Author: MG Vaidya
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: March 27, 2003
Are the government and the media
friends? No. Can they be friends? They can, but shouldn't be. Are they
adversaries?
I am inclined to say yes. Is the
role of the media the same as that of an opposition party? No, the media
would then be overstepping its boundaries.
American journalist and former press
secretary to the US president, Bill D. Moyers, wrote: "The press and the
government are not allies. They are adversaries. Each has a special place
in our scheme of things. The president was created by the Constitution
and the press is protected by the Constitution - the one with the mandate
to conduct the affairs of the State, the other with the privilege of trying
to find out all it can about what is going on. How each performs is crucial
to the working of a system that is both free and open but fallible and
fragile. For, it is the nature of a democracy to thrive upon conflict between
press and government without being consumed by it."
Moyers's observations are relevant
to our country too. In a democracy, the media must accept that the government
in power has the mandate of the people to rule. At the same time, the government
must realise that the media has a duty to inform the people of how the
government conducts its affairs. These two mutually accepted limitations
are essential for the smooth running of any democratic polity. But there
is a tendency on both sides to cross the limits.
The Indira Gandhi-imposed Emergency
lacked the consent of the people. Despite all sorts of obfuscations about
the need to protect democracy, Mrs Gandhi's regime was a dictatorship.
Had it been a democracy, at least the media would have been kept free.
Further, though each government speaks of transparency in its functions,
it rarely carries this out in action. But sometimes, the media, in its
anxiety to reveal discrepancies, are prone to overstep their limits, both
in their methods and motives. Tehelka is an example of the first. Should
the press use bribes and prostitutes in its zeal to reveal corruption?
Whatever be Tehelka's motives, its methodology was wrong and unethical.
Further, the propaganda with regard
to the alleged attacks on Christian institutions that the 'secular' press
indulged in created an impression that the media was more interested in
pulling down the NDA government than in highlighting the details of the
tragic incidents. No secular paper criticised the Church for asking Chandrababu
Naidu to withdraw from the NDA. The press, again, was less than fair when
it failed to apologise to the RSS for raking up its name in the rape of
nuns in Jhabua. The very credibility of this section of the press became
suspect. The way it highlighted the Gujarat election propaganda confirmed
this suspicion.
The government has to face a close
and impartial scrutiny. Naturally, only those with impeccable records are
qualified to do this job. This is not easy. Moyers writes: "I learned at
the White House that of all the great myths of American journalism, objectivity
is the greatest. Each of us sees what his own experience leads him to see.
What is happening often depends upon who is looking."
But does this mean that all reporting
is coloured by our subjectivity? No. If newspapers and journalists are
committed to a set of journalistic and social values, their inevitable
subjectivity will not allow them to jettison objectivity. Then they will
be able to transcend private interests and prejudices.
In a democracy, the media are regarded
as the Fourth Estate, the other three being the executive, the legislature
and the judiciary. The people - journalists included - want the executive,
judiciary and legislature to be free of corruption. By the same logic,
should not the Fourth Estate also be clean? If the media is corrupt, do
they have a moral right to criticise a corrupt executive or judiciary?
Business Standard (Jan. 29), revealed
a most damaging information about The Times of India. It wrote: "Public
relations professionals do not smile at editors and wait for their publicity
material to get printed. They negotiate with the group's online company,
Medianet, and buy column centimetres of editorial space for photographs,
interviews and stories in the different editions of the paper." This means
that the editorial space of The Times of India is up for sale. I now wonder
how a 24-page newspaper can be sold for just Rs 1.50. I remember that the
press commissioner had recommended that advertisement matter must appear
different from editorial matter and that every advertisement must notify
at what rate the ad was procured.
It may sound ironical to suggest
that the government carries out an inquiry into the fundings of such big
newspapers. But in order to keep the Fourth Estate clean, such an exercise
is advisable. It is not enough that the government is free from corruption.
The press, too - that every now and then passes value judgments on governmental
and other social activities - must stay clean. The TOI may not be the solitary
culprit. Selling editorial space or receiving money for publishing material
amounts to prostituting the profession. When big newspapers are not ashamed
to sell their souls, can individual reporters and editorial writers be
immune from the virus.
(The writer is an RSS spokesperson.)