 "Keeping vigil: The emergence of media watchdogs")
Rewind to circa pre-election 2009 - the phenomenon of paid news in its various amorphous avatars had become so rampant in India that a committee had to be appointed by the Press Council of India to investigate into the matter. What the committee's report unearthed was so damning that it was summarily buried in its original form only to be released later by its authors - the eminent journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Sreenivas Reddy. The report explicitly named some of the biggest newspapers and news channels who were seen to have indulged in the practice of paid news, and outlined various ways through which viewers/readers of news content were being tricked by those in the business.
We are at the beginning of another election cycle today and much water has flown under the bridge since these findings were made public. Press Council of India (PCI) chairperson Markandey Katju went on to famously state that he wanted a media 'incapable of self regulation' to be regulated. 'If red lines can be drawn for the legal and medical professions, why should it be any different for profit-making newspapers and TV channels?' Katju questioned. Meanwhile a Private Member's Bill on media regulation by Meenakshi Natarajan, for good or for bad, has pretty much found its way into the dustbin without even as much as an hour of debate. And the half dozen odd media regulatory bodies and journalists associations including the likes of the Editor’s Guild of India, the News Broadcasters Association and the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre, continue to remain toothless tigers with no statutory or moral authority to haul up errant members of the press.
Amid all this, the nature of deceit in the media has gotten more sophisticated, more nebulous as a result of a multitude of factors - financial distress, dodgy ownership structures and rapid changes in the way the industry functions with the onslaught of digital and social media platforms. And while the laws to regulate the industry are yet being pondered over, the vigil on the media from unofficial quarters has tightened in the last 5 years. Journalists are in the eye of the storm like never before, and at the receiving end of a concerted volley of attacks by twitter trolls, but also of solid, constructive criticism by a group of self appointed media watchdogs on an overdrive ahead of the elections.
More From This Section
Among one such is Newslaundry. Veteran journalist Madhu Trehan founded the portal with three others two years ago, in a bid to "turn the mirror on ourselves".
"Abhinandan Sekhri who worked with me on Newstrack, approached me to do a programme for a channel that would critique the media. We soon realised that we wouldn't get the kind of freedom we needed to produce such a show on mainstream media. Considering the murky levels journalism in India had reached, it seemed like the need of the hour to create such a website" Trehan told me in an email interview.
In the two years that its been in existence, Newslaundry has become somewhat of a staple for those looking for an irreverent critique of the media, as well as a chance to see their favorite journalists and news anchors being pounded with tough questions by Trehan and her team.
The Hoot is a more solemn alternative to Newslaundry, and perhaps has a sharper focus on all things media - advocacy, ethics, law,policy and a minute scrutiny on issues of accuracy, fairness, right to information, censorship etc.
"This portal is the outcome of the concern felt by a group of practicing journalists at some recent trends in journalism in this part of the world. It is an attempt to revive a concern for media ethics, restore focus on development in the subcontinent, and preserve press freedom. It will attempt to hold a mirror to the way journalists practice their craft in this region" reads the description on Hoot's "why this website" page.
But if The Hoot and Newslaundry are outcomes of practicing journalists' attempts to reflect on the issues infecting their business, there are also scores of other more abrasive versions that have proliferated on social media as a result of public anger about the way the media has been functioning. Media Crooks is one such. Founded by Ravi Nar an education specialist, this confrontational blog with over 40, 000 plus followers on twitter wants to "change the way we consume news." Skim through their twitter feed and you realize why they are so popular - it is littered with mocking trolls to celebrity TV anchors, conspiracy theories which Nar claims are "backed by sound logic and reasoning" and provocative incitements about politicians and scribes.
"It is confrontational and is meant to be that way. Is all media crooked? Absolutely not! A huge majority of journalists are sincere and hardworking but as with any other business it is the few bad ones who make the most noise. Over a decade or so I have found that a handful of 30-40 crooks dominate the discourse in the media and these are the dishonest crooks that my blog mostly talks about" defends Nar when questioned about his affronting style.
"I have no measure on how much of a difference I make. The only verifiable measure is the readership and I think with 6 million plus views MC could be one of the most read blogs in the country." He adds.
Much as many in the mainstream may want to dismiss this retaliatory, almost vigilante form of monitoring, Trehan believes it occupies an important space of its own.
"There is a lot of anger out there. Social media is a great democratic leveler and has given unknown people a place to be heard. But, sadly it is often misused for abuse and vulgarity" she says.
In the absence of a potent statutory regulatory mechanism it is perhaps going to take all kinds to hold a mirror to an influential organism like the media. The emergence and success of these independent outfits - whatever be their credentials - is a reflection of that fact. It is also proof of the fact that consumers of news are seeking change. Part of that change will occur when readers/viewers eventually stop consuming news that is seen as peddling agendas or products under the garb of journalism. Part of it will occur when our regulatory bodies are given teeth. One issue on which there is widespread agreement though is that a government agency cannot be the regulator as it would pose a great danger to the freedom of press. But as we wait for a consensus to evolve on how exactly the cat must be belled, we know there are many out there keeping the vigil.