Who is going to keep a watch over the Watchdog of Democracy?

Why did the Prime Minister of India frown?...Because his camera presence was hindered by his Special Protection Group commando.

What is the similarity between Rakhi Sawant and Arvind Kejriwal?

Do aliens drink milk?

These and many other similar statements are not the excerpts of informal conversations among friends, but are 'news clippings' and special reports of mainstream television news channels in the current scenario.

Media is known as the fourth pillar of democracy. It is known as the watchdog, which keeps the people informed about the social, political and economic progress of the country. Thus, an essential feature of a legitimately democratic polity is the freedom of the press.

Let us have a brief look at the historic role, starting from the 19th century, played by the media in India. Rammohan Roy, the eminent social reformer, was a prolific writer as well. He started/edited the newspapers Samvad Kaumudi (Bengali) and Mirat-ul-akhbar (Persian) to convey his message to the people. Similarly, Dadabhai Naoroji propagated his 'Drain Theory'—the drain of wealth from India to England—through the print media. Even draconian measures such as the Vernacular Press Act (1978) during the viceroyalty of Lord Lytton could not deter the fervour of the Indian vernacular language newspapers, some of which used innovation (such as turning themselves to English newspapers overnight) to keep going on with their publication without breaking the law. The persistent criticism of that legislation led to its repeal in 1881. In 1885, about one-third of the persons who attended the Bombay Session (first session) of the Indian National Congress were journalists or writers in some measure. The extremist Congress leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak used his newspapers Kesari and Mahratta to spread patriotism among the people. Gandhi, too, used his journal Harijan for appealing to the masses to curb the abhorrent practice of untouchability. The newspapers The Times of India and Hindu have been in publication since more than a century now.

Post independence, government directives to put a check on the freedom of the press during the internal emergency period (1975-1976) was severely criticized by the print media, sections of which left blank spaces in place of their editorial columns in protest; the others just closed down for some time rather than submitting to the dictates of the autocratic government. The post-independence period also saw the rising popularity of the radio (Akashvani) as a mass-medium. The 'Rajiv Gandhi era' and the Rajiv Gandhi-Sam Pitroda duo brought the communication revolution to India. The television brought into existence the Doordarshan as another mass-medium. Prasar Bharati has been established as a statutory body to oversee the functioning of the Doordarshan and the Akashvani (or All India Radio). Liberalization and privatization had its effects on the media too. The 'market forces' and the 'invisible hands' of the free-market economy brought increased competition, better coverage and effective check on the functioning of the government. Meanwhile, the movie industry had made its strong presence among the masses. Movies such as Garam Hawa, Mother India, Sangharsh, Swades, Taare Zameen Par have tried to bring various social issues to the attention of the people.

In the present scenario, the media can be divided into print media, electronic media, movies, and social media. Various debates, discussions, special coverage and articles about economic policies, social issues, politics and its various dimensions alongwith their impact on the society have played a laudable role of informing the people about the happenings around them. There are, however, certain issues that warrant a debate regarding the rights as well as the duties of the media.

Control over Media:

The State control and censorship over the press has always been a matter of debate. There is no provision in the Constitution of India that deals exclusively with the rights of media—the Article 19 provides the freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right to citizens, which includes the media. That, of course, is subject to reasonable restrictions. But what constitutes 'reasonable' is debatable. Thus, prohibition of movie screenings (such as that of Dam 999, Vishwaroopam) in certain states on the basis of perceived hurt to the sentiments of certain communities, which may result in a law-and-order problem, continually becomes a matter of discussion. To decrease control of the government over the functioning of the Prasar Bharati, the Sam Pitroda committee has recommended the replacement of the deputationist Indian Administrative Service officers (controlled by the Department of Personnel and Training) by expert personnel through lateral recruitment. Similarly, the Prasar Bharati should be privatized to a certain limit to increase its financial autonomy. This will ensure that the motto of Akashvani—"Bahujanhitaaya Bahujansukhaaya" (for the benefit and the joy of the multitude)—holds true to its words.

