Printed from
EDITORIAL COMMENT | Don't Gag The Media
The prime minister has put on hold a move by the I&B ministry to restrict live television coverage during law and order emergencies. Within days of broadcasters writing to the PM voicing their concerns about the ministry's proposals, Manmohan Singh has said that any future action would be taken only after consultation with all stakeholders and taking into account different points of view. This is welcome.
The amendments to the Cable Television Network (Regulations) Act proposed by the I&B ministry in the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks aims to put in place extensive restrictions on live coverage of crisis situations. This would prevent news broadcasters from showing any live telecast during emergency situations other than a government-authorised feed. What constitutes an emergency has been kept vague with the draft amendment saying regulations could be imposed in case of "natural and manmade calamities or where the situation so warrants". This gives the government unnecessary powers which could be misused to gag the media. There were undoubtedly mistakes made during the coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks. The transcripts of calls made by the terrorists have revealed that their handlers in Pakistan, who were watching Indian news channels, kept them informed about the movement of the security forces. But we must remember that the news television industry is relatively new to India. Within a span of a few years, 67 news channels are now operating in India. There is an urgent need to work out regulations for live coverage, especially of terror incidents, which have now become a recurring feature in India. But the government is also to blame for the chaos during the coverage of 26/11. There were no clear guidelines issued either by the defence forces or local authorities to television channels. Basic rules like keeping away journalists and the public from the site of action were not enforced. Besides, there was no clearly identifiable authority briefing the media as there was in New York during 9/11. Instead, we had officials from numerous government agencies giving their views — some of it contradicting each other — to TV channels.
In a democracy, self-regulation is far more desirable than the government dictating orders. Following 26/11, the news broadcasters association has come up with its own 'emergency protocol'. Now it should sit down with government representatives to draft an acceptable code of conduct for coverage of emergency situations. That is what the prime minister seems to be suggesting. This is also in keeping with democratic norms of freedom of expression.
The amendments to the Cable Television Network (Regulations) Act proposed by the I&B ministry in the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks aims to put in place extensive restrictions on live coverage of crisis situations. This would prevent news broadcasters from showing any live telecast during emergency situations other than a government-authorised feed. What constitutes an emergency has been kept vague with the draft amendment saying regulations could be imposed in case of "natural and manmade calamities or where the situation so warrants". This gives the government unnecessary powers which could be misused to gag the media. There were undoubtedly mistakes made during the coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks. The transcripts of calls made by the terrorists have revealed that their handlers in Pakistan, who were watching Indian news channels, kept them informed about the movement of the security forces. But we must remember that the news television industry is relatively new to India. Within a span of a few years, 67 news channels are now operating in India. There is an urgent need to work out regulations for live coverage, especially of terror incidents, which have now become a recurring feature in India. But the government is also to blame for the chaos during the coverage of 26/11. There were no clear guidelines issued either by the defence forces or local authorities to television channels. Basic rules like keeping away journalists and the public from the site of action were not enforced. Besides, there was no clearly identifiable authority briefing the media as there was in New York during 9/11. Instead, we had officials from numerous government agencies giving their views — some of it contradicting each other — to TV channels.
In a democracy, self-regulation is far more desirable than the government dictating orders. Following 26/11, the news broadcasters association has come up with its own 'emergency protocol'. Now it should sit down with government representatives to draft an acceptable code of conduct for coverage of emergency situations. That is what the prime minister seems to be suggesting. This is also in keeping with democratic norms of freedom of expression.
Read more: EDITORIAL COMMENT | Don't Gag The Media - The Times of Indiahttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/EDITORIAL-COMMENT-Dont-Gag-The-Media/articleshow/3985466.cms#ixzz1CtbbgbEb
No comments:
Post a Comment