Saturday 7 February 2015

DOES MEDIA IN INDIA NEED REGULATION?

Media Regulation in India has always been a topic of hot debate. People both within this industry and outside have had varying opinion if the media should be self-regulated or not. Some favor having a regulatory body for both print and broadcast mediums, as they believe that self-regulation in India is too far-gone; some others suggest that having a regulatory body will curb media’s freedom thus restricting the power of Freedom of Speech.
The first opinion that stands in favor of having a regulatory body for media, addresses issues like sensationalism, factual errors, media ownership, violation of privacy, etc. This faculty of thoughts says that media has often indulged in sensationalism and talked of cricket, crime and cinema as the most important news beats ignoring/ giving less importance to the other beats. This is particularly true, as the news coverage is such that linkup stories of Virat and Anushka make it to the breaking news where as the latest scientific breakthroughs don’t even find a space in the headlines. Similarly there have been many factual error cases that have eventually led to defamation lawsuits while some were avoided because of a public apology. Vogue, New York created a huge controversy by mistakenly calling Assistant Secretary of State Dan Baer an interior designer. This created a huge buzz on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Big and reputed names like New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Australian, etc. were first to comment on the mistake so pointed out. It was only when Vogue published a public apology did the storm fade away.
Another school of thoughts argues that only self-regulation will help the media and its future in India as the problem is not with the media but with the perspective. One of the major problems that we are facing today is of bias and neutrality. Bias and neutrality cannot be eliminated by any system. It is embedded in individual editors and media persons as much as in the institutions that own them. The best one can achieve is transparency in declaring one's interests and biases. This is what ownership rules should focus on. Network18, which publishes Firstpost and several digital and TV news platforms is owned by the Reliance group. The corporate money came in as the group needed a financial bailout. This information needs to be put out before the public instead of keeping it in the maze. Another important issue is of cross- media ownership. TRAI wants to prevent media houses from being dominant in both TV and print. While this may have been relevant in the age when these media were dominant and could influence public opinion unduly, in five years' time, when broadband penetrates most of the world, anyone with a phone, camera or basic equipment can upload news and stuff anywhere. Print and TV will be less dominant in media and news dissemination will be fragmented and multi-sourced. Trying to restrict media ownership in such a dynamic environment may not prove to be much of a help.
In the middle of the two contrasting views of black and white, there is a group of people who believe that Indian media is behaving like the ‘angry- teenager’ and that it needs rules and regulations that are not supervised by the government. It suggests that the Indian media is still in the nascent stages of its maturity and needs to learn a thing or two from the western media. ‘Lessons from those efforts should be adapted to the Indian context to frame a draft regulatory policy and circulated among the stakeholders’- The Hoot. Another reckoned newspaper, The Hindu also suggests that India media needs regulation and not control. ‘I want regulation of the media, not control. The difference between the two is that in control there is no freedom, in regulation there is freedom but subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The media has become very powerful in India and can strongly impact people's lives. Hence it must be regulated in the public interest’- The Hindu.
With regulations comes responsibilities, with control comes authority. Controlling media with only further corrupt the very ethics of Journalism and curb creativity. On the other hand, having a proper set of guidelines ensuring transparency, respect for privacy and democracy will ensure smooth functioning of the media.

REFERENCES:
4. http://thehoot.org/web/Does-media-need-self-regulation-3-0-/6971-1-1-19-true.html

HOW IS COMMERCIALIZATION OF MEDIA AFFECTING THE DEMOCRATIC FABRIC OF OUR COUNTRY?