Another issue under the same heading is the corporate control of media and whether big 'media houses' must be allowed to have their stake in multiple formats of the media, i.e., in print media, electronic media. The proponents of the corporate control call this as inevitable due to the requirement of capital. The opponents, on the other hand, call it a retrograde step that has the risk of the content presented to the people being controlled and filtered to suit the palate and the interests of the media house owner. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta had written an article for the Economic & Political WEEKLY outlining this aspect. Such a control would, certainly, be detrimental to the substantive aspect of the democracy; the consent for a particular viewpoint would be passively generated in the form of a Gramscian common sense, wherein no space would be allotted to the opposing viewpoint.

The corporate control of the media has one more spin-off—the quality of the news presented to the audience. This can be seen in the sensationalization of news items—a feature typical of the TV news channels these days. This can be clearly observed in the case of Hindi news channels on TV. Rahul Pandita, in an article in The Hindu, had recently written a satire on the role of the anchors of these channels. Further, since the supply of a good provided by the corporate sector is determined by the demand for that good (and thus the incentive for producing that good), which is measured by the Television Rating Points (TRP) in this case, the news that will benefit the country is many-a-time compromised for the attention-grabbing 'Breaking News' and features such as 'Saas, Bahu aur Saazish', 'Saas, Bahu aur Betiyan'. These features only cater to the needs of the section of the middle-class and the rich that vies for entertainment and not serious news items, but nonetheless, has a large power to purchase goods. Another by-product of this is the pro-urban bias of the media and a neglect of the rural issues.

Responsible Journalism, Journalistic Bias and Media Trials:

The role of a journalist is to present a news 'as it is' and not 'as what (s)he perceives it ought to be'. Thus, the reportage should be free from journalistic bias. This had been explained in detail in an article 'The Adjective Filter' written by the reader's editor of The Hindu in 2013. According to him, the journalist should refrain from using adjectives as much as possible because that would run the news item into the risk of getting coloured in a certain manner. The job of forming an opinion, on the other hand, must always be left to the reader.

Closely related to the issue of journalistic bias is the issue of 'media trials'. Since the judiciary is the whole and sole authority to pronounce the innocence or the guilt of a person, the media [to increase their TRP or newspaper sales] must not sensationalize any news item for its viewers in a manner which may project the innocence or guilt of a person on the basis of predilection.

Paid News, Opinion Polls and Exit Polls:

Another cause of concern is the phenomenon of paid news, which shows the negative role played by certain sections of the media in projecting the image of a certain candidate in the elections as conducive for development and well-being of the people.

Then, the opinion polls and exit polls need to be regulated to a certain extent as they can have the deleterious effect of compromising the substantive aspect of the democracy by shaping people perceptions about a political party or a candidate. In this case, the argument that there needs to be freedom of speech and expression for the media does not hold valid because ultimately, free and fair elections are the precursor of a democracy which will in turn ensure that the freedom of the press is not compromised in the future.

Social Media:

While the use of the social media (a by-product of the mobile telecommunication revolution) has been certified by the presence of the Prime Minister, various union ministries and police establishments on websites such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, there are certain issues that need to be taken care of. Social media stands the benefit of absence of editorial censorship and space constraints, and the proponents of it claim that the censorship is ascertained by 'peer review' and 'report abuse' mechanisms. Nevertheless, the speed with which unverified content can travel to a large number of places has the potential to create large mass congregation capable of disrupting the law and order and of fomenting social unrest (e.g., triggering the 'Jasmine Revolution' in Tunisia, the congregations in Tahrir Square in Egypt and in Shahbag Square in Dhaka in 2013, the murder of a techie in Pune in 2014). Thus, people must themselves ensure that what they are uploading on the social media is verified and harmless content. Further, the addiction to social media through technological appliances can cause psychosomatic disorders, mental depression, obesity, early ageing, decreased 'real world' contact, etc.

Despite this, care should be taken by the state not to misuse the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (2000) to put unintentional acts under the ambit of criminal laws (as in the case of two girls in Maharashtra in 2013).

As I come to the end of this essay, I ask a question—who is going to keep a watch over the watchdog of democracy? Clearly, press censorship should be resorted to in the rarest of rare cases as otherwise that amounts to keeping the sentinel under the custody of the guarded. However, if the healthy role of the media is applaudable, the irresponsible role played by the media at certain times is equally deplorable. The media-persons need to stick to the ethics of journalism so that the media gets the same credit as is enjoyed by the Election Commission and the Supreme Court among the people of India.