This announced today
Under the six-point guidelines framed by the umbrella body NBA (News Broadcasters Association), the channels shouldn’t be telecasting details of identity, number and status of hostages. Nor should they provide information of pending rescue operations or details on the number of security personnel involved or the methods employed by them.
The News Broadcasting Standards Disputes Redressal Authority, constituted by the NBA, today said television TV channels should avoid any “live contact with the victims or security personnel or other technical personnel involved or the perpetrators during the course of any incident.”
Addressing a press meet, Authority Chairman Justice JS Verma also said media should avoid “unnecessary repeated or continuous broadcast of archival footage that may tend to re-agitate the mind of the viewers. Archival footage, if shown, should clearly indicate ‘file’ and the date and time should be given where feasible.”
The Authority said “no live reporting should be made that facilitates publicity of any terrorist or militant outfit or its ideology or tends to evoke sympathy for the perpetrators or glamourises them or their cause or advances the illegal agenda or objectives of the perpetrators.”
The dead should also be treated with dignity and their visuals should not be shown. Special care should be taken in the broadcast of any distressing visuals and graphics showing grief and emotional scenes of victims and relatives which could cause distress to children and families.
At the outset, the Authority said all telecast of news relating to armed conflict, internal disturbance, communal violence, public disorder, crime and other similar situations should be tested on the touchstone of ‘public interest’.
Furthermore, the media had the responsibility to disseminate information which was factually accurate and objective.
more on indiantelevision.com
About time, I’d say.
While India is having hundreds of channels beaming content 24*7 to millions of audience, unfortunately, there is neither proper ‘legal regulation’ by the government nor genuine ‘self-regulation’ by the media.
The very first show of action by NBA in Self-Regulation (SR) is an utter flop and questions the efficacy of the pious concept of Self regulation and its future, especially in view of cut-throat competition among channels. (It is another issue that NBA’s mandatory ‘processing’ fee of 1000/- itself is enough to deter many from complaining. If NBA believes in genuine self-regulation, it should not levy any fee because it is the broadcaster’s bounden duty to regulate themselves in public interest. No body complains just for the sake of it and if any body does so, NBA can reject them as frivolous complaints.)
When it comes to media regulation, unfortunately, the present day debate is tipped against two extremes…viz., ‘pre-censorship / government regulation’ or ‘self-regulation as the final and sacrosanct solution’. No sane person will agree for any of these extreme ends. The solution lies somewhere in between, i.e., in the form of an independent regulatory authority for media with due representation from all fields including and especially, the media community.
Before clamouring about ‘gagging of fourth estate’, one should first distinguish between ‘news media’ and ‘entertainment media’. As regards to freedom for media, ‘News Channels’ are on par with press and should be placed on a higher pedestal than mere ‘entertainment channels’. The so-called ‘gagging of press’ refers only to ‘Pre-censorship of news media’ which is no doubt undesirable and also unthinkable in a true democracy. One may argue for PCI kind of institution to regulate news channels. (It’s again a different issue that PCI is a toothless body whose decisions don’t have at least persuasive value and are ‘buried in papers and now also in its website, of course’) But, what about the need to have an effective grievance redressal mechanism (post facto) for the public in case of violations, especially by entertainment Channels, which forms the major chunk of electronic media sector? Interestingly, this role of grievance redressal is presently played on an ad hoc basis by Ministry of I&B, the most ill-suited entity to undertake such complex and delicate task. (Curiously, media houses don’t seem to resist this existing bureaucratic control [but pitch against the proposed broadcast bill], perhaps because the ministry hardly monitors violations and rarely takes any action on complaints by public. Even if it decides to take action, it will be in the form of occasional ‘warnings’, ‘advisories’, ‘apology scrolls’ and not beyond that. Whereas if regulatory authority becomes a reality, the scrutiny of violations and imposition of penalties will be a systematic and continuous process, a situation which is unpalatable for any media organisation.)
Self-regulation is not an end in itself and also doesn’t mean absence of any grievance redressal mechanism. For media persons, it may be rather inconvenient to agree but it is true that ‘self-regulation is a mere myth’ and its failure is proved time and again (and more likely so in future) because of crass commercialisation of media and channels’ mad run for TRP’s. When the media sector has acquired all characteristics of pure business and is increasingly TRP-driven, it is not understandable as to why the entire media content should be left to the sweet discretion of media houses in the pious name of ‘self-regulation’. Self-regulation without parallel grievance redressal mechanism for viewers is as bad as government regulation of media. Hence, the moot question is not whether to have self-regulation or government regulation but it is: “what if self-regulation fails?”
Regulation of broadcast content by Independent regulatory authorities is neither new nor ugly nor against the tenets of democracy. It is being practised in many developed and progressive democracies of the world including the US and the UK and India need not be a holy exception. Authorities such as OfCom are known for their reputation in the field of media regulation for effectively dealing with redressal of viewers’ grievances. Our country is definitely not going to lose its democratic credentials if it constitutes a media ombudsman with due representation from all fields of society. It is rather sad that despite series of complaints against media irresponsibility (‘fake sting operations’, ‘paid news’,’telecasts posing security threat and inciting violence’ etc.) and public out cry against the same, the media bigwigs coolly say that “they believe in self-regulation and will resist any attempt of the government to ‘gag’ the media.” They don’t mention about the distinction between ‘news media’ and ‘entertainment media’. They don’t talk about the role and need for a genuine complaint redressal mechanism for public. They conveniently ignore the progressive practices in other countries as mentioned above. They argue and do propaganda as if the proposed broadcast regulation bill is an axe on freedom of media.
International experience shows that independent regulatory authorities for media have come to stay. They proved to be viable and time-tested imperatives in the field of media regulation. They have to play the much-needed role of balancing ‘freedom of media’ and ‘ public accountability of media’. Sooner or later, India also has to follow suit in constituting a broadcast regulatory authority for media. Hence, it is high time for the media houses to rise above their narrow self-interests and recognise their responsibility to concede for an independent ombudsman for broadcast regulation. If they want to do genuine lobbying, they can do so for more representation in the regulatory authority rather than stifling the attempts of government to pass broadcast bill. More importantly, the Government should stop pretend sleeping and pass broadcast bill without delay taking into consideration, the genuine concerns of media community.
Really we can counter terrorism If have we become more alert, Police, Military, Intelligence are doing there jobs, but it is our responsibility to take care every thing happening in our surroundings.
Be Careful Be Safe
MAHESH BARIK