Submitted by: Abhilash Philip 1 st MA Communication Reg NO 138 MC 124
A conference on media, issues of public interest and regulation will be held 3-4 February 2014 in Chennai. It is organised jointly by the British Deputy High Commission, Chennai, PANOS and the Media Development Foundation, which runs the Asian College of Journalism. The conference grew out of the need for clarity within the Indian media on the best way forward on issues of public interest and regulation. There appears to be particular interest in developments in the UK and the policy response evolving there in the wake of the Leveson report. The conference seeks to bring together key decision makers from the Indian and UK media and selected seniors from civil society. It aims to discuss a range of themes, including:
Reconciling Freedom and Accountability Issues of Regulation in the Media Whistle blowing and Journalism Opportunities and Challenges of the Internet Journalistic Ethics: East and West The Future of Journalism
Reconciling Freedom and Accountability Chair Justice K. Chandru, former Judge, Madras High Court Presentations Mr N. Ravi Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu; Chair, India Chapter of International Press Institute; President, Editors Guild of India Mr Shekhar Gupta Editor-in-Chief, The Indian Express Mr Maalan Narayanan Editor, PuthiyaThalaimurai and Director,New Generation Media Corporation P Ltd. Mr Marcus Winsley Director, Press & Communications Group, British High Commission, New Delhi.
Senior journalists representing every arm of the media print, television and Internet and practically every facet of the profession editors, chairmen of boards, members of the vernacular press, media persons from UK, educationists, legal professionals and bureaucrats shared their experiences and points of view with the audience comprising mainly journalists and students of the Asian College of Journalism at a conference jointly organised by the Media Development Foundation; Panos, South Asia; and the British Deputy High Commission in Chennai recently. Justice K. Chandru, former Judge of the Madras High Court and a frequent contributor of articles connected with the legal profession to newspapers and magazines, in his capacity as chair of the panel that discussed Reconciling Freedom and Accountability, expressed the view that the two concepts were not antithetical. There was a constitutional right to Freedom of Expression though there was no special reference to press freedom, he pointed out, and said the press enjoyed the same freedom as every citizen, subject to the same reasonable restrictions put forth in Article 19.2 of the Constitution.
Different views on regulation
The discussion on issues of regulation saw experts like Stephen Pritchard, Sashi Kumar, Krishna Prasad and Deepak Jacob presenting their views on various facets of the subject. A.S. Panneerselvan, executive director, Panos, South Asia, and readers editor, The Hindu, was in the chair. Explaining the roles and responsibilities of a readers editor, Stephen Pritchard, who holds the post at The Observer in the UK, and is president, Organisation for News Ombudsman, said readers editors work independently of the editor and represent people who buy the paper and appear in it. They stand back from the fray, listen to the public, and act on complaints and comments, if necessary. Its all about transparency, and from transparency comes trust. Making a solid business case for accountability he said, If a reader trusts you, he will buy you, and a readers editor, as proven by the experience of his own paper, also significantly reduces legal costs for the media house. Sashi Kumar, chairman, Media Development Foundation and Asian College of Journalism, said while Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary acted as checks and balances on each other as envisaged by the Indian Constitution, the Fourth Estate was not as readily perceived as accountable, and hence the demands for self-regulation. If any of the other three estates were to impose such accountability on the press, it would not be a free press anymore and as such, the action would be tantamount to tampering with the Constitution, which was the conundrum to be resolved. Expressing himself against government or Parliament regulating the press in India, he cautioned that the wrong lessons could be learnt from the Justice Leveson Report in India, and it could be used as a tool by the Government to clip the wings of the press. In UK, the debate of consumer vs citizen as pertains to the media was resolved by Ofcom (the independent regulator and competition authority for UKs communications industry), In India, we were still grappling with the two concepts, Kumar said. Though the Press Council was mandated to ensure a level playing field, entry levels, had been raised so high that only money bags can start television channels, he said, comparing the present scenario with his own experiences relating to Asianet, the Malayalam satellite TV channel which he founded and launched in 1992.
