An Indian paradox: India’s voluminous media is without bite

 The news media in this country is a paradox. It is voluminous in numbers but, increasingly, without bite. We are on track to becoming the world’s fifth biggest newspaper market in terms of revenue by 2026 and have the largest newspaper readership, overtaking China by 2025. The size of our population, low internet penetration compared to other newspaper markets, growing literacy, and low pricing will ensure this. Even as India also continues to be a strongly mobile-focused market, with 72 per cent people already accessing news through smartphones.

But it will not be our journalism or reporting that takes us to any international heights. The New York Times currently has 1,700 journalists reporting from 160 countries. But the past two or three decades have seen India’s television news channels withdrawing feet on the ground and replacing news with debates. Our biggest newspapers have shrunk their foreign correspondent deployment to three or four major countries, at best, and state bureaus within India have shrunk to a single correspondent. The eight states in the Northeast are likely to be covered by one or two people for national newspapers. When the Hindi heartland newspapers expanded in the late 1990s and early 2000s to reach villages, they pioneered the extensive use of citizen stringers — it was cheaper than deploying journalists.

The closest one can get to the number of journalists reporting for different newspapers is the total figure of media and publishing employees from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy’s monthly employment data and the figures big media companies give on LinkedIn regarding their employees on the network. Take a closer look at The Times of India and Hindustan Times, for instance,and you would find management personnel figuring generously in the lists, which are around 1,400 and 2,600 employees respectively.

This government figured out in its first tenure that you can ignore the media and still win elections handsomely. It could have left it at that but there were scores to settle, going back to the reporting of the Gujarat riots of 2002. Hence the periodic efforts to regulate and harass the media via regulatory agencies. Today you can be bullied regularly by the government and let it set the news agenda on a daily basis with few questions asked. You can thus be one of the biggest media markets in the world and still have dismal freedom of press ranking. Since the last edition of this column was written, the system and its allies have not been idle.

To begin with the allies, on August 23, the Adani Group launched a hostile takeover bid of NDTV. It acquired convertible warrants through the acquisition of a company originally owned by the Ambanis. This group company had entered into a loan agreement with a promoter company, RRPR Holdings, owned by Prannoy and Radhika Roy, in 2009 and 2010. It has since changed hands before being acquired by Adani. This move to convert the warrants into shares triggered an open offer to acquire another 26 per cent of NDTV. Given the closeness of the Adani Group with the ruling establishment, this was widely seen as an attempt to tame a channel that the ruling party finds particularly galling. Considerable coverage of this takeover attempt ensued both here and abroad.

Later that month, The Washington Post reported a whistleblower complaint in which a former security chief of Twitter alleged that the Indian government may have forced Twitter to “put one of its agents on the payroll, with access to user data”. This was allegedly done at a time of intense protests in the country even though the protests were not specified. This is being cited as an example of efforts to police social media.

Earlier this month, there were income tax ‘surveys’ on three establishments— the Delhi-based think tank, Centre for Policy Research, the Bangalore-based Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation, which funds a number of digital web entities, and the funding agency, Oxfam India. The exercise involved confiscating and cloning of telephones and computers of personnel at these establishments and photocopying of records and papers to take away. No reasons were given for the surveys. In September last year, there were similar ‘surveys’ (the term, ‘raid’, is not used) at the offices of the news sites, Newslaundry and NewsClick.

Meanwhile, the much-reported case of the Kerala journalist, Siddique Kappan, who was apprehended and jailed in Uttar Pradesh while on his way to report on the Hathras rape in October 2020, continues to simmer. The Supreme Court granted him conditional bail earlier this month in the UAPA case even as the NIA court in Lucknow stymied his release with bail conditions demanding two local sureties of one lakh rupees each. His lawyers and family struggle to find UP residents who will oblige and bail in a PMLA case brought by the Enforcement Directorate is yet to be granted.

A confident government whose leader is constantly striding on the world stage should not need to be quite so hyperactive in its efforts to control the public narrative and harass journalists to boot, particularly when much of the media is happy to let the government and Narendra Modi set the agenda for coverage. A sanguine example for this government came with the reporting, earlier this month, of the September 8 agreement reached to disengage by Indian and Chinese troops in the area of Gogra-Hot Springs (PP-15). Most reports stuck to what the ministry of external affairs spokesperson said.But a few looked closer.

Deccan Herald reported that India has ended up conceding to the creation of yet another ‘buffer zone’ in its own territory. A Karan Thapar interview on The Wire reinforced this by suggesting that grazing lands used by shepherds in the area have been given away. As much as a full kilometre of Indian territory has been lost, he suggested. NDTV, according to Thapar, had also reported the loss of some 30 km of grazing territory in length. All reports were based on local sources such as councillors and graziers in the area.

