, the Broadcast Editors Association (BEA) and other senior journalists.
The NBA, which is a private association, threatened to black out Kejriwal and AAP news and then went on to assert its objectivity and fairness against the “unsubstantiated and unverified allegations” against the news channels. The BEA said in its statement:
“BEA condemns Arvind Kejriwal’s irresponsible statement on media. BEA believes that electronic media is discharging its responsibility in a fair and objectivemanner. It is wrong to say that TV channels are pursuing a biased agenda in favour of any person or party. BEA believes that such statements are a conspiracy to dilute the credibility of media. We have strong faith in the self regulatory institutions that electronic media has developed…”
Let us concede for the sake of argument that Arvind Kejriwal went overboard and his statement about ‘jailing mediapersons’ was uncalled for. But does the claim of the BEA, NBA and other bodies really stand up to scrutiny? Is the electronic media really dïscharging its responsibility in a fair and objective manner”? What precisely, may we ask, are the “self regulatory institutions that electronic media has developed” and what have they done by way of reigning in the Indian media that have sunk to new lows in recent years with “paid news”and “advertorials” – not to mention private treaties with big corporations ? We ask the BEA and the NBA and 0ther defenders of the media, is this the ethical behavior they talk of? Is this self-regulation? Maybe Kejriwal’s allegations are “unsubstantiated” in the sense that there is no “proof”, but there is little doubt from the instructions that journalists have been receiving from their bosses, that a lot more than mere reporting is at stake. And just for the record, the the Chairman of one of media houses accused by Kejriwal, Subhash Chandra of Zee News, is currently facing a case of extortion – using his channel’s news-gathering for blackmail. We would love to hear how this qualifies as ‘fair and objective’in the eyes of the BEA and other luminaries.
Here, for starters, is an extract from the report of the sub-committee appointed by the Press Council of India, following widespread allegations of paid news after the 2009 general elections:
The fifteenth general elections to the Lok Sabha took place in April-May 2009 and in order to ensure free and fair coverage by the media, the Press Council of India issued guidelines applicable to both government authorities and the press. After the elections, a disturbing trend was highlighted by sections of the media, that is, payment of money by candidates to representatives of media companies for favourable coverage or the phenomenon popularly known as “paid news”.
The deception or fraud that such “paid news” entails takes place at three levels. The reader of the publication or the viewer of the television programme is deceived into believing that what is essentially an advertisement is in fact, independently produced news content. By not officially declaring the expenditure incurred on planting “paid news” items, the candidate standing for election violates the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which are meant to be enforced by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Finally, by not accounting for the money received from candidates, the concerned media company or its representatives are violating the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961, among other laws.
The phenomenon of “paid news” goes beyond the corruption of individual journalists and media companies. It has become pervasive, structured and highly organized and in the process, is undermining democracy in India. Large sections of society, including political personalities, those working in the media and others, have already expressed their unhappiness and concern about the pernicious influence of such malpractices. (All emphasis added)
The Press Council, after its meeting on July 30 2010, decided by a thin majority, not to append this report of the sub-committee to the main report. Though the phenomenon of private treaties, inaugurated by Bennett Coleman and Co, and the subsequent ones of paid news and advertorials were initially meant to promote corporate interests, the latter two have also mutated into direct instruments of political campaigns. Here is an extract from a report by Subbalakshmi Mali Reddy, courtesy Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting and Development:..
...The Aam Aadmi Party needs to realize that once in public life you will be held accountable for every move you make. A self-righteous moralism that dishes out character certificates to one and all is creating a regrettable ‘them’ versus ‘us’ divide. AAP needs to fight its political battles without worrying what the media has to say each time. At the same time, we in the media also need to introspect. When TRP-driven sensation replaces sense, the temptation to subvert the news process will exist. In the final analysis, the pluralism within the media is the best safeguard of its independence..
Is there really pluralism we see these days, in the era of owner's control? Here's an editor offering strategic advice to the BJP HQ - with phrases like 'plausible deniability'
<http://www.firstpost.com/
http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/believer
http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/believer
Why has Zakiya's son been dragged into a trumped up case just before he can file an appeal?
Why does Narendra Modi refuse to appear on TV without knowing the questions in advance? What happened to Snoopgate? why aren't the 'plural' media following up on the mysterious murder of Haren Pandya? What is the reason for Ambani's son-in-law being in Namo's ministry? Babu Bokhariya? For all their bluster, the AAP hasn't presided over mass murder and gotten away with it via a massive subversion of law. What we see unfolding today is media connivance with extremism. Both by what it says and what it chooses to ignore.
