Guest guest Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 --- Keshav Acharya <keshavacharya wrote: > Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:16:14 -0800 (PST) > Keshav Acharya <keshavacharya > TIME FOR THE MEDIA TO INTROSPECT - copy of > my article to press > veerukharta, veeviyes, > venkatamangala, > vidyottama.sharma, > vineet_phadtare, > vinujoshua, > vijaymukhi, > viralcontrols, Virginia, > virusha, > vishalsharma01, > vitusha, vmenon25, > vogue_bom6, vpdamodar, > vrnparker, > vrushali.haldipur, > v_cmohan, > wakeuphindus, yajnik, > ykalagh, > yogesh, sonali, > splashsn, > srama, srikantiahkanti, > srinujune, > sriramr, sscpl, > sudesh.thakur, > sukebhave, sumit-b-rane, > unika, > shobha_sankhe, shaheen, > vinodm > > Sir, > > Enclosed herewith is an article on , perhaps, the > most > burning issue of today. > Please give your precious comments. > With regards, > K.G.Acharya > > TIME FOR THE MEDIA TO INTROSPECT > --------------------- > A large section of the English media is upset over > Tamil Nadu assembly's issue of arrest warrants > against > the publisher, editor, and some staff members of the > "Hindu" daily. It is shouting for freedom of > expression, democracy etcetera; however, this > section > of the media never cares for these principles. > Members > of this brigade avoid publication of various views, > suppress dissent and many times violate journalistic > norms and code of conduct laid down by the PCI. > > While many in the media have criticized the Tamil > Nadu > assembly speaker's decision to sentence journalists > of > the Hindu daily to 15 days' imprisonment in a breach > of privilege and contempt case, it is time for them > also to think and introspect whether the media is > playing its role in the way it should. Press is one > of the four pillars of democracy, the others being > the > Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislatures. But, > this pillar, called as the fourth estate, many times > tries to outsmart and belittle the other pillars. > For > example, in the wake of the Tamil Nadu speaker's > action against journalists, many media bosses have > called for the need to codify privileges of > parliament > and state legislatures. Thus they want to curb the > rights of MPs and MLAs. > > Many times they had tried to curb the power of the > Judiciary also. For example, the press maintains > that > truth must be the basis of consideration in matters > of > contempt of court cases. But the media does not > hesitate to report untruth when it suits its > interests. There are many examples to illustrate how > the media tramples truth. > > The media bosses try to play one pillar of democracy > against another. After getting the stay order from > the > Supreme Court against his arrest, N. Ram was > arrogant > to state: "we are not opportunistic and have not > demanded invoking article 356 as things stand now". > If > one reads between the lines this is nothing short of > N. Ram's threat to Jayalalitha to > Demand dismissal of her government and impose > President's rule there in Tamil Nadu. > > An example of the media resorting to untruth is: > while > Dr Pravin Togadia had said last month to the effect > that if Rambhaktas are prevented from entering > Ayodhya, there would be riots, the Indian Express > used > the words, "communal riots" instead of "riots". This > word is very mischievous and capable of causing > hatred > between communities. > > Many reports on the Gujarat riots were also > exaggerated with half-truth and untruth. > > The ToI had written a big story on Narendra Modi, > who > is unmarried, in its Special Sunday edition of May > 12, > 2002, in words: "Some stories say that he ran away > from his village after he was forced to get married. > It is difficult to say whether the story is true or > not, but there is certainly a lady in his village > who > calls herself Mrs. Modi." > Criticising Modi on his handling the riots is okay, > but maligning him with false and fabricated stories > and of which the writer himself is not sure and has > to > admit by words "true or false" is certainly not fair > journalism. > > The editorial "Young Lords" (ToI - July 15, 2002), > on > India's most memorable win in a one-day cricket > match > series at Lords contained the statement, "When > man-of-the-match Mohammad Kaif and Zaheer Khan- > Hindutva brigade, please note-scampered a quick two, > they gave India its first tournament victory since > July 1998." > What was the necessity of the words "Hindutva > brigade" > in the editorial on cricket? Was it not to spew > venom > against Hindus and Hindu leaders and encourage > communalism? > The fact is that cricket-lovers do not recognize > cricketers by their religions. But to the ToI, it is > the religion which is important everywhere, even in > sports, not to speak of its mixing religion in > politics. The ToI, thus, made a mockery of > secularism > enshrined in the Constitution. Many readers had > protested, but the newspaper had little space for > them > in its readers' views. > > Even while giving the news about the Tamil Nadu > Speaker's action against the Hindu, the ToI has > called > it an attack on "the fundamental rights of all > Indians", which is far from true. The relevant news > was under the caption "Hindu scribes take the fight > to > apex court on the front page of the issue of the ToI > dated November 9, 2003. After talking to many > Indians > and being an Indian myself, I emphasize that it is > not > at all an attack on our fundamental rights. The ToI, > which gives too little space for readers' views, > suppresses views opposite of those of the editors, > gives half truth and lies, has no right to make the > above statement. The ToI had better not to arrogate > to > itself the rights of all Indians and note that many > Indians are happy that N. Ram, who, has violated > many > Gandhian principles of ethical and fair journalism, > is > given punishment that he deserves. > > It is very relevant to note here that the ToI had > not > reported even the view of its past Ombudsman, former > Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, P. N. Bhagwati > on > the appointment of the Constitution Review > Committee, > since it was contrary to the view of the editors of > the ToI. Can such newspaper have any basis to talk > on > behalf of all citizens, democracy and freedom of > expression? > > According to a news ( July 6, 2002) T. N. Ninan of > the > Business Standard stated that the opposition to the > FDI by the ToI is not on account of patriotism as > claimed by it, but for maintaining monopoly on the > print media. Many readers would agree to this view. > This newspaper has made fun of patriotism and > nationalism many times in the past