With the Republic TV of Arnab Goswami-fame refusing to obey the orders of media regulatory body NBSA (National Broadcasting Standards Authority) to apologise for an objectionable broadcast, we are back to the question that Justice Markandey Katju raised in 2011: How to regulate the unruly TV channels? He had raised a pertinent question pointing out to the way our media function today. He had made three valid points against electronic media: They divide the society; they divert attention from real issues; and they spread superstition.
Justice Katju had also given a solution to take the bull by the horns: Reform the Press Council of India and bring TV channels under its purview. But his proposal was shot down by the owners claiming that they self-regulate themselves, and any deviation from this would compromise their independence.
Experience so far shows that self-regulation is no regulation. It’s proving to be a farce. Republic TV is not the only one to defy the orders of NBSA. Three months back Zee News was in the dock and, on earlier occasions, several other national and regional channels also ignored the rulings. One of them, India TV, even quit the regulatory body when asked to apologise and pay fine, only to rejoin when the issue died down. Ironically, Rajat Sharma, the chief of India TV, currently heads NBSA’s parent body NBA (National Broadcasting Authority).
September 7 was the deadline for Republic TV, owned by BJP MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar, to apologise for the remarks Goswami had made on one of his Prime Time shows in January this year. Republic had run a video alleging that its reporter Shivani Gupta was prevented by some people from doing her job while covering youth leader Jignesh Mevani’s rally. Dubbing the rally a ‘flop show’, Arnab called some of the participants “vulgar thug”, “pervert”, “goon”, “sexist”, “hyena” and “anti-Indian”. He even encircled still photographs of some of them and repeated the derogatory words several times. Among them was one A. Singh who, along with his partner Pratishtha Singh, registered his complaint with the NBSA.
In its reply to NBSA, Republic TV claimed that the complainant was “interfering with the reporting done by its reporter by moving towards her in an intimidating and aggressive manner and shouting the words “jhooth bol rahi hai (she is lying)”. Republic also claimed that the complainant engaged in further sloganeering aimed at the reporter. But NBSA was not convinced. In its August 30 order, the regulatory body noted, “The footage does not show use of any objectionable words by the complainant or any gesture which can be described as ‘lewd’ or ‘threatening’.”
Chastising Goswami for his choice of language, NBSA said, “Use of words like ‘I am going to show these crude, lewd hyenas/show the dirty faces of lewd, cheap, vulgar, sexist, pervert anti-Indian goons’ by Mr Arnab Goswami who was anchoring the programme was totally unwarranted and unjustified and the same was in violation of the broadcasting standards.”
A few months back Zee News was in the dock. In May, the channel owned by BJP MP Satish Chandra, was asked by the NBSA to apologise for misreporting on a mushaira in March 2015. But the channel did not comply with the order dated August 31, 2017. Zee News programme, based on the annual Shankar-Shad Mushaira that took place in New Delhi on March 5, 2015, was highly defamatory and repeatedly pronounced scientist and poet Gauhar Raza an “anti-national”, based on a prejudiced and baseless conclusion. Dubbed ‘Afzal Premi Gang ka Mushaira’, his recitations were also linked to the protests which were those days being witnessed at the Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Raza had complained that the channel had “caused serious and severe harm to my reputation and has endangered the safety of my family and me”. Besides Raza, a joint complaint was also filed by poet Ashok Vajpeyi, singer Shubha Mudgal, actor Sharmila Tagore and writer Syeda Hameed. The verdict went against Zee but it refused to accept it and twice filed review applications which were rejected on both the occasions. Finally, Zee was directed to run an apology in Hindi and English in full text with a clearly audible voice-over at 9 pm on May 17. Four months have passed but no action has been initiated against the Zee News for ignoring the regulatory body’s order. Going by past records, no action is likely against Republic TV as well.
Across the board, news channels have flouted all norms and violated ethics and privacy rights. They have been blatantly partisan as they have indulged in fake news and doctored news to suit their agendas, besides reducing tragedy to “bathroom journalism”. During JNU row in 2015, Zee News and Times Now were specially criticised for their biased reporting. Zee News was exposed by its own journalist Vishwa Deepak who resigned claiming unethical practices of the channel. Times Now was accused of doctoring the video clippings to show the JNU students in bad light. But throughout the controversy NBSA remained a mute spectator.
NBSA is not a government body. It’s rather a wing of News Broadcasters Association (NBA), a representative body of private TV news and current affairs broadcasters. It has formed NBSA as an independent unit that investigates complaints against its members. Not all the TV channels are its members. Only 29 leading broadcasters (comprising 71 news and current affairs channels) are part of it. The rest 300-plus news and current affairs channels are beyond its control. That means its writ runs over hardly 20 per cent of the privately-run channels of news and current affairs. But even those 20 per cent don’t give a damn to it.
Same is the case with entertainment channels. Their owners have formed Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) of which 250 of the nearly 400 TV channels registered in entertainment genre are members. Again, it means only 60 per cent channels are bound by whatever code of conduct the IBF has adopted. Like NBA, IBA too has formed a regulatory body called Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC). It examines content-related complaints relating to all non-news general entertainment channels in India.
Both NBSA and BCCC are non-statutory bodies not answerable to the government or the public. In 2013, a civil society body called Hindu Janajagruti Samiti filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, seeking its intervention to bring private TV channels under a regulatory framework. The PIL claimed that while the print media is regulated, there is no regulatory body or censorship for TV channels. “The channels claim only a self-regulation which has proved to be completely ineffective. The self-regulating bodies…are private companies under control of the media houses,” said the PIL pointing out to a conflict of interest.
Accepting the petition, the Supreme Court issued notices to the ministries of information and broadcasting, law and justice, and information technology as well as Press Council of India and the Election Commission, besides NBA and IBF. According to a November 30, 2013 report in Live Mint, both the NBA and the IBF had declined to comment on the PIL because, according to them, the matter was sub-judice. Almost five years have passed, there is no information about the fate of the notices that the Supreme Court issued.
When Justice Markandey Katju was appointed chairman of the Press Council of India (PCI) in 2011, he made a sincere effort to reform the PCI (which till date is overdue) and to bring private TV channels under its purview so that they could be held accountable for their misdeeds. He wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, requesting him to amend the Press Council Act by bringing the electronic media also under the purview of the Press Council which, he proposed, may be renamed the Media Council. “By giving it more teeth – for example, the power to suspend government advertisements or in extreme cases, even the licence of the media houses for some time,” he said.
Aware of the sensitivity of seeking ‘more teeth’ for a statutory body, Justice Katju said, “It may be objected that this is interfering with the freedom of the media. There is no freedom which is absolute. All freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions, and are also coupled with responsibilities. In a democracy everyone is accountable to the people, and so is the media.” The experience of last two decades – since private TV channels came on the seen – proves Justice Katju and all those who care for the general good of the society right. Self-regulation is not working. It’s high time another sincere effort be made to tame the beast.