If democracy has 4 pillars, standards of quality should be same for all the pillars

The most fundamental unit of any building structure comprises of four pillars. These pillars determine the longevity and stability of the building. Also, these four pillars never meet. They are parallel, but complement each other. It also goes without saying that the standards of quality should remain high and uniform for all the four pillars. Now, we all acknowledge that for a democracy, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, and Press are like four pillars. That essentially means that the standards of probity should be high and uniform across the four bodies, which includes Press, on which I would like to focus in this article.

With the advent of 24x7 news media, the standards of journalism have hit a new low. There are two major reasons for this. First: Many politicians, business tycoons have invested in media houses with a purpose of promoting their political/business interests. Second: With too many news channels on air, journalism has become a highly competitive business and the rat race for TRPs is ensuring that quality takes a back seat.

Not very long ago, Britain was shaken by sensational revelations of some senior journalists involved in invasion of privacy of some private citizens for the sake of obtaining news. UK’s parliament reacted to it immediately and Lord Justice Leveson Commission of Enquiry was constituted to go into the aspect of media ethics. Result? A newspaper, owned by an international media baron with a history of over 100 years was shut down and many journalists and politicians, including the incumbent and former Prime Ministers were questioned by the Commission, which was telecast LIVE. Leveson Commission submitted a 2000 page report with guidelines on relations between politicians/bureaucrats/judges and journalists. The Commission also recommended the constitution of a new body to look into aspects of media ethics and violations. This needs to be appreciated. In India, there were much more serious violation of ethics by many media houses and no serious action was initiated.

Media is not a holy cow. Journalists should understand that their right to question the system comes with the responsibility to answer all legitimate questions. A free press is very important. But, no freedom is absolute and reasonable restrictions are a must. And for the benefit of the media and the country as a whole, it is important that we define these regulations in writing, and, in form of a law. When specific laws are there to govern and regulate the other three pillars of democracy, i.e., legislature, executive, and judiciary, why should the fourth pillar be governed by unwritten, unsaid rules and self-imposed regulations?

Editorial Independence:

It should be made mandatory for media houses to publicly declare about the issues on which they have conflict of interest. For example, if a media house is covering a legal case against a particular businessman, it should make it clear if that particular businessman or his company or his blood relations have a stake in their channel. This may sound like a very absurd idea, but it is needed. If a businessman can invest money into a media house and get coverage in his favor, there won’t be any difference between journalism and paid news.

Also, due care needs to be taken to ensure that differentiation is made between news and opinions while telecasting news. Editors have full right to take a particular position on any issue. However, the editor’s opinion on the issue should not be seen by a common man as “News”. This is definitely an aspect of media ethics.

Privacy and Confidentiality:

Of late, many media houses describe their journalism as “courageous”, “path breaking”, etc. Well, some of them may be genuine. I wonder, is placing secret cameras and hearing devices called “courage”? It definitely is not. In privacy, individuals have every right to talk what they want to and this kind of eavesdropping in the name of “sting operations” is nothing but a blot on journalism. It is only fair to expect written norms in place to censure media from invading into the privacy of individuals in the name of sting operations.

Did anyone of you wonder how we have secret documents leaking into the media so often? Who is doing that? What is the intent behind this? It is for sure that someone leaks a document only with an intent of making the contents public. Therefore, the intent is malafide. And the unfortunate truth here is that media is acting as a catalyst. To be even more crude, in all the incidents involving leakage of secret documents, media is indeed a co-conspirator. Official Secrets Act needs to be amended to make place for penalties for publicizing content which is classified as a “secret”.

Media Trial:

Last point, but the most dangerous one. Prime Time debates are less intended for a  constructive and useful discussion and more aimed at passing judgments. When some allegations come out in public, media can cover it along with the view point of the person against whom the allegations are levelled. But, the problem comes up when the media starts passing judgments. This is a very very dangerous thing. What if the allegations later turn out to be false? The same media, which would have spent 100 hours discussing about the allegations just gives 2 minutes of airtime to say that the allegations are false. What about the irreversible damage caused to the reputation of the individual?

Conclusion:

Media cannot absolve itself of accountability with its “holier than thou” attitude. Media has the responsibility to answer all legitimate questions, just like the way politicians and bureaucrats are expected to. Media is not above the law.