Resolution Re. Forming Independent And Empowered Regulatory Authority Capable Of Taking Action Against Erring Media - Part 2
Sir, the legislations made so far in
the direction of making media accountable have not yielded any noticeable
results because of severe limitations and lack of teeth in those laws.
Sir, as per the existing law, any
person aggrieved from media can approach courts, but very few opt this as the
complainant alone is required to personally attend the court proceedings when
the accused media-heads enjoy the exemption from their physical presence.
Further, no such case is decided within reasonable time and thus there is no
fear of penalty or correction for the errant media.
Sir, any article aimed at sensationalizing
and damaging the reputation of a person or an institution is very prominent and
reaches masses like tsunami, whereas the retraction of such articles is slow
and insignificant, if at all done. Therefore, the safeguards offered by the
present system to protect the affected persons from the excesses of media are
toothless and inadequate. Even if we go through, how many TV licenses, media
permits have been cancelled until now? None. Regulation does not mean control or
wagging the Fourth Estate. Regulatory authorities are everywhere. They are in
telecom, power, Securities Act, insurance. Why are we not able to set up for
media? Though there is a Working Journalists Act, it is largely toothless. In
the past, basically, people used to run media houses with a lot of ethical values
but with commercially viable models. But, unfortunately, today none of them are
following that. Whenever such issues of regulating media come up, media says
they are being controlled, which is not true. We understand that free market
forces should run free, but in India a large part of our population is still,
unfortunately, uneducated. Hence, it needs definitely, regulation and safeguards.
Institutions of editors and editorials have been killed. We now have CEOs and
managing editors that will be responsible for profit-making for the promoters.
My sympathies are with all the journalists of this country because now they
have no choice but to take up articles which would benefit society. Only
commercial heads and corporate houses, in advance, tell them what to air or
what to print and what not to print. I have a few suggestions in this case.
Media must have a regulatory body that would verify facts from opinions, unverified
or dubious materials, defamatory news damaging one’s credibility, absence of
inappropriate material which enhances social unease.
In fact, recently, during a meeting
in Delhi, on some of the points--I can’t mention the names in this august House—media
people said that the media had been growing big but it had not been able to
regulate itself. The National Broadcasting Association has a code of conduct, but
this applies to a handful of channels; even while this code was being violated
and strictures passed by the Ombudsman, no action was taken. In fact, by the
way, they are all laments of the top journalists. Many TV Channels have been
promoting irrationality, Bhoot Pret, superstition, violating the
privacy of individuals showing the
face of rape victims and inciting
unproved violence. Recently, a school
teacher in Delhi was wrongly accused by a TV channel and thrashed by the local
people. Later, we understood that it was wrong. What grave implications could
have the teacher’s family gone through?
Definitely, the media wants autonomy.
But, it has not shown responsibility. Even if we compare with the developed
countries like the U.S., which is also one of the large democratic countries,
freedom of press is a Fundamental Right under the First Amendment of their Constitution.
But, just see how quickly they have moved to having controls without
sacrificing the basic Fundamental Rights. They have formed a commission called
Federal Communications Commission which has been regulating for quite some time
and it is a very successful model. Of course, they have different branches and
are regulated by different bureaus.
Even in the U.K., more than the
media regulator, the BBC sets standards of quality journalism. We are proud of
having some of the best brains in the world. We must have such a regulation in
place before it is too late and we create more social unrest. Sir, it is
because of these inadequacies that I am moving this private Member's Resolution
with a proposal to .create a body for regulation of media both print and
electronic including internet.
Sir, I propose that such a
regulatory body consisting of about fifteen members be headed by a retired
Chief Justice of India, who will be selected by the sitting Chief Justice of
India. Four Members of Parliament be made ex-officio members of the Committee. Five
members may be drawn from the media community and balance five members may be
drawn from the social elite of high repute. This regulatory body begiven a
fixed tenure of five years making it directly accountable to the Parliament and
insulated by the provisions similar to impeachment of the Supreme Court Judges.
At the end I request all colleagues
of this August House to support this Resolution. Sir, with this I conclude.
No comments:
Post a Comment