In her column "Media regulation: The noose tightens" (Media Scope, December 10), Vanita Kohli-Khandekar has rightly suggested that the Press Council of India (PCI) is a toothless tiger and the government needs to empower it to punish and take stringent action against wrongdoers. PCI's directions only carry an ethical/ moral force and have no authority to enforce its compliance and impose penalties. There is an inherent conflict of interest in its constitution, as 20 out of the 28 members are from the media. On this issue, India has a lot to learn from the Leveson report of the UK because the problems associated with the regulatory bodies in both countries are similar - inadequate powers to penalise. The Press Complaints Commission was considered ineffective in the case of the phone hacking scandal in this report.
There is a need for a single regulatory authority for print and television companies as recommended by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India because self-regulation has proved inadequate to check the rampant malpractices in some sections of print as well as electronic media.
Such a body should predominantly consist of eminent non-media people from different walks of life to avoid a conflict of interest. The argument that regulation will affect the freedom of press is not valid, as regulation is different from control. In control, there is no freedom, while in regulation, there is freedom but it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. However, as long as the media itself does not uphold the ethics of journalism, external regulation will be ineffective.
Rajendra Singh Gandhinagar
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