Both Thapar and NDTV are already in the doghouse as far as this government is concerned for past reporting/interviewing sins. But some dogs, thankfully, continue to bark.

Sevanti Ninan

Source: the Telegraph, 19/09/22

The danger of fake news is real

While it is inevitable that Indians — and Indian politicians — will continue to tap these technologies, all stakeholders must exercise far more caution and institute more correctives than they have so far

Twitter’s co-founder and Chief Executive Officer, Jack Dorsey, is in India, engaging with both political actors and general audiences. In August, the CEO of Whatsapp, Chris Daniels, visited Delhi and engaged with the government. Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, has both visited India and hosted Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, at his headquarters.

The close engagement of leaders of some of the most revolutionary tools of communication with India is not a surprise. For these platforms, India is a huge market, and one that is only growing. The audiences they fetch here and the various ways in which they can monetise conversations on their platforms is now an indispensable part of their global business plans. For India, too, engaging with these platforms is essential. Take Twitter. It has changed the way political discourse is conducted in the country. Thanks to it, political leaders have found a way to communicate their views, without intermediaries. Social media supporters engage in deeply contested battles to push their narrative on all these platforms. And the mainstream media sometimes ends up playing catch up. But if Twitter operates at a relatively elite level, Whatsapp and Facebook have percolated down to the remotest corners of the country. The spread of cheap smartphones and, more importantly, affordable data has enabled this democratisation of information and communication. Political parties — some more than others — have recognised how this can shape beliefs, values and electoral choices and PM Modi is understood to have told his party that 2019 will be an election fought on Whatsapp.

This is all unchartered territory, however, and the perils of these tools have already become visible. Twitter has been home to hate speech; it is witness to the most vicious trolling and targeting of public figures. On Whatsapp, fake news is a real concern — and the circulation of rumours has led to a spate of killings and lynchings this year. Facebook was used — and misused — in the US elections of 2016 to spread fake news; there is a danger of this happening in India as well. Along with the democratisation, there has been a degeneration of the quality of public discourse. And the platforms have been able to do little to counter hate speech and fake news. All communication technology has had unpredictable consequences in human history. While it is inevitable that Indians — and Indian politicians — will continue to tap these technologies, all stakeholders must exercise far more caution and institute more correctives than they have so far.

Source: Hindustan Times, 13-11-2018

How fair is social media criticism?

Instant online opinions impoverish our public sphere

Social media activists seem to have different notions about corrective action, justice and fairness. They want retribution, revenge and punishment rather than non-punitive course correction, which is the essential function of a news ombudsman. A news ombudsman adopts a light-touch approach to visibly mend mistakes. I refrain from naming the reporter while reporting errors or the subeditor in case of editing errors because the primary focus is on rectifying the mistake rather than stigmatising individuals who work under deadline pressure. A disturbing element about the shrill criticism of activists is the suggestion of overreach and breach of other rules in their overwhelming focus on a single theme.

Reporting on mental health

At 3.07 p.m. on September 30, there was a tweet that accused The Hindu of breach of law and insensitive reporting on mental health. The reference was to a Delhi report headlined, “Mentally ill woman beheads 8-month-old son”, published on April 21. Within four hours, the reader put out a second tweet saying that there was no action from The Hindu despite his earlier tweet and added that this was a shameful display of indifference. First, this activist assumed that health reporters follow him and hence, his tweet would have been noticed. Second, he did not write to the Readers’ Editor’s office, which has been designated to look into these types of lapses. Third, for reasons best known to him, he failed to mention that The Hindu report, written and edited sensitively, was published in April while the new law, the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, came into force only from July 7, 2018. The new law emphasises that the privacy of a mentally ill patient should be maintained and prohibits naming the individual. Aren’t Indian laws prospective in nature and not retrospective, unless and otherwise stated? How did The Hindu break any law if the law had come into effect after the publication of the report?

The issue gets more complicated with a newspaper like The Hindu because its online archive is available from 2000. Is it right to pull out an old story and take it down because it violates a law that came later? Can we alter our past to reflect the present? Is it right to play with archival material? Can history be moulded in such a way that all contentious issues are eschewed from the public domain? Over the last six years, I have tried to explain in detail why this newspaper generally refrains from altering or taking down a story. Does the non-existence of particular material online mean that it does not exist in any other form in the archives? What about the existence of the physical newspaper, which carries content that some readers want to take down, in not only the newspaper’s office but also various public libraries?

