To whom is the media
accountable?
It needs to be acknowledged that there are no effective institutional mechanisms which get invoked in bringing newspapers to their senses, if need be
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.
HOWEVER, BEFORE we attempt to rearrange the mechanism of accountability, let us catalogue a few features of the print media. Without such an undertaking, it would be futile - and even dangerous - to devise ways of making the media fall in line of accountability.