Offering a different perspective, Krishna Prasad, editor-in-chief, Outlook, said for one thing, the press was barking up the wrong tree when it talked about regulation of the print media. It was the television and the digital media which needed more attention in this regard. For another, he said, before the question of regulation in content was taken up, there were other areas that needed to be looked at. Ownership, education of journalists, recruitment and employment of journalists and corruption within the media itself were some aspects that needed close attention, he said. For instance, the question of corporate ownership of media houses and the inherent conflict of interest there needed to be looked into, as did the issue of cross-media ownership. Further, the vernacular press seemed to be outside the loop of regulation, and could do pretty much as it liked, he felt. Deepak Jacob, president and legal consul, Star TV India, called for a light- handed, stable regulatory regime. If television did not realise its own responsibilities, the government would come down on it with a heavy hand, he warned. Welcoming the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) recommendation to ban state-run and political party-owned TV channels, he said he preferred a co-regulatory model
Issues of Regulation in the Media Chair Mr A.S. Panneerselvan Executive Director, Panos South Asiaand Readers Editor, The Hindu Presentations Mr Stephen Pritchard President,Organisation for News Ombudsmenand Readers Editor, The Observer,UK MrSashi Kumar Chairman, Media Development Foundation and Asian College of Journalism MrKrishna Prasad Editor-in-Chief, Outlook Mr Deepak Jacob President, Star TV, India Evolving editorial code and having internal ombudsman will help raise standards Several editors on Monday advocated self-regulation as the best way to reconcile medias free speech rights with its accountability to society. Setting the ball rolling at a conference on Media, Public Interest and Issues of Regulation: Indo-U.K. Perspectives, hosted here by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) and Asian College of Journalism, Justice K. Chandru, former Judge, Madras High Court, said accountability should come from within the media. N. Ravi, Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, advocated both increased freedom through liberal laws and a greater sense of responsibility and accountability on the part of the Indian media by observing professional norms including accuracy, fairness and sensitivity to social concerns. Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief of The Indian Express, said there was no need for any regulation as the media in India was hardly doing enough to be regulated and journalists were largely careful about many things, especially [in reporting] the personal lives of politicians.
John Lloyd, Director of Journalism, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, said any regulation of the media would have to be independent of the state. N. Ram, Chairman, Kasturi & Sons Ltd., said evolving of editorial codes by media organisations and the presence of an internal ombudsman would help raise standards and improve public perception of media performance. Maalan Narayanan, Editor, Puthiya Thalaimurai, who held media freedom and accountability to be interlinked, said the media was partly responsible for the growing clamour for controlling or monitoring it. Marcus Winsley, Director, Press and Communications Group, British High Commission, Delhi, said the U.K. government passionately believed in press freedom. Om Thanvi, Editor, Jan Satta, said favours accepted by journalists had turned from small gifts to houses and plots. Media Development Foundation chairman Sashi Kumar said call for regulation of the media was getting louder because the other three pillars of democracy the executive, the legislature and the judiciary were perceived as institutionally accountable. Discussing Issues of regulation in media, Stephen Pritchard, president, Organisation for News Ombudsmen and Readers Editor, The Observer, highlighted the importance of self-regulation for the media and the role of Readers' Editor. Krishna Prasad, Editor-in-Chief, Outlook, said more important than content regulation were issues concerning media ownership, conflict of interests and trade practices. President and general counsel of Star TV Deepak Jacob said television was the most regulated medium
Whistle blowing and Journalism Chair Mr Kevin Burden Managing Director, Training Station and Independent TV Journalist and Media Trainer
Presentations Mr Kumar Ketkar Former Chief Editor, DainikDivya Marathi Mr V. Sudarshan Executive Editor, New Indian Express Mr Ranjan Roy Associate Editor, Times of India Mr Bhagwan Singh Executive Editor, Deccan Chronicle
From reconciling press freedom and accountability to whistleblowing, leaks and journalism ethics, premier journalists in Chennai discussed a whole gamut of topics at a media conference on Tuesday. The conference on Media, Public Interest and Issues of regulation from the Indo-UK perspective saw several prominent journalists from both countries put forth their views and recommendations to the large collection of journalism and news media students in the audience. The third session, on Leaking, Whistleblowing and Journalism was typical of the conference, featuring among the panel of speakers, Kumar Ketkal, former chief editor of Dainik Divya Marathi, V Sudarshan, executive editor of The New Indian Express, Ranjan Roy, associate editor of Times of India and Bhagwan Singh, executive editor, Deccan Chronicle. The panel was chaired by Kevin Burden, managing director of Training Station. Speaking first, Burden set down the tone for the rest of the session, defining what he believed whistle blowing and leaking were and how a journalist needed
to put them in perspective. Whether leaking or whistleblowing, the journalist has to understand that they are both high-cost scandals. It is important while assessing them to look at the quality of the news and the quality of the person leaking the information. The duty of a journalist to bring out information for the public good, sprinkled with some measure of caution, was the recurring theme of the session. Sudarshan pointed out that when dealing with bureaucrats, it was important to remember that the instinct of the government was to hide information. But the public deserves to know this information, he stressed. Peppered with anecdotes from his experience, he also told the gathered students that news stories had a tendency to be forgotten, even the brilliant ones. It is not enough as journalists for us to get some good story and file a 300 word copy. There has to be something more permanent to the story, he said while describing his decision to publish his book on the negotiations that the Indian Government carried out in Iraq to free three Indian hostages. Ketkal also added that it was important that journalists verify their sources and see whether there were vested interests towards getting the story out. The greatest danger is a complacent journalist. Journalists have to take a lot of care to verify the information and whether the leaker or whistleblower has something against the organisation.