Paid news: Clean up by the media and Election Commission pays off
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 recognised 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 publicise the EC's press releases of those "confirmed" guilty of "paid news" after every poll. Media industry organisations 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 realise 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 ;-)
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 recognised 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 publicise the EC's press releases of those "confirmed" guilty of "paid news" after every poll. Media industry organisations 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 realise 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 ;-)
EC proposal to check paid news pending with government
The Election Commission on Wednesday again stressed the need to make “paid news” an electoral offence.
Briefing journalists here to unveil the schedule for the Lok Sabha election, Chief Election Commissioner V. S. Sampath said a proposal to this effect from the EC was pending with the government.
In the absence of a law to deal with paid news — a trend that first came to light in 2009 — the EC has put in place a couple of mechanisms to check the problem.
The Commission has created district and State-level media certification and monitoring committees to deal with the problem of paid news and other media-related violations besides carrying out the existing provisions of pre-certification of political advertisements. Another first is the decision to deploy central awareness observers to oversee the efficient and effective management of the electoral process at the field-level; mainly voter awareness and facilitation.
These observers will also monitor the various media related aspects of the Representation of the People Act and “observe the mechanism directed by the Commission at district-level on checking the problem of paid news.”
ECI puts paid news in perspective
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has clarified that poll campaign-related news appearing in newspapers and channels owned by political parties will fall under the purview of paid news, if found to praise a particular candidate and projected that candidate as the winner.
ECI Director Dhirendra Ojha was answering a question during a video conference-based training programme on “paid news, pre-certification and the Media Certification and Monitoring Committee” (MCMC) held by the ECI for district election officers (DEO) and MCMC members of various States on Monday afternoon.
Such news appearing in party organs would be considered an election advertisement of the candidate in question and added to his/her election expenditure, Mr. Ojha said. The query was raised by a DEO from Kerala who pointed out that all mainstream political parties in the State owned newspapers/ news channels through which they promoted their respective candidate.
Action was being taken against paid news as it misled people and exerted undue influence on voters, Mr. Ojha said.
A news item criticising a rival candidate in a party organ did not fall under the purview of paid news but would at the same time come under the purview of the model code of conduct, for which the affected candidate could approach the Press Council of India.
In any case of identified paid news, the MCMC had the authority to issue notice only to the candidate and not to the media.
Political parties too did not come under the purview of paid news. Editorials and interviews did not come under the purview of paid news as newspapers had the prerogative to air their views independently.
Mr. Ojha said before identifying an item as paid news, it should be clearly demarcated as an advertisement for a candidate in lieu of cash or any other consideration. “It should be identified as an advertisement in favour of a particular candidate but presented as news.”
Mr. Ojha said it would take some more time to evolve a clear picture of paid news with respect to the social media. But advertisements for a candidate appearing on such sites without pre-certification of the MCMC would be calculated under the election expenditure of the candidate.
Mr. Ojha said opinion polls had not been banned but exit polls had been banned. All campaign-related parody songs would have to obtain prior clearance of the MCMC.
EC issues notice to Chavan in ‘paid news’ case
In an order with far reaching implications, the Election Commission has asked senior Congress parliamentarian and the former Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan, to explain why he should not be disqualified under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act in a case pertaining to ‘paid news.’
In its order on Sunday, the EC gave Mr. Chavan 20 days to state why he should not be stripped of his membership of the House and disqualified from contesting an election for a period of three years.
The Commission’s order pertains to complaints by one of the contestants against him in the 2009 Maharashtra Assembly election and several others. The chief allegation was that he got several advertisements published in news media, which amounted to ‘paid news,’ but did not include the huge expenditure incurred on them in his election expenses statement.
Refusing to accept the explanation given by Mr. Chavan that he had no ‘knowledge’ of the advertisements, the EC said that the respondent had failed to lodge his account of election expenses in the manner required by the Act and Rules.
The Commission has come down strongly on a section of the media for promoting the Congress’ prospects in the 2009 Maharashtra elections. It said news articles cannot be treated as general news in the normal course as these were quite clearly received from political parties and reproduced by all such newspapers so as to pass as general news.
EC notice raises question on media responsibility
The Election Commission notice, asking former Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified in the “paid news” case is aimed as much at the senior Congress leader as a section of the media.
The crux of the case relates to a series of articles and news items in sections of the media in Maharashtra in praise of Mr. Chavan as well as publication of 25 advertisements on his election campaign.
The issue of paid news has been a serious concern for the Commission as well as several institutions related to the media. The Press Council of India (PCI) had come out with a detailed report on the “paid news” in the latter half of 2009 and the Election Commission initiated its first considered steps against it in 2010.
The Commission accepted the PCI definition of “paid news” as any news or analysis appearing in any media (print and electronic) for a price in cash or kind and went on to appoint Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) at district and State-levels for certification of advertisements and keeping a check on violations.
In Mr. Chavan’s case, after several hearings, including appeals in the High Court as well as Supreme Court, the Commission was convinced that during the Maharashtra Assembly election in 2009, a large number of news items, articles, analysis and items marked “advertisements” and “advertorials” appeared in various newspapers, newspaper supplements, pamphlets and magazines eulogising Mr. Chavan, which were in fact paid news published for consideration in kind or cash. This spending, however, did not reflect in Mr. Chavan’s poll campaign expenses.
The Commission had sought comments of four newspapers – Lokmat , Pudhari , Maharashtra Timesand Deshonnati – in which this material appeared. The newspapers denied the allegation of any payment contending that the impugned “paid news” were, in fact, news or editorials or supplements published by them gratuitously as they had either links with, or leanings towards, the Congress and Mr. Chavan.
On the contention of the Lokmat newspaper that it strongly believed that the Congress was the only party which offered a secular option to the electorate, the Commission said it was no excuse to pass off paid news as news.
“While every newspaper/media house is entitled to its own philosophy (which could be akin to a political party’s philosophy), what is sought to be published as news should be untinged by such philosophy as different from editorial. The minimum that is expected of ethical journalism is that the reader is cautioned by suitable disclaimers while such articles are published so that the unwary reader can make suitable allowance in his mind while forming his judgement. This matter assumes greater significance in the election period when the media needs to show greater responsibility,” it said.
No comments:
Post a Comment