NDTV Suspension Issue Exposes Media: Crying Wolf, And The Wrong Wolf At That

The NDA government has developed considerable expertise in shooting itself in the foot. A case in point is the avoidable decision to ask NDTV to stop telecasting for a day on 9 November, ostensibly as punishment for breaching cable TV norms on the day of the Pathankot terrorist attacks. The suspension (not a ban, as misreported far and wide) has since itself been suspended, thus giving the NDA a perfect self-goal.

The one-day proposed suspension drew widespread indignation from political parties and media organisations. It was criticised as a state censorship, when it was far from being the case. Cries of “emergency” were raised in some quarters, showing the media in poor light. If the media cannot differentiate between a ham-handed attempt to discipline reportage during times of terrorist crises and a wholesale clampdown on newspapers and dissent in Indira Gandhi’s “internal emergency” of 1975, it is not worthy of being called the fourth estate, and a guardian of free speech. Nothing destroys the media’s credibility more than such exaggerations.

While there is no doubt that the government needs to rethink its media strategy and handling of dissent, the media needs to introspect even more on its own serious shortcomings.

The fundamental right to freedom of speech is what media needs to focus on, for media freedom is a derivative right. (This is akin to minority rights being derived from more basic individual human rights). But the media has been nothing if not selective in the way it defends freedom. It is happy to go along with curtailments on freedom on grounds of protecting secularism or something else, but is enraged when the same laws are used to curb its own freedoms.

Here is what it needs to reflect on or ask itself.

First, why is it that there is no internally enforceable code of conduct when it comes to media? Whether it is paid news or the use of covert blackmail for obtaining advertising revenue, there is no code of ethics that is widely known or implemented. In the rush to be first with “breaking news’, why is it that NDTV (and many other channels) failed to self-regulate when reporting on live terror incidents? Have they learned nothing from 26/11? Why is it even necessary for a government to intervene in such issues? If self-regulation is not effective, it will invite direct regulation.

Second, if nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, “censorship” is the first cry of compromised media houses. NDTV itself faces serious charges of financial skulduggery, and this is what the government needs to act on, not so much its alleged violation of terrorism reportage guidelines (though that is important too). Whether it is Tarun Tejpal’s Tehelka or NTDV or even large media groups like Deccan Chronicle, funny money plays an important role in bankrolling media. But everyone wants to pretend this is not a problem.

But it is a fair bet that if the government had actually gone after NDTV for its violations of the law, the latter could quite as easily have fought back using the same “attack on freedom” line. Like politicians who see a conspiracy behind every action of the law, media takes the same line all too often. Now, with the one-day suspension, if the government pursues the case against NTDV to its logical conclusion, it can happily claim victimisation.

When the Jindal Group stung some Zee Group editors, allegedly for trying to extract a Rs 100 crore advertising deal using editorial leverage, the Zee Group (whose editors were subsequently arrested) claimed it was being targeted because it was exposing the coal scam. Every media group will use this argument to deflect attention away from the real wrongs it may be committing.

Third, the nexus between journalists and power-brokers is simply too strong. This was evident from the Radia tapes, where several senior journalists were heard having chummy conversations with corporate lobbyist Niira Radia. While it is far from clear that any of these journalists did something palpably wrong, the fact is journalists as a group did not think the matter was worth investigating further. After the initial news leaks and some sanctimonious editorial outpourings, the issue was buried. Why will the public respect journalists when they regularly deny accountability for their actions?

Fourth, there is little doubt that businessmen and politicians have a huge stake in the media – both directly and indirectly. It is well known that big TV companies – Network 18, NDTV, NewsX, Indian Express, India Today, etc – have been bailed out by money from big business. More than 30 per cent of newspaper groups are linked to political parties or politicians (Sakal with Sharad Pawar, Sun with Marans and DMK, Sakshi with YSR Congress, etc). Hundreds of journalists thus effectively work for vested interests, directly or indirectly. But none of this excites any journalist now talking of attacks on freedom of expression. It is not enough to talk about divorcing corporate ownership from media, for one simple reason: who will them fund good journalism? But so far, no one has come up with this most direct threat to freedom that the media faces every day.

Fifth, many journalists are in bed with businessmen or politicians themselves, both for access to powerful people, and sometimes for obtaining personal favours. Many of Delhi’s journalists are beneficiaries of cheap land allotments now valued at crores. There is no code requiring journalists to declare their assets. This declaration need not be made public (for fear of extortion), but surely it can be disclosed to a discreet ombudsman, who can keep the information private and yet demand explanations on where the money came from. How can a journalist be free if he or she is beholden to bureaucrats or powerful people for personal favours? And if he or she has large unexplained incomes? Isn’t this also a threat to media freedom?

Sixth, even when it comes to fighting for real issues of freedom of expression, media is selective. It can take out morchas to back NDTV, but Indian media is most under threat not in Delhi, but in the state capitals. It is one of the worst-kept secrets that media has been effectively been gagged from reporting on J Jayalalithaa’s current health or ailments. In Kolkata, one newspaper ran an anti-Mamata Banerjee tirade before the state assembly elections, but is now maintaining radio silence on her. This is self-gagging, based probably on fear about what could happen to its business interests if it went too far in its criticism of Didi. Earlier, throughout the 33-year regime of the Left Front, few newspapers reported the fact that the Left ran a thuggish regime in rural areas to ensure its political dominance. It is only now that these stories are coming out.

Fear and self-interest rule many aspects of journalism in India. But it is a suspension of NDTV that evokes outraged reactions, not the core issues that impact media freedom.

The media is crying wolf when there may be no wolf. But it is ignoring the wolf that is already inside its home.