MEDIA

America's prejudiced mediaMEDIA

Hysteria and groupthink prevail over professionalism in covering non-western countries 

The observation that wealth, power and influence are shifting from the West to some key emerging actors among the rest has become a staple of international analysis. Relative decline in US global dominance will inevitably lead to a retreat of the American media footprint around the world as well and translate into a corresponding erosion of US soft power. 

This trend will accelerate if outsiders lose faith in the professional integrity of US media. An important explanation for the surprisingly rapid inroads of Al Jazeera was dissatisfaction with biased coverage of Middle East news by once-dominant western media. 

The vulnerability of US media to manipulation of facts, evidence and opinion was vividly shown during the 2003 Iraq war. Journalists failed to challenge the Bush administration's inflated threat assessment based on manipulated evidence, cherry-picked intelligence and flawed analysis. Former Australian diplomat Alison Broinowski notes: "Of Rupert Murdoch's 174 newspapers worldwide, not one editorially opposed the war; and, once the invasion began, many of their commentaries became hysterically supportive." 

Mainstream US media also collaborated with the Orwellian redefinition of torture. In the seven decades before 2002, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today and Wall Street Journal described waterboarding as torture between 81% and 96% of the times. After 2002, when the US itself began to practise waterboarding, the papers called it torture in under 5% of cases. 

A more recent example is Iran. After a month in the US, Rami Khouri wrote: "Any impartial assessment of the professional conduct of most American media outlets in covering the Iran situation would find it deeply flawed and highly opinionated to the point where i would say that mainstream media coverage of Iran in the US is professionally criminal." 

To this litany can now be added the coverage and analysis of the ongoing India-US diplomatic row. Multiple layers of complexity and nuance are reduced to India wrong, America right. 

It is not too hard to connect the dots and detect the structural bias against Devyani Khobragade in the following equation. The maid worked for Khobragade in New York, her husband for a US diplomat in New Delhi. The latter's and his wife's antipathy to Indian conditions was posted on social media. 

A trafficking visa is the easiest route to permanent entry into the US but requires criminal charges being filed and a willingness by the employee to testify against the employer. A gullible advocacy NGO and a grandstanding attorney accepted the maid's testimony without due diligence that fit their predetermined narrative and agenda. 

The whole chain could of course be false. But that requires independent and impartial investigation. The US media accepted the maid's narrative and prosecution case seemingly at face value and strongly applauded the diplomat's arrest for committing crimes against US visa and labour laws, on the basis of two American self-sustaining myths: egalitarianism and rule of law. 

But the big picture reality is that in effect they endorsed the role of the US as a global bully that imposes rank double standards, compelling foreign diplomats to US legal jurisdiction but using all its economic and diplomatic muscle to keep its officials beyond the reach of foreign legal jurisdictions. 

Editorials and op-eds in the New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Financial Times and Australian repeatedly recalled previous Indian diplomats caught in similar troubles, but stayed silent on more heinous crimes committed by US officials misbehaving abroad, from accidental deaths in Kenya (2013) to murders in Pakistan (2011). In the electronic media, BBC and CNN showed better balance. 

They also neglected to mention that the case, involving a contract signed in India between two Indian citizens, was already before India's courts. By failing to mention it, they saw no need to explain and justify why the US inserted itself into the middle of the case and privileged its own over India's legal jurisdiction. Providing a justification might have been right or wrong; not noting the facts was deceitful. 

Similarly, in an intriguing outbreak of groupthink, they kept mentioning the recall of ID cards for US officials in India as an example of petty and vindictive overreaction. India had unilaterally issued diplomatic ID cards to all US embassy and consular officials. After the shabby treatment of its consular officer, it recalled all diplomatic ID cards and reissued consular ID cards. The second part was simply ignored as just another inconvenient fact that might contradict the self-righteous narrative. 

Outraged opinion writers pointedly noted how security barriers had been removed from around the US embassy in Delhi, but neglected to point out they were removed from public land only for causing great inconvenience to Delhi's citizens and some adjoining foreign embassies. India substantially increased the police presence around the embassy to ensure there was no net reduction in the level of security coverage. 

All this information is publicly available. Because "few governments in the world have the geopolitical heft that India has,'' says Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, "virtually every other government in the world was quietly cheering on the Indian government as it insisted on total reciprocity in the treatment of Indian and American officials". 

You'd never know this from US media. Which begs the question: Were they lazy, incompetent or deliberately dishonest

No space for Dalits in media: Sainath

Indian mainstream media has failed to accommodate enough number of Dalits and Adivasis in editorial roles, noted journalist and Magsaysay award winner P. Sainath has said.

Delivering the N.N. Sathyavrathan Memorial Lecture on ‘Structural Compulsions of Crony Journalism’ at the Kerala Press Academy here, Mr. Sainath said casteism and exclusionism still existed in a vast majority of media organisations in the country.

