Stretching the border of taste

IN Law and Policy | 22/08/2005

Reprinted from the Pioneer, August 21, 05

Chandan Mitra

That the Supreme Court has admitted a PIL against the unfettered publication of allegedly sexually explicit material by newspapers and sent notices to two leading dailies and news agencies probably reflects the widespread concern coupled with helplessness at the growing trend to cater to the prurient instincts of readers.

It`s early days yet and thus difficult to gauge the direction the matter will take. No doubt, the issue of Press freedom will come up in a major way in case there is any move to classify newspapers into categories in accordance with their allegedly explicit content as demanded by the PIL. The Supreme Court has also invited a submission by the Press Council of India on whether certain guidelines can be framed for this purpose.

On the face of it, the idea of certifying newspapers into categories like `Adults Only` or `Parental Guidance Advised` sounds rather far-fetched if not outrightly hilarious. It will also not be easy to codify `sexually explicit` unless a censor board official, empowered to use discretion, is made to sit in every newspaper office and scan through its contents on a daily basis. I believe the apex court will not entertain any such suggestion as the idea of posting a moral policeman in newspaper offices is neither desirable nor practical and will invite serious charges of curbing media freedom - anathema to the functioning of a mature democracy. India cannot be subjected to China-type regimentation or Saudi Arabia-like fundamentalist repression.

However, some issues arise straightaway from the PIL. At various seminars, I routinely face a volley of questions from the audience about the publication of semi-nude photographs and titillating articles, many of which undoubtedly transgress the borderline of what is commonly understood as good taste. I have always replied to these accusations with a simple observation: Nobody forces a reader to subscribe to a newspaper that offends his/her sensibilities.

The paradox is that the circulation of the allegedly prurient publications seems to be steadily increasing while the more sober papers, including The Pioneer and The Indian Express, are not growing at the same pace. In other words, there is a strong element of hypocrisy about this concern over alleged prurience.

There is, in my opinion, an even bigger problem with TV. Some of the programmes that are regularly aired by both national and foreign channels truly stretch the borderline of taste. I never watch Fashion TV, but the other day, while surfing, I did see it for a few minutes and was appalled by what I saw. Opinion was DIVided when Ms Sushma Swaraj, as I&B Minister in the NDA Government, banned this channel.

After what I saw last weekend, I was certain that the ban should never have been lifted and, actually, ought to be reimposed. Arguably, the visuals did not promote sexual activity. But the procession of models flaunting their assets without even a fig leaf on their torsos cannot be justified on grounds of aesthetic license. Late night shows, many of which are often repeated during the afternoon when children are back from school are even worse. Some channels have taken not just to re-creating murders but also rapes!

Unlike print, TV has no regulatory body overseeing its contents. True, the Press Council does not pre-judge contents of a newspaper and acts only when a complaint, usually of defamation or libel is registered, but an aggrieved citizen at least has the option of complaining about any printed news item. Somebody defamed by TV has no recourse whatsoever.

This is a major lacuna in the regulatory framework, but even 15 years since cable TV mushroomed in India, the Government appears unable as well as unwilling to act. Occasionally, there has been talk of setting up a Media Council to cover both print and TV or a Broadcast Authority of India on the lines of the Advertising Council, but none has fructified. During the recent controversy over India TV`s sting operations, the Government said it proposed to legislate to control such reportage. Nothing has come of that either.

A fortnight ago, responding to a Rajya Sabha debate on obscene content on TV, the Government again shared MPs` concerns and assured steps to contain runaway prurience. It is not my argument that TV should come under the ambit of censorship. A majority of channels do not transgress the borderline of good taste and, in fact, telecast informative, wholesome content.

But there ought to be a level playing field for the two principal arms of the media - print and electronic. If sexually explicit content is the issue, TV is certainly more guilty than newspapers. Of course, here too, the same argument can be made. Just as readers have the choice of not subscribing to a newspaper they don`t like, they also have a remote control gadget in their hands and are, therefore, not compelled to watch offending channels.

Regardless of the view the Supreme Court eventually takes on the PIL in question, I believe there are certain issues the media itself has to handle.

In his address at the 2nd Convocation of the Pioneer Media School last Monday, TV celebrity Rajdeep Sardesai made a few pertinent observations. The basic thrust of his query was: What constitutes news? He pointed to a series of news bulletins on most channels over the last weekend that focused exclusively on just two items - actress Karisma Kapoor`s legal dispute with her estranged husband and selection of the Indian team for the forthcoming tri-series in Zimbabwe.

He rightly wondered if there was nothing else happening in the country for the channels to devoted almost the whole bulletin(s) to just these two relatively unimportant matters. No doubt people are interested in knowing the Indian cricket team`s composition, but does that merit dedication of 30 minutes in bulletin after bulletin, to the exclusion of other news? And, is it of any material consequence to the people of India if Karisma Kapoor is not allowed to travel abroad with her four-month-old child?

The steady dumbing down of news, both by print and TV, but especially TV, is what should seriously concern not just media professionals but also all thinking people in the country. Although not directly related to the PIL on explicit content, there is a connection between the two: They feed on each other. Because news is progressively becoming conditioned by entertainment, it is only one logical step further for newspapers and TV channels to promote titillating matter. There is a chicken and egg question here; it`s difficult to pinpoint what came first.

But I have no doubt that the media itself must contain the fatal attraction of dumbing down news if it is to ward off public anger and, eventually, judicial reprimand.

Freedom of the Press does not mean license to print quasi-obscene or vulgar material with purely commercial interests in mind. In the West, where society is much more permissive than India, publications are clear about their target readership. Thus, there are tabloids and magazines almost specialising in explicit content while the mainstream papers and journals studiously avoid descent into prurience.

In India, however, it is the mainstream rather than niche publications that are guilty of promoting near-pornographic material. Laws in this regard are much more liberal in the West, which means that the issue cannot be resolved by legislation. It is for the media itself to ponder the consequences of its current policies.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=mitra%2Fmitra131%2Etxt&writer=mitra