by calling it > jingoism and never supported the cause of genuine > freedom fighters. > > In the wake of unfortunate Gujarat riots this > newspaper was encouraging foreign elements to file > court cases in International courts against Home > Minister L.K. Advani and Gujarat chief minister > Narendra Modi. Criticism of these persons within the > country is of course understandable. > > When the Talibans in Bamiyan in Afghanistan > demolished > the Buddha statues, the ToI wrote in the editorial > that it was in reaction to the demolition of the > Babari mosque, though the Talibans had, in fact, > refuted this, according to the Hindi newspaper, > Navabharat. The ToI, thus tried to provide some > ammunition to the Talibans, against international > pressures for its act of vandalism. > In a seminar on "Communalism and the role of media " > in Kolkata, many journalists had expressed the view > that the media has to keep communalism at bay. N Ram > had eulogized the role played by the English media > during the riots in Gujarat, which was far from > true. > Many persons have blamed the media for adding fuel > to > the communal fire. For example, a newspaper had > reported that the VHP had distributed 1000 swords to > Hindus to kill Muslims. This was not true. Most of > the > Muslim victims were due to burning and none was > killed > as a result of injuries from swords. > > N. Ram, editor-in-chief of the Hindu had once > referred > to " an apparent decline in the power of the news > media in India". He had said, " Chief Minister > Narendra Modi was continuing in office "unfazed", > despite "the near unanimity of the national media in > exposing and condemning the genocidal pogrom in > Gujarat". Since in the viewers' poll held by the TV > channel Aaj-tak and the motion in the Parliament > whether Modi should go, the verdict was totally in > favour of Modi and thus a severe blow to the media, > Ram's statement becomes a tacit acceptance of the > large gap between the opinions of the media and the > people. N. Ram, it appears, includes only editors to > represent media and not readers or the people. > > The media bosses have better to associate readers in > seminars to judge performance of the media and > listen > to their views. There is one-way traffic between > most > of newspapers and their readers. As a result, they > are > not aware of the public mind. > > > Mahatma Gandhi, a great journalist as he was, had > said, "The whole aim of journalism should be > service. > The true function of journalism is to educate the > public mind and read the mind of the country and to > give definite and fearless expression to that mind." > He, further said, "Public has the right to know the > truth. It must be informed objectively as to what is > happening. If the paper loses confidence of its > readers, it has lost all that is worth in > journalism. > Definitely the Press has power, but to misuse it is > crime." > (Reference: Journalist Gandhi, compiled by Sunil > Sharma and published by Gandhi Book Centre, Bombay > Sarvodaya Mandal). > "Gandhi elicited strong responses, but these too > were > published along with his comments in the Harijan." > The > media talks of Mahatma Gandhi many times, but > violates > the journalistic ethics that he had enunciated. > > The former chairman of the Press Council Of India, > P. > B. Sawant had once severely criticised the present > materialistic journalists and stated that some of > them > are on the list of foreign powers. > > The words "freedom of press and democracy " by media > bosses indulging in one- sided reporting and > suppressing opposite views is nothing but hypocrisy. > According to a news dated June 30, 2002, editor of > the > Gujarathi daily Mid-day, Saurabh Shah was removed > from > his post for his writing in favour of Hindutva. > A large section of the English media tries to > provoke > Muslims in various ways. One way is to expand the > Indian Muslim list of grievances, by publishing news > such as "Only minorities figure in Gujarat POTA > list"(ToI - Monday Sept.15, 2003)." > > > > > > The Indian Express has various statistics such as " > only 1 of 27 IPS officers is Muslim " and only 54 > maulavis in the army in 1997. In contrast there were > 1,568 pandits and 194 Sikh granthis in the army". > This > newspaper has given a full-page article on the > subject > in its edition of Sept. 14, 2003. The newspaper, of > course, has not given the statistics that India has > had so far 3 Muslim Presidents and that out of the > terrorists found so far more than 99.99 % were > Muslims. People must think whether articles of this > type are conducive to communal harmony, co-existence > and peace. How can continuous Hindu- baiting and > appeasement of Muslims be called as "sarva dharma > samabhav" and secularism, which is an important > principle in our Constitution? > > This means that to uphold the Constitution, it is > necessary to have some control over the media too. > The > media is not always responsible. There is an example > of the Statesman apologizing for making a false > allegation against the RSS. Very recently a false > reporting by a journalist of Indian Express was > exposed by Ram Madhav, Spokesman of the RSS in the > IE > itself. Such instances are many, readers know, but > every time they do not take action. The media must > give publicity to various views and opinions and > leave > it to readers to make their own judgements. > Differences of opinions is a very important feature > of > democracy and media must respect it. There must be > objective reporting of news. > > The Editors' Guild has called for codification of > privileges of legislators saying that they are vague > and represent a danger to media. In stead of this > the > guild should introspect its role and demand to > strengthen the Press Council of India by proposing > heavy fines for false reporting and including in it > independent readers and letter writers. > In case editors are not given the freedom to follow > journalistic ethics and norms laid down by the PCI, > they must tell the owners that if they wish to > impose > their views on the people with one-sided reporting, > and if their purpose in running the newspaper is to > earn profits only as a commercial venture and not > what > Mahatma Gandhi enunciated as above, then the media > cannot have the status of a pillar of democracy. > > Editors and owners of newspapers must note that they > cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > K.G.Acharya > > > > > > Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard > http://antispam./whatsnewfree Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard http://antispam./whatsnewfree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.