Democracy indicates a government where the representatives are elected by the people, for the people and of the people. It’s a system where the representatives of the people delegate the terms, ways and functions of the government. In such a system people have the right to live, learn, get entertained, practice and therefore grow. It’s a political system that guarantees its citizens freedom and provides them with opportunities to grow.
There are three basic pillars in a democracy: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. In a democratic setup media is considered to be the four and one of the most important pillars. Media acts as an interface between the common man and the Government. It is a very powerful tool with the ability to make and break the opinion of people. It’s a means of forming public opinion by the means like agenda setting.
Advertisements from IDEA cellular network and TATA have send strong message in the audience and stood out among their contemporaries as the thought provoking ads which not only talk of their respective brands but also educate the masses.
Three things that are important for any democracy are transparency, accountability and mass conscience that can be built only when the masses are well informed. Media plays a very important role in this process of informing and educating the masses and therefore forming a public opinion about various existent issues. Media thus play the role of a watchdog in the society and stands at a very powerful position. It has the power to critique and comment on any issue or working of any authority in the country. This puts media on a delicate platform where it has to walk on a balance by being non-discriminatory in analysis and objective in approach. Media has frequently been critical of various popular personalities in the field of politics and entertainment. It has many times wrongly over-talked of certain issues on one hand giving them unnecessary coverage; while some other times it has under talked of many important issues, as a result of which many important stories have gone unnoticed from the public eye.
Anushka Sharma’s cosmetic surgery was in the news for a much longer time than the Defense Budget demanding better equipment for the Army Men. Similarly, Indian Cricket Team is highly applauded when it wins a match or a tournament. On the contrary, the same team is highly criticized when it loses a match. Such sensationalism has gathered wide denunciation for the media itself where it has been selectively critical time and again. Likewise, some politicians have been much talked of and treated like ‘demi-gods’ in case of the Indian politics while on the other hand some other politicians have been discarded and disgraced to be a blot. This has raised serious questions on media.
There are many theories answering this debate. One of the prime reasons for this ‘selective - sensationalism’ is often connected to the media ownership trends. There are many media organizations in the country that are owned and controlled by a wide variety of entities including corporate bodies, societies and trusts, and individuals. Information about such organizations and people is scattered, incomplete, and dated, thereby making it rather difficult to collate such information leave alone analyze it. The sheer number of media organizations and outlets often conceals the fact there is dominance over specific markets and market segments by a few players. The absence of restrictions on cross-media ownership implies that particular companies or groups or conglomerates dominate markets both vertically as well as horizontally. Political parties and people with political affiliations own/ control increasing sections of the media in India. The growing corporatization of the Indian media is manifest in the manner in which large industrial conglomerates are acquiring direct and indirect interest in media groups. There is also a growing convergence between creators/producers of media content and those who distribute/disseminate the content.
There are ample examples to support this, particularly in the south where regional politicians and their family members have launched television channels that are used for political purposes. Channels like Sun TV, Kalaignar TV, and Makkal TV, which all launched since 2000 and which are owned by local politicians or their families, have used news broadcasts to provide favorable coverage to one party or another. Some of these channels have also refrained from coverage of issues that may where regional politicians and their family members have launched television channels that are used for political purposes. Channels like Sun TV, Kalaignar TV, and Makkal TV, which all launched since 2000 and which are owned by local politicians or their families, have used news broadcasts to provide favorable coverage to one party or another. Some of these channels have also refrained from coverage of issues that may cast the party with which they are affiliated in a negative light. For example, during the run-up to the last major election, in 2009, Sun and Kalaignar avoided coverage of alleged atrocities against Tamils in nearby Sri Lanka, in an effort to shield from criticism the regional party to which they are tied.
Another important aspect to be considered is the large corporate firms having stakes in the media houses. According to research conducted by Dilip Mandal and R. Anuradha, that has been published in Media Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2011), the boards of directors of a number of media companies now include representatives of big corporate entities that are advertisers. The board of Jagran Publications has had the managing director (MD) of Pantaloon Retail, Kishore Biyani, McDonald India’s MD, Vikram Bakshi, and leather-maker Mirza International’s MD Rashid Mirza; besides the CEO of media consulting firm Lodestar Universal India, Shashidhar Sinha, and the chairman of the real estate firm JLL Meghraj, Anuj Puri. The board of directors of HT Media, publishers of Hindustan Times and Hindustan, has included the former chairman of Ernst & Young K. N. Memani and the chairman of ITC Ltd Y C Deveshwar. Joint MD of Bharti Enterprise Rajan Bharti and MD of Anika International Anil Vig are a part of the TV Today’s Board of Directors. The board of directors of DB Corp (that publishes Dainik Bhaskar) includes the head of Piramal Enterprises Group, Ajay Piramal, the MD of Warburg Pincus, Nitin Malhan, and the executive chairman of advertising firm Ogilvy & Mather, Piyush Pandey. NDTV’s Board of Directors has Pramod Bhasin, President & CEO of the country’s biggest BPO, GenPact as a member of its board of directors.
Under the circumstances, paid news and advertorials have become a common phenomenon. Most media houses have their loyalties towards some specific corporate houses and political parties. What the masses get is not the truth but the version of truth that is custom-made for them and served to them. Commercialization and lack of a proper framework for media has resulted in corruption of media where the watch dog itself needs some serious taming.