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:

1. http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/197279/the-best-and-worst-media-errors-and-corrections-of-2012/

2. http://www.firstpost.com/business/brands-business/trais-media-ow...no-sense-half-of-indias-media-may-have-to-shut-down-1983763.html

3. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/media-cannot-reject-regulation/article3374529.ece

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. 

REFRENCES:

1. http://thehoot.org/web/MediaownershiptrendsinIndia/6053-1-1-16-true.html

2. http://theviewspaper.net/role-of-the-media-in-democracy/

3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/committee-to-protect-journalists/indian-journalism-under-i_b_4556499.html?ir=India

ON BEING A WOMAN

Noted American activist Margaret Sanger quoted “A free race cannot be born of slave mothers”. Indeed its true. For any society to grow and develop, it’s imperative that all its mothers are educated, respected and treated well. For any race to survive in the tides of time, it’s vital for its women to have a voice and be heard. Mankind without women is like a lifeless tree that has lost its shot to life. Such quintessential is the very existence of women in this world.

But sadly not everybody agrees with this. And to my dismay, not everybody believes that women should have an equal say in everything. Traditionally, our culture teaches us to revere women and believes in worshipping her in her various forms. But reality narrates a contrasting tale. In our world, women are treated like objects rather than beings made of flesh and blood, women are treated like slaves who are meant to be dominated; women are treated with anything but dignity.

For centuries, women have been burnt alive, forced to live in dark and dingy crevices of continuance, traded like goods and treated like cattle. For centuries, a woman has been treated like anything but human. She has been driven to live in the deepest and darkest corners of hell. And yet when she leaves her dormant cocoon, she rises like a shining star awaiting its freedom.

Past few decades have gradually witnessed a slow change in the mindset of people. There have been revolutions and movements that to a larger extent have eliminated the malpractices that have been prevalent since times together but at the same time uncovered the stark realities of the modern world. Female foeticide, women trafficking, prostitution, dowry, rapes, sexual abuse, acid attacks, the list of crimes against women goes on and on.

As a woman of the twenty first century I feel unsafe and insecure everywhere be it home, office or in a crowd. I feel angry and disgusted to be a part of the society that I’m living in, one that asks its women to go all covered and stay indoors instead of teaching its men to respect women. And yet in these times of trials, it’s not only the men who are questioning women but also women themselves are raising fingers at each other. It’s a sorry state of affairs that we the women, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder are becoming the reason for each other’s doomed fate. We, instead of being each other’s support system are becoming the reason for each other’s misery.

We, instead of freeing each other are encaging each other. It pains me to see where we are heading towards.

I’m a woman and I’m proud to be so. I cherish my being and I value my existence. I have the equal right to every single thing in this world. I am the life force in every being. I am a part of the mother supreme. I am the determination behind every being and no one has the right to question my very existence. I am supreme, serene and I am complete.

WINDOWS TO THE WESTERN WORLD....

When foreign shows were first broadcasted in India under the banner of Star TV, no one had ever estimated that they would become so popular and eventually a part of our routine lives. Television was not as popular as it is now days and the only channel that was broadcasted was Doordarshan. Our scope was limited and so was our access to technology. English was perceived as the language of the elite and hence was limited to a very few. The very idea that foreign shows could be accepted seemed absurd at the time. Yet, when these channels were broadcasted they gained immense popularity in a relatively short period of time. The graph of their success soared so high that it over-shadowed the Indian shows. The idea of having a 'robot daughter' was luring and so was the thought of having a 'cartoon family'. The concepts were new and enticing to the viewers as they not only had something unseen in them but also were a window to the western world.

Sensing the growing popularity of television in India and backed up by India's liberal foreign policy, India's draw towards foreign shows began. On one hand an increasing number of foreign channels were being broadcasted, while on the other hand local channels too started taking light. These channels had shows that talked about Indian household and social issues. But gradually people started moving away from these Indian classics as the content became more dramatic and distant from reality. "Indian shows now-a-days have a common storyline of saas-bahus and a villian who is trying tooth and nail to inflict misery in the lives of the protagonist. These shows lack concept and focus and show stereotypical mindset of Indians", says Monisha S. Kapoor, a student of Fashion Media Communication.

Sensing the colossal popularity of these shows, Indian show-makers adapted their concepts and produced their Indian versions. Karishma-Ka-Karishma was the Indian adaptation of the popular Star TV show Small Wonder, Suite Life of Zack and Cody became Suite Life of Karan and Kabir, American Idol was Indianized as Indian Idol, Master Chief Australia became Master Chief India and Big Brother became Big Boss. Even on having such a creative concept in hand, these shows failed to make a mark.

