Is the media playing safe with Justice Katju

The front page anchor of the Hindu was today plastered with one “news” – PCI Chief Justice Katju’s views on Sunny Leone being shown on Indian TV. A Google search showed me that almost every large media house had covered the “story” prominently.

This is surprising on two accounts. Firstly, the PCI has no jurisdiction over non-news broadcasts and hence his views (or those of PCI) on whether it was appropriate for Sunny Leone to appear on the reality show Bigg Boss 5, are irrelevant. Secondly, these are likely to be Mr. Katju’s personal views and perhaps do not merit front page coverage.  At best, these could have been placed in the entertainment section.

Why is the media playing it safe with Justice Katju?

Since his appointment in October last year, his views on topics outside the ambit of the PCI’s jurisdiction have been covered. These include views on democracy, the abuse of Bharat Ratna awards, filtering content on social media sites, self regulation, discrimination against muslims and the lack of scientific methods of investigation by the police and of course the numerous references he has made for TV and online news channels to be brought under the ambit of the PCI.

I do not recollect any other PCI Chief (or the PCI) being given such coverage even while discussing relevant issues that were within the PCI’s jurisdiction. Not even when the Council censured three newspapers in July 2006 (The Times of India – Delhi and Pune editions, Punjab Kesari – Delhi and Mid Day – Mumbai). In fact there is little media coverage found on any of the past Chairmen of the PCI, even though they presided on several landmark cases such as the BG Verghese Vs The Hindustan Times case. Given the emails Mr. Katju has been sending the media, several a week, he seems to have a greater penchant for publicity than past chairmen of the press council.

Many blogs have pointed out that Mr. Katju’s aspirations for “power” to the PCI are against the fundamental principles of the PCI and that he should perhaps directly ask for re-constituting the PCI. Mainstream media, however, has never asked him such a question. (Maybe this is the very same low quality of intellect among journalists in mainstream media that Mr. Katju complained of, which is not motivated to think on these lines of questioning. Perhaps Mr. Katju is relying on the same low intellect to keep him in the news?)

The PCI is an autonomous body that seeks government aid on a need-basis and Mr. Katju as its representative should be treated with the same amount of scrutiny as any government representative/ industry body representative. Instead, his views have been reproduced in the media verbatim with little or no alternative perspective featured in those stories.  Most stories featuring him are lead stories, the bulk of them carrying his interview or a report that conveniently omits any other perspective.

To draw a comparison, when Anna Hazare surfaced with the Lokpal Bill, the media chose to investigate his background and the backgrounds of his associates who made up Team Anna.  This led to discovering the infamous Income tax woes of Arvind Kejriwal and travel funds misappropriation issue in the case of Kiran Bedi.  However, we know little about Mr. Katju except the fact that he was a distinguished lawyer who served as Supreme Court Judge and his courtroom was known for dispensing off 100+ cases a week, a feat considering the delays at most courts. Thanks to his regular emails to the press, we now know that he is an authority on everything under the sun. What’s more, he will definitely say something that almost always deserves front page coverage.

Perhaps it is his legal background that is making journalists reluctant to probe deeper and understand why he wants the changes he voices in the PCI. I am also surprised that no political links have been discovered given the tacit support his views are receiving from the government and the opposition parties.

It is also strange that Mr. Katju’s seems reluctant to seek a formal meeting with the various journalist bodies including the Editor’s Guild, News Broadcaster’s Association  and the Broadcast Editor’s Association to put forth his views on improving the state of the media and discussing the larger objectives that he wants to drive under the PCI’s ambit. (The meeting he held with editors upon his Chairmanship in October 2011, was an informal one where he was presenting a lecture on the state of the media). If such a meeting has happened, it would have been covered either in a press release by Mr. Katju himself or through statements issued by the journalist bodies. Considering either of this has not happened, it would be safe to presume that Mr. Katju is still hunting for adequate verbal ammunition to hurl at journalists.

In a democracy, every Bill is tabled in the parliament before it receives the majority votes to be enacted. Mr Katju appears to have found a new loophole in the constitution that aims to enforce legislation without even seeking basic dialogue from those who will be governed by it.

It appears that the media is perhaps fearful of the fact that if the PCI’s demands for greater power, punitive action and jurisdiction were to be granted, they could be targeted. Either that or the media has not yet found a strong and sustainable voice to counter Mr. Katju’s views and offer a balanced perspective. If that were the case, it is time the media seek alternate voices from the blogsphere and publish them.  At least they will conform to Mr. Katju’s views on providing balanced news. 


