Self-regulation at risk
News Broadcasters Association finds itself embroiled in a controversy which, if not resolved quickly, could have a negative fall-out on entire media
In less than two years of its formation, the apex body of 14 news channels, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), finds itself embroiled in a controversy which, if not resolved quickly, could have a negative fall-out on the entire media sector. The problem arose last week when the News Broadcasting Standards Disputes Redressal Authority, which had been set up by NBA as a measure of self-regulation, held that Independent News Services (which broadcasts the India TV news channel) had violated the guidelines covering reportage and asked it to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh and run an apology on its channel. The case pertained to a report carried by India TV on statements made by a US resident, Farhana Ali, which the Authority decided was a misrepresentation of facts; indeed, a straight reading of the Authority’s verdict suggested condemnable conduct on the part of India TV.
This was the first order passed by the Authority since its formation last October, and therefore the first fruit of self-regulation, which the TV news channels had put forward as a preferred alternative to control by an officially mandated body. Now the future of this experiment is up in the air, with India TV deciding to quit NBA after lodging a protest over the manner in which the Authority decided to penalise it, and alleging that the NBA secretariat had functioned in a partisan manner during the enquiry. India TV also alleges that it was not given a fair hearing, and so far there has been no response from either NBA or the Authority. What if these allegations are true? And if not, what if India TV refuses to either pay the fine imposed on it or run the required apology on its channel? That could place large question marks over the future of he Authority. In fact, there is the possibility that India TV may seek legal recourse to redress its grievances.
If self-regulation is aborted for any reason, the danger that the TV news business faces is of officially mandated regulation, something that the information and broadcasting ministry has discussed with the news channels but failed to get agreement on. If self-regulation is seen as not being a realistic option, and if the general perception is that some kind of regulation of the news channels is unavoidable and indeed desirable, then the only option left will be a new law on the subject. The press (as different from television) has so far been held accountable by the Press Council. Unfortunately, this body has lost much of its relevance in recent years; few major publications pay much heed now to what the Council says. However, there is effective check on the press through the law on libel, and in any case the major publications by and large conduct themselves in a responsible manner, with internal codes of conduct and proper editorial standards being maintained.
The key difference when it comes to TV is that it is seen as a more potent medium, carrying with it much greater potential for provoking viewers and causing damage to the social and political fabric. Also, the intense competition to score on the weekly ratings (which determine advertising revenue) is such that broadcasters are tempted to cross several boundaries of good sense and restraint, and indeed to publish sensationalist fiction in the guise of news. Against this backdrop, the formation first of the NBA and then of the Authority had raised hopes of correctives being applied. However, inaction by the Authority for about six months after it was formed had led to questions about whether the new bodies were up to much. And now the Authority’s first decision has led to questions about due process, and a walk-out. If the issue is not resolved quickly, the Authority will lose credibility, and that is when the government will step in. Is that what the news channels want?