He called for better democratisation of media, adding that it was the only way to protect the interests of the masses and project their struggles. Coming down heavily on media’s promotion of corporate interests, Mr. Sainath said Aam Aadmi Party was the darling of Indian media initially. “But the media started painting AAP as a villain after it started attacking the Ambanis and other corporate groups which plunder precious natural resources,” he said.

There was a severe disconnect between mass media and mass reality in India, Mr. Sainath said. It was time Indian journalism was liberated from corporate stenography. “Lakme Fashion Week in Mumbai was covered by 612 accredited journalists but only half a dozen journalists covered farmers’ suicides in Vidharbha,” he said.

Unshackling Prasar Bharati-IE

The Sam Pitroda committee report offers a starting point.

India is in dire need of broadcast autonomy, especially in the form of a truly autonomous, even if state-assisted, public service broadcaster. This was a promise made by Nehru to Parliament in 1948. But  it is yet to be redeemed. The post-Emergency 1977-78 broadcast autonomy committee, in its report “Akash Bharati”, presented a blueprint for autonomy. That was dumbed down by the Janata government and a Prasar Bharati bill was finally enacted in 1990, brought into force in 1997 and emasculated almost ab initio.

What the government wanted, with cross-party political support, was some kind of official trumpet. Despite brave efforts to make something of it, Prasar Bharati (PB) has not lived up to its charter that few, if any, have even read. PB’s biodata makes for dismal reading.

It is probably the largest public broadcaster in the world, with a staff of 31,621 full-time and 7,269 part-time (mostly government) employees. DD operates 21 channels and AIR has a network of 326 broadcast stations. The engineering and technical services are numerically dominant and no more than 15 per cent of the budget is devoted to programme content, as against 60-80 per cent by other major international broadcasters. Radio has been downgraded and AIR reduced to a poor relative.

The country has over 800 TV channels and 500 FM channels that are only permitted limited news coverage. Community broadcasting, long discouraged, is only now coming into its own. It was, therefore, with much hope and expectation that the appointment of a new expert committee was announced, under Sam Pitroda and seven domain experts, a year ago. That report is now in, but has been virtually ignored in public discussion.

The main recommendation is that PB “needs to be adequately empowered and enabled” with independent professionals and financial self-reliance to “unleash its creative forces” beyond the market as a true voice of India, its ethos, culture and aspirations in order to become a genuine public broadcaster rather than remain a “government broadcaster”.

Stress is rightly laid on appropriate mechanisms to confer financial and personnel autonomy on PB. There is gross overstaffing and staff must become employees and not allowed to remain government servants, a pernicious legacy of official control. The board should be professionally managed; there must be a complete transfer of ownership and management of all assets and human resources to PB to make it independent; funding should come from the government, internal resource mobilisation, including monetising the tremendous archival assets of AIR and DD; private investment in production; and by “co-opting industry through CSR budgets.

There is need to digitise radio and TV; create a world-class broadcast service with a global outreach; and set up an autonomous third arm, ‘PB Connect’, to manage social media.” Many of these recommendations are well taken, but there will be reservations on others. Constituting a parliamentary oversight committee “to ensure that PB discharges its duty in accordance with the provisions of the act and government-defined duties” is a recipe for political interference. PB is accountable to Parliament through its annual report and budget via the ministry of information and broadcasting and, where needed, through questions. A Regulatory (Complaints) body as a sub-committee of PB is also not a good idea. This should be an independent body and should also cover private broadcasters so as to avoid different rulings by parallel authorities.

The plea to “encourage outsourcing of content creation to external producers” needs to be treated with caution. PB must develop in-house talent while not baulking at hiring producers from the market.

This was the position earlier, but has been subverted by overly embracing the market. Likewise, the report does not go far enough in urging PB to share its huge infrastructure with the market. One committee had, years ago, suggested hiving off the engineering, technical and R&D wing of PB into a transmission corporation as an independent profit centre, since its land, buildings, transmitters, studio facilities, relay stations and towers have considerable idle capacity that could service private and especially local and community broadcasting. This proposal should not be discarded without deeper study. The broadcast receiver licence fee, paid once at the purchase point, has most unwisely been relegated as an unsavoury tax. This calls for review.

Another recommendation that must be queried is that, since the state has to communicate messages, there should be a separate “state broadcasting set-up that should use the existing public and private broadcasting infrastructure”. This appears to be creating avoidable redundancy and encouraging a propaganda machine. PB can and should do the job as a public service above all. The expert report does not make as strong a case for public service broadcasting as merited. Current media trends in India in the wake of the continuing communications revolution and market deregulation are a matter for concern.