Activists working on a single theme tend to be oblivious to the requirements of a complex, multilayered society, which media scholars term as interlocking public, and come up with solutions that might not empower in the long run but undermine some of the wellsprings of plural coexistence.

Laws related to the newsroom

I would like to share a portion of a recent note from our senior managing editor that lists various laws relating to the newsroom. Apart from the well-documented laws of defamation — both criminal and civil — he listed more than 25 specific laws that govern reportage. For instance, contempt of court where, technically, fair criticism is allowed but there are instances of the courts being inconsistent in interpreting what is fair comment. Legislative privilege, where we are yet to codify the privileges of our elected members, is a powerful tool to keep the media on a leash. The laws relating to sexual crime, juvenile crime and crime against children are explained to every reporter and subeditor during their induction period in the newsroom. Twitter warriors may not know that a newspaper can be prosecuted under Rule 13 of the Aircraft Rules which says that “no person shall take, or cause or permit to be taken, at a government aerodrome or from an aircraft in flight, any photograph”. Instead of studied reflection, many who are active in cyberspace come up with instant opinions and impoverish our public sphere.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

Source: The Hindu, 29/10/2018

THE RISE OF MILLENNIALS AND THE DEATH OF TELEVISION

What do millennials want? How different are they from their predecessors, Gen X? And how different is the postmillennial generation, Gen Z, compared to their predecessors?

To answer these questions, Mint teamed up with the Indian arm of the market researcher YouGov to conduct an online poll of over 5,000 respondents spread across 180 cities. The YouGovMint Millennial Survey aims to understand the habits and preferences of India’s digital natives. The first round of the survey was conducted in July and the next round will be conducted after six months.

The results of the first round show that millennials are using social media networks much more than older cohorts. The survey also shows that most millennials and post-millennials consume news online, with only a minority of the youth watching TV news or reading newspapers.

In this analysis, millennials refer to those born between 1981 and 1996 or those aged 22 to 37 years in 2018. Those born after 1996, that is, those aged 21 years or below, are here referred to as the Gen Z.

The difference among generations when it comes to news habits is starkest for television news. Among Gen X (those aged 38-53), 34% depend primarily on TV news and 29% depend primarily on newspapers. Less than a quarter of them depend primarily on news apps and websites. In stark contrast, a plurality of post-millennials (34%) depends primarily on news apps and websites, while only 18% of them depend primarily on TV news. The share of post-millennials depending primarily on newspapers (17%) as a key source of information is roughly similar to those depending on TV news (18%).

The survey also shows that the share of millennials watching online entertainment (48%) exceeds the share of millennials watching cable television (43%). Among post-millennials, the difference is even starker: 44% of them watch online entertainment content.

The survey results confirm what media analysts have been hinting at for some time—that the media and entertainment sector in India is facing disruption.

While post-millennials are a bit less politically active, millennials seem to be as active as their previous generation. More than 80% of both Gen X and millennials said they would vote in the 2019 elections. These and other interesting findings from the survey will feature in a four-part data journalism series to be published in Mint starting today.

Source: Livemint epaper, 27/08/2018

When social media defines our existence

Social media is an integral part of today’s world. It comes with problems, but the benefits are far too many

As I sat on that dainty white couch of my living room, “be strong”, I whispered to my WiFi signal. From dawn to dusk, Monday to Sunday, do you happen to invest heaps of time on social media? If you just nodded, you are no different from the millions of other teenagers who spent over 27 hours and 36 minutes of a week on it. Since the dawn of the 21st century, all global citizens have become members of this miraculous world where without making eye contact with someone, we can talk, where without even stepping out, we can be the most ‘social’ person alive, and where we can get the feeling of being friends with the entire world without even meeting a person!

We are all living examples of Stephen Hawking’s statement — “We are all connected by the internet like neurons in a giant brain”. But it is worth spending some time to ponder whether social media is a boon or bane. The answer has two sides, depending upon your vantage point. In simpler words, one could call social media a ‘perilous helper’ to mankind. It is indeed undeniable that in such a fast-paced world, where people are so short on time, the importance of social media happens to grow with every passing day. Today, we can get thousands of results on almost anything and everything in this world in a ‘puff of electrons’. Widening your horizon of knowledge and knowing what you never knew has become effortless. Getting information is just like ‘name it and get it’.

Even communication has become so facile that only a few keystrokes is what it takes. One can connect over oceans for free. Despite being miles apart, social media has made it possible for humans to feel as if they are just footsteps away. It is like being a part of a person’s world even though the distance keeps you apart. It has also provided humans with a very burly platform to express their views and standpoints. Awareness and opinions spread like an epidemic. Any social cause can very easily receive global voice and the support of millions. Social media has also paved the way for businesses to gain unprecedented exposure. It is through social media that entrepreneurs, professionals, and organisations seek recognition at a very economical price.

