The media is like the weather; everyone has an opinion on it, but no one really knows how it could be changed. As a result, all too often bad ideas get an airing and government action does more harm than good. Take the central government’s reported decision to withdraw its advertising from five “anti-national” newspapers in Kashmir (some with a large readership) that are said to be “fostering separatism and leading to disharmony”. In another instance, the Press Council of India’s new chairman reportedly commented on using “harsh” measures as an admittedly non-preferred way to deal with the media, such as imposing heavy fines, withdrawing government advertising and suspending their licence. Or take the government’s proposal to establish new norms for granting TV licences.
Of course, a more introspective and less self-indulgent media will realise that it has only itself to blame for such unwanted attention. Some of the more intemperate TV news channels and anchors have attracted negative comment for their over-the-top style and dumbed-down content, while leading publishing houses have been guilty of violating trust of readers by indulging in the reprehensible practice of “paid news”. As a result, though the protection provided to a free press by the Constitution stands, the buttress provided by the perception that the media was a social good has given way to a growing feeling that the media is only interested in making a profit, and needs to be regulated or controlled like any other business. It is, however, one thing to regulate a business, but it’s another to impinge on editorial freedom. For all its faults, the media has shown itself to be a powerful agent of accountability. Many discussions in TV studios have been informative and authoritative, with decision makers, Opposition stalwarts and intellectuals on board. Sometimes, such open debate has served as a more effective public platform than Parliament, whose proceedings are disrupted frequently.
While recognising the media’s warts, it is important to oppose all three actions. Advertising, more so by the government, is not a favour granted to a friendly publication; it is a payment made to get a message across and the charges for carrying the message depend on the reach of a specific media outlet. In practice, of course, governments have often been biased towards favoured publications and against critical ones, but the principle remains. If a publication is anti-national, the remedy for that lies elsewhere; cancelling advertising is not a defensible short-cut. It is doubly regrettable that none other than the Press Council’s new chairman should suggest this as an option to bring a publication to heel, though he has said this is not his preferred approach. His qualification notwithstanding, it is extraordinary that Justice Markandey Katju should talk of withdrawing a newspaper’s licence to publish, in the same way as the government talks of withdrawing a TV licence (something that Justice Katju has asked to be kept on hold). The right to publish and broadcast is an inalienable part of the freedom of speech, and no one in authority should think he has the right to take it away from a citizen. Indeed, if Mr Katju’s views have been correctly reported, his appointment as Press Council chairman would come into question in media circles.