Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Vijayvaani.com
Date: November 8, 2011
URL: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2039
It would be churlish to deny the merit of some scathing observations made
about the print and electronic media by the new chairman of the Press Council
of India, in a recent television interview. Justice Markandey Katju speaks
for a large segment of readers and viewers when he expresses disappointment
at media functioning, and its poor intellectual standards. Some humility on
our part is in order, as is introspection.
Justice Katju is right when he says that critical
national problems are poverty, unemployment, price rise and health care; while
media devotes unconscionable energy to trivia about film stars, fashion parades,
and above all, cricket, which has emerged as the new opium of the masses.
This insight suggests that religion is no longer solacing people in these
troubled times; this calls for soul-searching by traditional mathams and globe-trotting
sanyasis.
Perhaps his outdated 'Aryan invasion' education
has led Justice Katju to call India a country of immigrants; but we shall
focus on his core critique. The first is a disquieting assertion that media
demonizes Muslims whenever terror attacks takes place by reporting that X
or Y (Muslim) terrorist organisation has claimed responsibility for the act.
The charge that this is a deliberate ploy to divide people on religious lines
is fatuous given the myriad terrorist cells waging jihad for over two decades.
After assaults on Parliament (2001) and the Mumbai 2008 mini-war, to mention
only the most sensational, any insinuation that terror has a secular face
is simply non-application of the judicial mind.
Justice Katju seeks awesome powers to curb
the excesses of the electronic media, and lambasts the scandal of 'paid news'
in the 2009 parliamentary and assembly elections in Maharashtra and Haryana.
We may therefore ask the learned judge how he intends, as new chairman, to
make amends for PCI's treatment of its own 'paid news' investigation report.
When the 'paid news' scam erupted, a journalists
union complained that some journalists were targetted by managements for opposing
this misconduct. Then chairman Justice G.N. Ray appointed a sub-committee
of journalists to examine the matter; the report, submitted in April 2010,
was not accepted by the Council. Indeed, PCI uploaded the report on its website
only after an order from the Central Information Commission in September 2011,
with a disclaimer.
Actually, the Sub Committee Report was the
first serious introspection into the decline of media values in the past three
decades, with random deviant behaviour by individual journalists giving way
to organised corruption by managements, to sharply escalate profits. Certain
news pages were reserved for 'paid content' and publicity given to commercial
product launches or personal events. Next, advertising space was offered in
exchange for allotment of equity shares to the media house ('private treaties'),
which were valued at several thousand crores of rupees.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India
informed the Press Council that 'private treaties' between media companies
and corporate entities listed on the stock exchanges or coming out with public
offer of shares, required disclosure to protect the shareholders; PCI framed
guidelines in 1996. SEBI warned that media publicity in exchange for shares
'may give rise to conflict of interest' and affect the news/editorials relating
to such firms.
The report linked the proliferation of 'paid
news' to the diminution of the role and status of editors, and erosion of
freedom enjoyed by journalists under the Working Journalists Act, as a result
of the pervasive 'contract' system. Witnesses appearing before the sub-committee
named several reputed media houses which gave 'rate cards' and 'packages'
to candidates for favourable coverage about themselves, and/or harmful coverage
about their rivals; those who did not fall in line were blacked out.
'Paid news' deceives the reader/viewer to
believe that a disguised advertisement is actually an independently produced
news item. It does not reflect in a candidates' election expense statement
and violates the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The concerned media companies
do not show such monies as official income and violate the Companies Act,
1956 and Income Tax Act, 1961.
One politician was summoned by the PCI and
presented with circumstantial evidence of having made such a financial transaction.
Three rival newspapers of his state carried the same article about him, word
for word, by different reporters! Clearly the reports were 'ad copy' from
a PR firm.
Senior journalists feel that 'paid news' is
criminalization of elections and should be made a punishable offence. The
sub-committee made many valuable suggestions; it is now for the new chairman
PCI to explain how he proposes to act upon them, and if not, why not. A man
seeking powers to shut down news channels should be able to curb malpractices
at least within the print media which is his jurisdiction.
May we now turn the spotlight on the Judiciary?
At the time of writing, a news channel reported that several former and sitting
judges of Orissa had, over the years, received flats from the government's
discretionary quota. Many judges took flats out of turn and at cheaper rates,
in prime locations in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. Many judges already owned ancestral
property in Cuttack, and were ineligible for the discretionary quota.
These revelations come in the wake of scandals
embroiling judges all over the country. A former Chief Justice of India is
battling charges of disproportionate wealth accumulation by his close kin
while he was in office; he has resisted an RTI appeal to disclose his income
tax returns for this period. His very last judgment hugely benefitted a corporate
entity that was later indicted by the Comptroller & Auditor General. A
former Chief Justice of a High Court is denying officially established allegations
of land grab.
Curiously, judges appear to have a special
propensity for property, much of which is registered below the prevailing
market price. Recently, the Lokayukta of a state resigned soon after his appointment
when some of his land deals were questioned by the media. He was quickly followed
by a deputy Lokayukta in the same state, who reputedly feared scrutiny of
his land holdings.
Who will judge the judges? How shall justice
be done? So far, there have been no satisfactory steps to investigate prima
facie cases of judicial misconduct, even as allegations of corruption in the
higher judiciary assume grim proportions. Please rise to the occasion, Justice
Katju. Introspection, like charity, must begin at home.