People wanted a change. They wanted to explore and get out of the pigeon holed concepts that had dominated the Indian TV screens since past few decades. They wanted shows that were moresensible and to which they could relate. They were looking for shows where tears actually made sense and the people didn't come back from the dead following the popularity of the character. They wanted shows that were closer to reality than changing face of Meher in Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi. They wanted shows where people didn't marry thrice over a confusion in love like Jagiya in Balika Vadhu and where horror scared people rather than making them gag over a sad parody. According to the television critics, the primary cause of the decreasing popularity of the Indian shows is the script, which is mainly revolving around the TRPs instead of focussing on the storyline. The end result is that they end up failing both in terms of the TRPs and the script. 

"Shows from the west have it all, story, script, sets and more importantly sense", comments Nipun Vaid, who's a student of MBA-IB. The shows telecasted on these foreign television networks have gathered a huge fan-following. They have not only opened doors to the much revered western society but also have given wings to the imaginations and the aspirations. They have paved way for the cultural exchange and in their own distinct way let everyone be a part of their community. Being strong on their script and storyline, the shows broadcasted on these channels sketch their stories in a way that doesn't undermine the theme. They accentuate the theme with such clarity and precision that captures the audience attention and makes them loyal enough to follow these shows season after season.

Shows like Supernatural and Vampire Diaries cater our imagination and give us a thought to think about the world beyond. Big Bang and Dexter fuel the desire to know more explore more and think more. Once Upon a Time and Merlyn take us back to our childhood and make us believe that 'Happy Ever After' does exist. Comedy classics like Mr. Bean and Two and a Half Men make us forget our chaotic lives for some time and remind us that laughter is the best remedy after all!

Remember, how friendship was redefined when Yang tells Meredith "You are my person", in Grey's Anatomy and how heartbreaking it felt when she left saying "I can't go. We have to dance it out. That's how we finish"? Remember, how conveniently Barney tells us his mantra of being happy in How I Met Your Mother, when he says "Whenever I'm sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead" or how rude becomes logical when House says "Everybody lies" or how scared we get when Oliver with his bow and arrow says "You have failed this city"?

These shows engender a sense of belief in the happy endings and all the virtues that we hardly come across these days. They provide an alternative reality where we cam live the way we want to live and be who we want to be. "They make me feel lively when I'm low. I can identify with some characters very loosely at times. They help me to remain optimistic in life", says Isha Fuletra, who is a 2nd year student in the Department of Nanotechnology. For Medha Aggarwal, who is a final year Law student, its all about connection and understanding. "They help me to associate with things that are beyond my scope of everyday life. They taught me to deal with pain through humor", she says.

These shows have become a modern age cult-phenomenon. They have not only challenged the previously set standards but also transformed the definition of style. When Harvey tells his fellow DA "I don't get lucky. I make my own luck" and walks out of the court, no one sees it as rude. Rather, his style exudes confidence which enthralls everybody. When Daenerys Targaryen proclaims, "A Dragon is not a slave", no one dares to question her back.

These shows apart from being our virtual home have become a part of our personal victories. Time and again, they have given us strength and motivation to fight back and master our own fate. In their victories, we see our victories and in their failure we cry. "I see myself in Yang. The ambition and the desire to be great", says Saranya, a research scholar at Amity Institute of Nanotechnology.

Audience have love them and so have the critics. Shows like Game of Thrones, Friends, House M.D. enjoy a high rating on reputed TV and movie analytic sites like Imdb and Rotten Tomatoes. Grey's Anatomy, which has been on air since past 10 years rates 4.7/5 on Rotten Tomatoes Whereas Friends enjoys a rating of 9/10 on Imdb.

"Foreign shows have a touch of reality and focus which seriously lacks in their Indian Counterpart. In their shows doctors are human and do 'doctorly' stuff, we on the other hand are engrossed in our love affairs", says Mayank Sapru, who works in Cognizant India. Agrees Poulami Das, an MCA student, "I have started identifying the medical jargons whenever I visit a doctor, since I have following House".

These shows have not only entertained us but also inspired and educated us. They have taught us many important lessons of life. They have given us a hope to hold on to and have taught us to belief and fight back. Ultimately, they have shown us who we are and who we want to be. Highlighting the intricacies of delicately interwoven relationships of the modern world, they have shown us the reflection of our own perceptions, dreams and aspirations...