To whom is the media accountable

On March 21, 2002 the Media Foundation held a panel discussion at the India International Centre in Delhi to mark the first anniversary of The Hoot.org. What follows is a presentation made that evening by Harish Khare, Associate Editor, The Hindu.

To whom is the media accountable

The answer to the question to whom is the media accountable is obvious. Since newspapers profess, -- and, profess assertively - that they exist and perform to protect and advance the "public interest", the answer then should be obvious: the newspapers are answerable - or at least ought to be answerable - to the mythical entity called the readers, who collectively constitute the "public". In the recent debate, over whether foreign investment ought to be permitted in print media, those who opposed the entry of the foreign investor argued, and argued vehemently, that somehow the newspapers were custodians/repositories of the "national interest"; those on the other side of the argument, did not deny this claim, but merely argued that the presence of a foreign investor would in no way dilute their commitment or capability to guard the "national interest".

But the obvious is not satisfactory. Obviously, the media¿s protestations are not accepted at face value; and, even though no one accuses the media of not being mindful of national interest, there is nonetheless a wide and deep resentment at the power the media has come to be perceived to be exercising, and, the resentment seems to hinge on a perception that this power is being exercised unfairly, sometimes even irresponsibly.

The impression of media becoming powerful cannot be dismissed out of hand. There was a time - not long ago - when the editor of The Times of India used to boast - and not very modestly - that his was the second most important job in the country. That has changed, and the power of the reach of the electronic media has been felt by many. Recently, for example, The Telegraph of Calcutta, compiled a lost of 50 Most Important People in India. Slot No.28 went to Mr. Prabhu Chawla, slot no. 31 to Mr. Prannoy Roy, No.37 to Peter Mukherjee, No.38 to Naresh Chandra of Zee TV.

Power invites resentment. Power exercised unfairly and arbitrarily invites greater resentment. And opposition, too.

The fact we are debating the question of media¿s accountability this evening, is perhaps indicative of the need that the media ought to be held accountable, at least more accountable - to someone - than it is now. Fair enough. No institution in a democratic set up can claim to be beyond questioning, beyond accountability.

It also needs to be acknowledged that there are no effective institutional mechanism which get invoked in bringing newspapers to their senses, if need be. The Press Council regime is really a mealy-mouthed arrangement; only those who choose to acknowledge its power of censor can feel chastened by a Press Council indictment; others can - and do - just brazen it out. The professional bodies - like the Editors Guild and other journalists¿ unions - keep away from taking note of errant behaviour, leave alone censoring errant behaviour.

What is more no newspaper has an in-house ombudsman, who will rap the careless reporter on the knuckle, and to whom the reader can approach for any redressal of a grievance. And, needless, to say no newspaper carries a media column, where an independent voice would point out lapses of judgment and analysis.