Bill Gates is absolutely right when he stated that “If your business is not on the internet, your business is out of business”. If one has any sort of interest in furthering a business, she simply cannot ignore social media. In fact, even social media wouldn’t want to ignore you! Yet, not all consequences of this technology are good ones. It has allowed us to hide behind screens and limit our social interaction face-to-face. It is a downcast truth that social media has started taking over our lives. Have you ever noticed how glued people are to different platforms, which in this context could be called a ‘virtual time black hole’?

Social media is gradually emerging as the ‘mother ship’ of us. What we eat, where we go or who we meet, social media ‘knows everything’. In the same vein, as a result of the anonymity provided by social media, cases of cyberbullying have been on the rise.

Once upon a time, ironically not very long ago, there existed a saccharine and blithe world where people would gain happiness by playing outside and meeting new people instead of equating their smiles and contentment to the number of likes on their posts or the number of followers one has. Social media has dug its claws deep into the evolving cyberworld, and it is indeed an unforgivable crime to not take advantage of its great power and influence.

Source: DNA, 6-03-2017

Life without social media

A satirical take on how much our personality, politics and relationships are being dictated by the rules of the Internet

It was on a highly political afternoon in the not-so-distant future that the social media of the world collapsed into a pile of moral dilemmas, personal problems and ideological conundrums. All of Mark Zuckerberg’s servers and Sundar Pichai’s men couldn’t put social media together again, but they did find that the last straw that broke the camel’s back was a passing “Presstitute” comment on a mainstream media news item.

Suddenly the youth of the nation could no longer depend on picture captions for political or social context. They had to take stands and decisions unendorsed by likes and shares, and many found they lacked conviction. Without pop-culture reference and film scenes to provide context, ideas had to be communicated in full sentences, which many found boring.

Chaos everywhere

The vast Online Defenders of National Pride regiment was disbanded, since their terrain of operation no longer existed. Liberal crusaders of various causes failed miserably when asked to go beyond change.org petitions and sharing foreign media articles. Without peer pressure, left-wing thinkers found themselves thinking right-wing thoughts and right-wing dreamers found themselves in left-wing dreams. Trolls of various hues, of course, remained trolls. Some things don’t change in real life.

Certain Prime Ministers and Presidents could no longer jump the queue on facts or public opinion. They had to wait for the facts to emerge along with voters. What they had to say had to pass through filters, and some things did not go through. Without the direct feed, their supporters had to look around them to see the truth and felt profoundly moved.

What to report?

Many journalists could no longer RT without endorsement their unstated belief. Since they could no longer include in their stories the lines “Many are of the view that…” or “There was general opposition to…”, most felt jittery putting facts to paper. And without “How Twitter reacted to…” articles to file, energetic young reporters found themselves in corporation council meetings and learning how the country is run, to their utter disbelief.

There was a sudden epiphany among 20-somethings that liking posts did not translate to liking those who posted, and many wrote poems about it — which they couldn’t post, and felt extremely disappointed. Also now that they couldn’t share pictures, they realised what looked good didn’t really taste good.

Back to the real world

The big positive, however, was that relatives were easier to love and cherish now that they were no longer sharing misogynist or racist comments on family groups.

Source: The Hindu, 23-02-2017

Where creativity meets strategy

Communication and media professionals need to deliver a range of assets beyond just text.

With the proliferation of social media, we are truly operating in ‘real-time’ and thus, our decisions and responses need to be made on a reactive and proactive basis. The power of speech is much more diverse and it is increasingly difficult for media houses to dogmatize information and opinions. Everyone can engage in real-time public debates. This is a great opportunity for the communication industry.

Content has always been king. However, beyond content are the demands of one’s desired audience, as content is shaped to resonate with their values, desires and beliefs. This also means that media and communication professionals need to deliver a range of communication assets beyond text. Delivering with speed is also essential in new media.

One of the most compelling driving forces within the communication remit is the rise, influence and impact of the millennial audience. There is a knowledge gap on part of companies and individuals outside the industry, who are still not au fait with its value and credibility and the power that lies in the communication industry to make, break and elevate brands.

Communication is one of those industries that requires as much hands-on experience as possible — academic leanings of the media industry can help one understand the basics, but it is the day-to-day understanding of a client, their brand and the market they operate in that will help us ensure that we consider the nuances to articulate our thoughts in a communication strategy.

A media and communication industry is the medium where creative thought meets strategy to create a positive impact. It is an influencer and as consumers before professionals, we have all been testaments to its role to empower audiences to shape perceptions, educate, change behaviour and inspire positive action.

