“The Press Council of India…wants to adjudicate over the electronic media as well. It is in consultation with the Information & Broadcasting Ministry (I&B) over its long-standing demand to be converted into the Media Monitoring Commission of India, arguing that principles of good journalism, ethics, morality and freedom of speech apply to both print and electronic media in equal measure and hence, the two should be held to the same standards of accountability,” reports the Indian Express.

“The proposal is now under active discussion with the I&B Ministry,” said a senior Press Council member,” the report goes on to say.

It’s how the Press Council views the lack of responsibility in pockets of news TV that has instigated the demand, stating that, because of this, the code of conduct defined under Section 13(2) of the Press Council Act, 1978, must apply to news TV as well.

Let us take a look at the origins of the Press Council. “If the Press is to function effectively as the watchdog of public interest, it must have a secure freedom of expression, unfettered and unhindered by any authority, organised bodies or individuals. But, this claim to press freedom has legitimacy only if it is exercised with a due sense of responsibility. The Press must, therefore, scrupulously adhere to accepted norms of journalistic ethics and maintain high standards of professional conduct.

Where the norms are breached and the freedom is defiled by unprofessional conduct, a way must exist to check and control it. But, control by Government or official authorities may prove destructive of this freedom.

Therefore, the best way is to let the peers of the profession, assisted by a few discerning laymen to regulate it through a properly structured representative impartial machinery. Hence, the Press Council,” the Council says about itself.

When the Press Council was formed, in July 1966, the objectives of the Council were defined as under:

• to help newspapers to maintain their independence;
• to build up a code of conduct for newspapers and journalists in accordance with high professional standards;
• to ensure on the part of newspapers and journalists the maintenance of high standards of public taste and foster a due sense of both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship;
• to encourage the growth of a sense of responsibility and public service among all those engaged in the profession of journalism;
• to keep under review any development likely to restrict the supply and dissemination of news of public interest and importance;
• to keep under review such cases of assistance received by any newspaper or news agency in India from foreign sources, as are referred to it by the Central Government.

Since this was 1966, the Press Council, obviously, did not see the need to say ‘news media’ instead of newspapers. News in non-print forms was then available only through government run organizations, Doordarshan and All India Radio.

An Indian news anchor sits in the newsroom of the popular Indian news. Reuters

So print had a watchdog and a regulator in the form of the Press Council, while news television has none. Facing criticism from both the government and private citizens alike from time to time on irresponsibility in TV news, the two (private) industry bodies, the News Broadcasters Association and the Indian Broadcasting Foundation have announced content guidelines and and self-regulatory mechanisms — which have kept the proposed legislation — the “Broadcast Services Regulation Bill” — at bay.

As a consequence, newspapers are required to heed the Code of Conduct, which news television is, currently, not required to. The entire Act may be read here
and the Norms of Conduct here but we reproduce some pertinent extracts here.

• Newspaper (sic) should not publish anything which is manifestly defamatory or libelous against any individual/organisation unless after due care and verification, there is sufficient reason/evidence to believe that it is true and its publication will be for public good.

• Truth is no defence for publishing derogatory, scurrilous and defamatory material against a private citizen where no public interest is involved.

• The Press has a duty, discretion and right to serve the public interest by drawing reader’s attention to citizens of doubtful antecedents and of questionable character but as responsible journalists they should observe due restraint and caution in hazarding their own opinion or conclusion in branding these persons as ‘cheats’ or ‘killers’ etc. The cardinal principle being that the guilt of a person should be established by proof of facts alleged and not by proof of the bad character of the accused. In the zest to expose, the Press should not exceed the limits of ethical caution and fair comment.

• Publication of defamatory news by one paper does not give license to others to publish news/ information reproducing or repeating the same.

• Insertion of out -of -context, uncalled for and irrelevant statements likely to malign a person or an organisation must be eschewed.

• Freedom of Press does not give license to a newspaper to malign a political leader or mar his future political prospects by publishing fake and defamatory writings.

When you read this list (and it’s only a small extract), it’s difficult not to agree with the Press Council’s view that newspapers are more responsible than news television. Increasingly, news anchors become the judge, jury and executioner, leaving hapless victims little or no recourse for redressal.

“On receipt of a report or article of public interest and benefit containing imputations or comments against a citizen, the editor should check with due care and attention its factual accuracy apart from other authentic sources- with the person or the organisation concerned to elicit his/her or its version, comments or reaction and publish the same alongside with due correction in the report where necessary,” says one of the “Norms’.

If these norms had been adhered to, incidents such as the Rs 100 crore defamation suitagainst Times Now would not have arisen.

The irresponsibility of some sections of news TV have been highlighted time and again, most notably in the coverage of the 26/11 attack. Since then, despite all the sound and fury, there is little evidence to show that news television is addressing the issue, despite the very impressive (self-authored) self-regulatory guidelines.

The coverage of recent scams and the entire Anna Hazare movement against corruption has seen news television raking the government across the coals; perhaps that’s why, after many years of dilly-dallying, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is ‘actively’ considering the proposal to bring news television under the ambit of the Press Council of India.

Broadcasters may complain, but they will not get too much support. What is the logic of two sets of rules for two mediums, TV and print, when the roles they play, and the responsibility they should bear, are the same?