Cross-media holdings, the corporatisation and politicisation of the media, advertising pressures, the managerial takeover of editorial responsibilities, paid news and similar dubious dealings like private treaties have all combined to undermine media integrity. Allegations masquerade as charges and subvert public discourse and result in media trials.

The failure to regulate the media — the Press Council is a broken reed — and the fragility of self-regulation have deeply undermined media credibility. It is in this milieu that a true public service broadcaster has a duty to, and can, set standards. It is not commercially driven, as are private channels.

All consumers are citizens but not all citizens are consumers. As India is in transition from rural to urban, agriculture to industry, feudal submission to protest, local to global, little identities to fraternity, information is the key to empowerment, equality, gender justice and social awareness. Who more than PB can afford to speak to and for all the people in their myriad languages and dialects?

Nevertheless, the expert committee report does constitute a good basis for debate and reform. This Parliament is done and legislation must await the new government after the general elections. This gives time for a national debate. Let us use that time purposefully.

Regulation of media in India – A brief overview

Media in India is mostly self-regulated.  The existing bodies for regulation of media such as the Press Council of India which is a statutory body and the News Broadcasting Standards Authority, a self-regulatory organization, issue standards which are more in the nature of guidelines.  Recently, the Chairman of the Press Council of India, former Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. M. Katju, has argued that television and radio need to be brought within the scope of the Press Council of India or a similar regulatory body.  We discuss the present model of regulation of different forms of media.

This note was first published at Rediff.

1. What is the Press Council of India (PCI)?

The PCI was established under the PCI Act of 1978 for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the press and of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.

2. What is the composition of the PCI and who appoints the members?

The PCI consists of a chairman and 28 other members.  The Chairman is selected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and a member elected by the PCI.

The members consist of members of the three Lok Sabha members, two members of the Rajya Sabha , six editors of newspapers, seven working journalists other than editors of newspapers,  six persons in the business of managing newspapers, one person who is engaged in the business of managing news agencies, and three persons with special knowledge of public life.

3. What are its functions?

The functions of the PCI include among others (i) helping newspapers maintain their independence; (ii) build a code of conduct for journalists and news agencies; (iii) help maintain “high standards of public taste” and foster responsibility among citizens; and (iv) review developments likely to restrict flow of news.

4. What are its powers?

The PCI has the power to receive complaints of violation of the journalistic ethics, or professional misconduct by an editor or journalist.  The PCI is responsible for enquiring in to complaints received.  It may summon witnesses and take evidence under oath, demand copies of public records to be submitted, even issue warnings and admonish the newspaper, news agency, editor or journalist.  It can even require any newspaper to publish details of the inquiry.  Decisions of the PCI are final and cannot be appealed before a court of law.

5. What are the limitations on the powers of the PCI?

The powers of the PCI are restricted in two ways. (1) The PCI has limited powers of enforcing the guidelines issued.  It cannot penalize newspapers, news agencies, editors and journalists for violation of the guidelines.  (2) The PCI only overviews the functioning of press media.  That is, it can enforce standards upon newspapers, journals, magazines and other forms of print media.  It does not have the power to review the functioning of the electronic media like radio, television and internet media.

6. Are there other bodies that review television or radio?

For screening films including short films, documentaries, television shows and advertisements in theaters or broadcasting via television the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) sanction is required.  The role of the CBFC is limited to controlling content of movies and television shows, etc.  Unlike the PCI, it does not have the power to issue guidelines in relation to standards of news and journalistic conduct.

Program and Advertisement Codes for regulating content broadcast on the television, are issued under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.  The District magistrate can seize the equipment of the cable operator in case he broadcasts programs that violate these Codes.

Certain standards have been prescribed for content accessible over the internet under the IT Rules 2011.  However, a regulatory body such as the PCI or the CBFC does not exist.  Complaints are addressed to the internet service provider or the host.

Radio Channels have to follow the same Programme and Advertisement Code as followed by All India Radio.  Private television and radio channels have to conform to conditions which are part of license agreements.  These include standards for broadcast of content.  Non-compliance may lead to suspension or revocation of license.

7. Is there a process of self regulation by television channels?

Today news channels are governed by mechanisms of self-regulation.  One such mechanism has been created by the News Broadcasters Association.  The NBA has devised a Code of Ethics to regulate television content.  The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), of the NBA, is empowered to warn, admonish, censure, express disapproval and fine the broadcaster a sum upto Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the Code.  Another such organization is the Broadcast Editors’ Association.

The Advertising Standards Council of India has also drawn up guidelines on content of advertisements.

These groups govern through agreements and do not have any statutory powers.

8. Is the government proposing to create a regulatory agency for television broadcasters?

In 2006 the government had prepared a Draft Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2006.  The Bill made it mandatory to seek license for broadcasting any television or radio channel or program.  It also provides standards for regulation of content.  It is the duty of the body to ensure compliance with guidelines issued under the Bill.