When I started my career, it was not common to see highly successful Indian women in the communications sector. Also, the media sector was and still is male-dominated. These factors may seem intimidating for a starter, but they were also my driving forces.

In terms of gender equality in the workplace, strides have been made but even in the Western world, inequalities still exist in terms of there being a limited number of women holding top-tier positions within companies right through to the ongoing issue of gender pay gaps.

Gender equality can only be achieved when everyone, irrespective of being a woman or a man has access and enjoy the same rewards, opportunities and resources. It’s not about special rights but having equal rights. The aim of gender equality should be to achieve the same outcomes for both genders for the same level of work. We need to redefine leadership qualities so that these qualities don’t look gendered any more. Hopefully, this will ensure that we have a more diverse pool of talent across all levels of work.

For those eyeing the communication industry as a future prospect, create a value in what you are doing, otherwise you are bound to feel empty about your career. Do not be put off by the first few years of your work, which usually involve many routine administrative tasks. Admin is the bedrock to any successful campaign. And above all, never forget that you can be a change maker. Work hard. Know your strengths and always surround yourself with a team that brings out the best in you. Never underestimate the power of initiative and innovation. Embrace fully the role of change agents, focus more on the ‘can’ and the ‘why not’ — a positive outlook goes a long way.

Natasha Mudhar, CEO and MD of Sterling Group

Keywords: Communication, media industry, careers

Source: The Hindu, 1-08-2016

How Twitter helped create Brand Modi

A recent study by researchers at University of Michigan, published in the Economic and Political Weekly, provides insights into how Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s online image was constructed and evolved over time. By analysing data from @narendramodi Twitter handle – official account of Modi – researchers found that a combination of carefully crafted tweets and strategic followbacks to other Twitter accounts helped Modi build a powerful online brand.

Whom did Modi follow till the general election?

As of May 2014, Modi followed 1043 Twitter accounts, which were categorised under different heads based on public information provided in their account description. It was found that the largest category belonged to laypersons, which constituted 41 per cent of the accounts. Such a behavior is an exception to the rule as most politicians use Twitter as a one-way tool for broadcasting information following only public figures and news media. According to the authors, Modi’s reciprocity to the layperson and BJP Karyakartas (12 per cent) means a call to action. The most common adjectives in these laypersons account descriptions were ”proud”, “nationalist”, “Hindu” and “patriotic”. 14 per cent of accounts being followed were of BJP politicians. A number of celebrity accounts were also followed by Modi.

Speaking with The Hindu, Arvind Gupta, Head of BJP’s IT Cell, said - “In my personal opinion, the Prime Minister does not view social media as a one-way broadcast medium. He uses this to listen, get feedback, engage and get a sense of the mood of the youth and wide diversity of Indians who have taken to social media in a big way. The Prime Minister's follow back list is merely a reflection on getting a sense of the mood on social media across a cross-section of voices.”

How has Modi’s social media message changed over time?

Tweets analysed over four time periods

Phase	Time Period	Significance	Number of Tweets
Phase 1	1 February 2009 to 21 January 2012	Early tweets	625
Phase 2	3 August 2012 to 30 January 2013	Tweets leading into 2012 Gujarat elections	500
Phase 3	13 April 2014 to 17 May 2014	Tweets leading into 2014 general elections	501
Phase 4	15 December 2014 to 18 February 2015	Tweets as PM	488

Analysis of the content of tweets from four phases between February 2009 and February 2015 sheds light on how Modi’s social media message has changed over time. Youth and Development were consistent themes in all phases. Hinduism theme – referring to “Hindutva” or Hindu greetings, practices, festival and Gods – was dominant in the first two phases but drops off significantly leading to 2014 general elections. In terms of word count, mention of “Gujarat” declines after the first two phases, signifying Modi’s transition from a regional politician to a national one. In the third phase, election rallies and political confrontation dominate.

Retweets and Favourites of Modi’s messages

Consistent growth of retweeting and favoriting of Modi’s tweets was observed between 2009 and 2015. Though retweeting was higher until February 2014, favoriting overtook retweeting – as is of most celebrity accounts – with increase in Modi’s online following. This analysis shows evidence of consistent activity in pre-election retweeting by Modi’s followers.

In an email conversation with The Hindu, Professor Joyojeet Pal, one of the researchers, said: “Higher retweet rate is typically a sign that someone is trying to propagate your message – your followers or supporters, for instance. A higher favourite rate, on the other hand, is more indicative of either a kind of ‘fandom’ or some form of casual acknowledgement”.

