December 6, 2013
The menace of "paid news" in some parts of the Indian media during election time, has not only been controlled and contained, but is now also declining significantly — thanks to stringent self-regulation by the media in general, as well as strong scrutiny by the Election Commission (EC).
December 6, 2013
The menace of "paid news" in some parts of the Indian media during election time, has not only been controlled and contained, but is now also declining significantly — thanks to stringent self-regulation by the media in general, as well as strong scrutiny by the Election Commission (EC).
In fact, it is widely recognized that instances of " paid political news" are aberrations, and the entire media must not be tarred with the same brush, especially as strong in-house policing/self-regulation exists right across the sector. However, this correction has happened as media entities across the country have recognized that "paid news" destroys media credibility, with serious consequences to audience and advertiser engagement, and is thus of foremost concern to the media houses themselves.
As a result, major newspapers routinely publicize the EC's press releases of those "confirmed" guilty of "paid news" after every poll. Media industry organizations periodically outline clear-cut guidelines for members, even as they strongly, repeatedly go public against this malpractice, and circulate detailed guidelines pointing out how political reporting must at all times be free, fair and wholly neutral. In any case, individual media companies follow strict codes, with both editors and managements adding to existing internal dos and don'ts for their respective functions. The EC has also played its part, with its district level committees flagging suspicious content, which is then sent to the Press Council of India and the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (the content watchdog of the News Broadcasters' Association) for Print and TV respectively, for further investigation and action.
Thereafter, the EC names offenders in press releases, but has correctly and repeatedly pointed out that it cannot go any further, as it has no locus vis a vis the media. It has thus emphasized, that self-regulation by the media is the best cure for this disease, and its one and only direct interface with the media, is to flag what its committees see as suspicious content.
Instead, it has gone after election candidates accused of paying for news, and initiating formal proceedings including adding the amounts to their election expenses and filing court cases, which have even led to disqualification of elected politicians.
In essence then, after a nationwide outcry over these aberrations and steps by the EC giving clear guidelines to election candidates and the media, the instances of "paid political news" have dwindled significantly, and this menace is being wiped out through self-corrective steps by the media itself.
However, it is now time for governments and political parties to follow the same rules vis a vis the media they own or control — as well as vis a vis the media they do not.
In fact, it is necessary that politicians need to clean up their act before they blame the media. Even the government must realize that Doordarshan and All India Radio can be deemed to be "paid news". There are also many owners/editors who are politicians and hold ministerial positions. Would there be any action against them?
In practice, governments have often treated Doordarshan and All India Radio as their publicity outfits. Is this not "paid news"? Similarly, political parties and politicians own newspapers, TV channels as well as critical distribution platforms like cable operations. In fact, one estimate says that nearly 60 per cent of cable distribution systems are owned or otherwise controlled by politicians, who often drop or curtail the broadcasting of rival TV channels, many of which are also nothing more than publicity arms for their own political outfits. Are these not examples of "paid news"?
There is yet another malpractice, when governments of all hues withdraw state advertising if newspapers and TV channels are in the least critical of them. Is this not an instance of governments misusing their publicity budgets, to, in essence, blackmail the media into toeing their line? Should they not be indicted of "paid news", and worse, blackmail? In fact, any effort by authorities, including taking journalists for junkets on government expense, and then ensuring that they write paeans of praise, is also "paid news", in fact, using taxpayers' money.
In conclusion, then, the media has managed to clean up its act significantly. It is time for political parties to do so too. In this, they must take a leaf out of the book of media entities, which have realized that even isolated cases of "paid news" destroy media credibility, which is why they have taken the steps as described above.
Moreover, the media knows full well that its freedoms come with great responsibilities, and thus, it is taking every precaution to ensure that these hard-fought freedoms for "news" are not threatened in any way.
Similarly, governments and political entities must now do so too and stop indulging in their own "paid news" efforts. Or indeed, instances of "paid non news" (trust the phrase in itself, stirs up the imagination!), which by conservative estimates, are ten times that of " paid news! More on this later…or may be, not at all 😉