(Reproduced from my article to the Hoot - http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=5690&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=1&valid=true

The obsession with farmer suicides

The Press Council Chariman Justice Katju’s recent salvo has come over the front page coverage of actor Dev Anand’s recent demise. While Dev Anand’s demise may not have technically qualified for front page news, neither does farmer suicides (as was stressed upon by Justice Katju), particularly when there is little or no development in the issue. My piece on the Hoot stressed on this. It is reproduced below.


Farmer suicides and its poor coverage has become a favourite topic for the PCI chairman to reinforce the message of media’s insensitivity and warped priorities about news. Given the number of times Mr. Katju has mentioned this, either he has not understood why the media is unwilling/ unable to cover this issue or he knows something which the media does not. In either case, it is necessary we take a close look at the issue of farmer suicides.

A quick analysis of P. Sainath’s extensive coverage of farmer suicides in The Hindu reveals that debt is the key reason for these suicides. This debt is fuelled by three primary factors.

1. Crop failure resulting in farmers borrowing from money lenders for their subsistence.
2. Illness in the family resulting in loss of farm hands and consequently reduced productivity.
3. Daughter’s wedding where dowry is an important component.

 At some level all these three factors need to be addressed by the government. Considering close to 70% of our economy is engaged in agriculture, it is the government’s job to make available alternate means of subsistence so that farmers are not driven to moneylenders. It is also the government’s job to provide access to quality healthcare for its citizens and ensure that any illness is curable and recovery is speedy. The government also needs to stress on women’s empowerment so that farmers are encouraged to educate their daughters and thus significantly reduce the burden of dowry.

  

What has the government done on all these aspects that the media can report about? Only two significant steps have been taken – providing farmers with seeds/ crops for free or at subsidized rates; and asking banks to waive farm loans. The impact of both these moves has been amply covered across business and general news media in the past.

  

Why then should the media cover farmer suicides repeatedly again when there is little development around the issue? How long should they harp on the same issues? Should we dedicate a portion of the newspaper or a segment of air time exclusively for farmer suicides and perhaps run the same stories because we have no new ones to discuss?

 While it is understood that media has a moral responsibility towards creating awareness about lesser known yet grave issues, it is largely a private enterprise and must be allowed to function as one, keeping in mind its readers and business prospects. To expect front page news to focus on a particular issue is just short of deciding what other news should go on the front page.

 If the PCI has serious intentions to sensitise the media about the key issues facing in the country, it should take the lead in working with the government to provide incentives to the media to publicise such causes as the farmer suicides. For starters the PCI needs to draw up a list of issues that can be considered serious enough for sustained reporting. To ensure that news organisations cover those issues some of the following incentives can be extended to them:

1. Subsidy on newsprint – The so-called irresponsible (frivolous) section of the newspaper is often responsible for bringing in profits. Advertorials, news on companies and entertainment is what earns revenues from clients, not news on farmer suicides (unfortunately). Should organizations get a subsidy on newsprint, they would be happy to dedicate a page to farmer suicides and if possible hire dedicated correspondents in rural India.
2. Tax waivers for news organizations that can show an annual coverage of a certain number of hours or inches of space towards critical issues. 
3. Scholarships for journalists from those newspapers to pursue certificate courses and formal education on covering niche issues such as farmer suicides. Most correspondents of foreign media have undergone such courses before extensively covering key issues such as rural affairs, military and politics. 
4. Travel grants for journalists to enable them to cover these critical issues. 
5. Recognition for the media house based on the quality and quantity of reporting of grave issues.

 The current criticism against the media does not take into account one fact – the readers choice. Do urban Indians (or rural ones for that matter) want to read/ watch depressing news all the time? India’s former President APJ Abdul Kalam once recollected how an Israeli newspaper had decided to stop focusing on war [with Palestine] (considered the most critical issue in Israel’s existence then) and chose instead to cover success stories around agriculture, technology, medicine and livelihoods in general. The idea was to give hope to people that amidst all the conflict, there could be happiness. Today Israel is green and at the forefront of biotechnology and computing.

The Indian media is doing this in its own way by balancing soft, positive news and hard, depressing news. In that process, if it chooses to momentarily ignore the depressing news, should it be seen as being ignorant? Is it proven that constantly bombarding the news with negative , depressing pieces sees positive response from the government and changes the victims’ lives for the better?

Moral responsibility and moral obligation are two different things. The Indian media has a moral responsibility to its readers and not a moral obligation. Perhaps it is time the PCI chief realized this.