The significance of retweets becomes amply clear by comparing accounts of Rahul Gandhi and Shashi Tharoor, Prof. Pal told The Hindu. He observed that even though Tharoor’s follower count is eight times compared to that of Rahul, tweets of the latter, on an average, get retweeted several times more, which is an evidence that there is a support base retweeting Rahul’s content. He further added that tweets that are carefully crafted having persuasive messages – as are of Rahul and Modi – have much better potential for retweeting compared to Tharoor’s casual citizenry style of tweeting.

According to Mr. Gupta, the Prime Minister was one of the earliest adopters of social media and his understanding of the power of the medium comes from a personal, hands-on experience. “It is but natural that his use of Twitter has evolved keeping in mind the gravitas of the Office he is currently holding. What is being referred to as ‘measured evolution’ and ‘crafted quotes’ is merely a reflection of this evolution. There is nothing more to be read into it. Of course, given his busy schedule he leverages the support of an extended team from time to time as the situation may demand, but he continues to be hands on with technology, keeping up the with the latest in medium through the day.”, Mr. Gupta said.

Keywords: Brand Modi, Twitter

Source: The Hindu, 7-03-2016

Holding the newspaper to account

A decade with our independent news ombudsmen.

Newspapers continue to play an important role in society and politics. In some respects they play an enhanced and widening role in this digital age, even as they have come under disruptive pressure of varying degrees. Typically, in India as well as in most other countries, daily newspapers have become contested, at times bitterly contested, sites where various extraneous as well as internal factors and interests are at play, often having it out. The rise of social media — its positive, corrective, and value-adding side as well as its trolling, noisy, and truth-distorting side — has increased in no small measure the daily pressure the mainstream press and professional journalists face in the increasingly contested space.

N.Ram

In this situation, protecting and revitalising the core functions, standards, and values of professional journalism has become absolutely vital to democracy, to the public interest, and, of course, to the newspaper industry’s own health. Newspapers perform several roles in relation to their vast and diverse readership, and some of these have declined, faded away, or simply changed over time. But the two central functions of serious, independent journalism have remained constant — the credible-informational and the critical-investigative-adversarial. There are also derivatives of these central functions, notably the agency of the press in public education, serving as a forum for analysis, criticism, disputation, comment, and agenda building, which are all invaluable to any society. Newspapers that perform these functions effectively over the long term establish a reputation for reliability: in other words, a bond of trust forms between the newspaper and its readers and this gets strengthened over time, provided the functions, standards, and values are protected and nourished.

Demand for regulation

There is a new challenge newspapers face in many countries, including India, and this is the increasingly heard political demand for regulation of the ways of an allegedly irresponsible, wayward, and venal press. There is little question that in many cases the demand reflects, or at least draws upon, public dissatisfaction and disenchantment with the performance of influential sections of the press (in juxtaposition with the noise, froth, and mindless chatter generated ceaselessly on news television, with which the press’s performance is, from time to time, confused by the public). There is nothing wrong with regulation per se. But regulation is of two kinds — external and internal — which from the standpoint of professional journalism is like chalk and cheese.

It is in this stressful context that the institution of a news ombudsman becomes not just a virtuous option but an existential necessity and even a priority for Indian newspapers.

The Hindu is the first newspaper in the history of Indian journalism to appoint a news ombudsman — an independent, full-time, empowered professional, known as the Readers’ Editor (RE), with a clearly defined daily role in the newspaper and transparent terms of reference. And this happened in 2006, when the newspaper was 127 years old. The inspiration had come from the exemplary practice and experience of The Guardian, whose pioneering RE, Ian Mayes, had set the bar high.

Over the past decade, The Hindu has had three Readers’ Editors, all of them journalists but with different backgrounds and experiences within the profession. The first, the newspaper’s vastly experienced former chief News Editor, K. Narayanan, gave shape and meaning to the office, winning the trust of a legion of readers. The second, S. Viswanathan, a veteran correspondent with considerable field reporting experience, helped consolidate the office of the news ombudsman, focussing as much on socio-political and media and society issues as on professional matters. The third and current RE, A.S. Panneerselvan, a versatile writer with a multi-media background who has published 177 RE columns so far without missing a step, has re-energised the office and expanded the RE’s role by taking on the challenge of looking into the newspaper online in addition to the printed editions.

The Terms of Reference for the Readers’ Editor, which are the same as The Guardian’s, can be read atThe Hindu’s website (http://bit.ly/ODhIGQ). They go hand in hand with the newspaper’s Code of Editorial Values, adopted in 2011 (http://bit.ly/QlODhS).

What in essence is the RE’s job?

It is, to quote Ian Mayes, to work independently within the newspaper “at the interface between readers… on the one hand, and journalists and editors on the other” — with a position like that of “a referee in a football game… that can get pretty rough at times.” He adds that the news ombudsman represents “a form of self-regulation… the only kind of self-regulation that has the effect of building trust between a specific news organisation and its readership or audience, through the systematic, impartial and public handling of complaints, and through the open discussion of issues raised by readers concerning the journalism.”

What deserves emphasis here is that The Hindu’s RE, who is appointed for a fixed term by the Board of Directors of the company owning the newspaper, is totally independent of the Editor and the editorial team, yet works in their midst and with their cooperation, which is mandated by the Terms of Reference.

In practical terms, the RE oversees the process of publishing corrections and clarifications on a daily basis; attends sympathetically to readers’ complaints and concerns that his or her office receives; writes a weekly column on a range of subjects related to the newspaper’s performance, various aspects of professional journalism and best practices, the newspaper industry, the media and society, and ethical issues; and inquires into, and recommends appropriate action on, specific cases of plagiarism, other ethical transgressions, and inappropriate or unprofessional journalism that are referred to him or her by the Editor.

The RE’s is a post-publication job; he or she rarely comes in pre-publication, and even then only when the matter is referred to him or her.

The data available at the office of The Hindu’s RE reveal that between March 2006 and February 2016, as many as 70,519 communications (by email, telephone, regular mail, and fax) were received from readers. During the same period, 8,236 corrections and clarifications were published in a prominent demarcated space — the opinion page opposite the main editorial page. This is important because readers need to know where precisely to go to see the RE in action, which means visibility is the key (“visible mending” is a term of art in the RE’s trade). Not all corrections came from readers; many of them were made suo motu by the RE’s office and, interestingly, the newspaper’s journalists began to send in corrections before anyone else could point them out. In other words, self-correction has become an objective process in this newspaper, making it unlikely that major factual or contextual mistakes would escape public attention.

During the decade, close to 400 columns written by the three Readers’ Editors have been published on the same page. In effect, the REs have owned the space demarcated to them for publishing corrections and clarifications and also their independent views, findings, and, whenever they deem necessary, criticisms of the newspaper’s journalism in their columns. At the same time, care is taken not to personalise the issue by naming the journalists or other contributors, unless there are ethical transgressions or major mistakes suggesting irresponsibility.

Benefits of self-regulation

What have been the benefits of institutionalising over a decade the practice of this distinctive form of self-regulation through the work of the Readers’ Editor?

First, it has sent out the message to readers that The Hindu, which constantly attempts to hold various institutions, actors, and ideologies to account, regards itself as responsible and accountable to readers when it comes to living up to the highest professional standards and to the editorial values it proclaims.

Second, although a vocal section of readers continues to send in its complaints and concerns about the newspaper’s coverage of issues, sometimes accusing it of being “anti-Hindu,” there is tangible evidence of a shared feeling among the larger body of readers that here is a real institutional mechanism to correct serious mistakes and remedy inappropriate journalistic practices whenever they arise.

Third, I have the sense that the newspaper’s reporters, who took their time to get comfortable with the news ombudsman’s active refereeing role that some of them would have considered meddlesome, have generally come to the view that this empowered office protects them from motivated attacks, especially from the trolls in the social media.

Fourth, although there is no direct evidence on this point, it stands to reason that this form of unilateral and quick-acting self-regulation — which is not mandated by law — brings down both the incidence and the risk of litigation against the newspaper by those who feel aggrieved or offended by something it has published. The Hindu’s Vice President (Legal), for one, is of the view that the RE’s office has been able to absorb the anger of a section of readers “like a sponge.”

The Hindu as an institution committed to the highest standards and values of journalism remains firmly committed to continuing and strengthening the office of its Readers’ Editor. It takes pride in being the first Indian newspaper to have this office and make it responsive to the needs of the time. However, it has mixed feelings about being the only Indian newspaper to have an independent and regularly functioning news ombudsman — for the simple reason that this does not seem to reflect well on the priorities of the Indian newspaper industry.

(N. Ram is Chairman of Kasturi & Sons Limited and Publisher of The Hindu.)

Source: The Hindu, 1-03-2016

Evil man. Okay. Evil woman. Not okay?

The debate about programming content and oversight by regulators will get more fierce as network television expands in India

There is this particularly stunning woman, long locks, in the garb of a do-gooder-rent-a-saint out to wreak havoc on a deeply devout family. Make that a large Indian family of countless cousins who worship together and have chosen to put their collective faith in this woman to act as the medium between them and the powerful goddess they worship. The serial is called Sasural Simar Ka (the home of Simar’s in-laws) and, from all accounts, drawing eyeballs at prime time — including viewers possibly troubled by what they get to see. Sasural Simar Ka is one of five serials whose depiction of women has had the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) sit up and take notice.

Anuradha Raman

Set up by the Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF), the apex broadcaster, in June 2011 as a self-regulatory mechanism for entertainment content beamed into our homes, the Council is empowered to take cognisance of complaints and issue advisories — more in the nature of Asoka’s edicts serving as a moral compass for broadcasters — that strive to reconcile freedom of expression with norms of public morality.

Of course, transgressions are not tolerated and carry the threat of penalties, but they look paltry compared to the advertising revenues raked in by the broadcasters; the maximum fine of up to Rs. 30 lakh has seldom been imposed anyhow, such is the power wielded by the Council.

Complaints beget advisories

The Council has thus far come out with two status reports on content aired on general entertainment channels and complaints received, which show just how many people write in or mail their concerns with content: of the 4,545 specific complaints received by it over a period of one year, 39 per cent had to with portrayal of women and the way gods were represented in serials.

So far, 13 advisories have gone out in the four years since the Council was established, and serve as checks on broadcasters. Repeat offenders are referred to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, which deals with them according to the gravity and scale of the transgression.

Quite predictably, the latest advisory sent on December 10 banishing women as witches and sorceresses from prime-time television has been hailed in several quarters, including by the IBF itself and the National Union of Journalists. But a closer reading raises troubling questions for which there are no easy answers. For instance, is it only a particular kind of portrayal that prompts the regulator to step in after complaints have been scrutinised — that of a strong, tough-as-nails woman who has no shades of grey and no shot at redemption as episodes unravel?

What’s wrong with that, one may ask? After all, these are works of fiction. More specifically, does such portrayal require an advisory telling the broadcaster to tread cautiously on the negative portrayal of women on television? How does this portrayal affect viewers? Officials in the BCCC say the content on TV has undergone a change from the times when fictionalised rape trials were aired on television only to be withdrawn after viewers complained.

How do regulators elsewhere read the rule book for the conduct of programmes? The BCCC resembles the Canadian regulatory authority, CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), which is not a statutory body either but whose guidelines are binding. The CRTC’s guidelines on gender portrayal make for interesting reading. Titled “Gender Portrayal Guidelines” (for commercials and programmes), the regulator lays down the rules for what makes for good programming. The guidelines state that neither sex should be portrayed as exerting domination over the other by means of overt or implied threats, or actual force. Advertising should portray both women and men in the full spectrum of diversity and as equally competent in a wide range of activities both inside and outside the home. Broadcasters must portray women and men equally as decision-makers, including in the financial sphere.

The BCCC also invites comparisons with Ofcom, the communications regulator in the U.K., and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. Both have powers to penalise and both have also attracted criticism over their functioning; the former is a statutory body while the latter is an independent government body answerable to the Congress. The codes lay emphasis on protecting children.

Interestingly, the Ofcom code says programmes dealing with occult or paranormal should not be aired during regular hours and should be reserved for the “watershed hours”, that is, after 11 p.m. The same prescription is obtained in the FCC code. The BCCC in its advisory says the same.

When the Council can echo its British and American counterparts on the apt time slots for a certain kind of programming, why are its overall guidelines so tame, going only so far as to ask broadcasters not to portray women in a negative light? What does that mean anyway? That it is not okay for women to be evil but okay for men?

A vague template

For this, to understand how the BCCC came into existence would be instructive. Around 2010 end, when over 200 complaints by viewers to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry made the whole process of a measured response burdensome, a suggestion came from the broadcasters themselves to establish a self-regulatory body to look into the specific complaints. The programming code that the BCCC drew on is the one framed by the Ministry under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which merely states the following: no programme should be aired which encourages superstition or blind belief or denigrates women through the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals. It is the vagueness of the language that often poses a problem.

Its office-bearers insist that they step in only when the complaints come in, and that they engage with the judiciary, the executive and even Parliament on these matters on a regular basis, but between upholding free speech and observing its mandate to regulate, the BCCC perhaps errs on the side of caution when it comes to content control. As the media sector grows and as channels proliferate, content and oversight by regulators will continue to be locked in a fierce debate that is unlikely to be settled by answering a simple question: why can’t the viewer simply reach for the remote?

anuradha.r@thehindu.co.in

Keywords: Sasural Simar Ka, Indian Broadcasting Federation, Broadcasting Content Complaints Council, women on TV, TV programmes, freedom of expression

Source: The Hindu, 21-12-2015