Anisha Sheth | The News Minute | October 7, 2014 | 2.02 pm IST
Doordarshan’s hour-long telecast of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat sparked a political debate, with the opposition criticizing the government for using its own infrastructure to promote its political ideology.
This development has raised important questions for the role of journalism in the current socio-economic and political scenario, the role of journalists working in privately owned organizations, and the necessity of a public broadcaster in fulfilling the information needs of the public along with providing wholesome entertainment.
The News Minute spoke to senior journalist and Editor of media watch website The Hoot.org Sevanti Ninan, on Prasar Bharati’s relevance today, and a range of recent developments in the media and journalism.
Doordarshan telecast RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s speech in an hour-long programme, and a DD official is quoted by Mint, saying that no special arrangements were made, and that it was covered as regular news story. Would you say this qualifies as regular treatment of news?
A one-hour direct telecast on the views of the head of the RSS? That is neither regular treatment nor what we normally recognise as news.
The Congress, Left parties have accused the BJP of misusing the public broadcaster to spread RSS ideology. Your comments
The public broadcaster is used to being misused. Even so this set a new record. Doordarshan has been feeling chuffed that the new prime minister has been prioritising it over the private sector competition, making it his chosen broadcast vehicle. But this telecast makes it clear that being the channel of the PM's choice is a double edged sword. He will make you do coverage you should not be doing.
In the past you have said that that there is no clear cut relationship between the government and Prasar Bharati, and that the law does not allow Prasar Bharati to function productively. Why have successive governments been unwilling to change this situation despite four committees having been set up to look into the matter? Does the present situation benefit the government in any way. If yes, how?
When the Act that governs the broadcaster is flawed committees cannot fix the situation. It is a legislative problem. Amendments are needed to make autonomy foolproof.
Even the buffer between the broadcaster and the government, the Prasar Bharati Board is not there in full strength, no full term chairperson has been appointed. The government is free to bend the public broadcaster any way it wants.
In one of your columns you quote a farmer who asks why there is no channel to cater to the needs of farmers when so many people depend on it for their livelihood. What other areas of information needs are not met by the mainstream media, and also Doordarshan.
Well this government has now announced a kisan channel though it will be a Hindi channel. The regional kendras will have to cut away to more localised farm programming for parts of the day. Neither private channels nor the public broadcaster meet the need for what people call wholesome entertainment, well made serials purveying quality fiction. Neither realise how much demand there is for livelihood related programming which talks of skills and markets for them, and put out job information, and the gamut of health related information.
How would you characterize the reportage on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US?
When news channels compete with each other to be cheerleaders, it is embarrassing for the rest of the profession, to put it mildly.
The day Modi was to address a gathering at Madison Square Garden, there were protests against his visit, in connection with the allegations of religious intolerance against Modi, and his alleged role in the violence of 2002. Only two or three Indian media houses covered it, whereas international media gave it more coverage. Your comments.
For the international media there is a bigger story in the religious intolerance charges than in reporting an Indian PM's UN and US visit. For the Indian media making the PM look good became a matter of national prestige and the big news of the day.
Could you comment on the media coverage of the scuffle involving Headlines Today’s consulting editor Rajdeep Sardesai?
There wasn't any coverage which gave you the complete story and the way it unfolded. Both sides behaved badly at different points in the altercation.
There is an impression that the media is not asking the questions it should be asking in its coverage of Modi. His claims of development in Gujarat, for instance. Your comments.
The Gujarat record is less a matter of asking questions and more a question of looking at the data and make assessments by going to the field.
Editor of The Guardian Alan Rusbridger says that the social media have made certain kinds of routine reporting redundant. He says that journalists should focus more on reportage that requires the expertise and knowledge that journalists have. What are your views on this?
Well first TV made spot reporting redundant, now social media is making TV news redundant because it is faster. What he says is true, but additionally social media is not interested in many kinds of news. It is keen to purvey saleable news but there is much more happening out there to different segments of society that responsible reporting has to cover.
You have written about journalists using Twitter, and constantly providing news updates. How has this affected journalism?
It leaves them with less time for meaningful journalism.
Do you believe that reporting standards can be improved, or is that too much to ask for? For example, in Bangalore some time ago, a child was raped in her school and the media incessantly covered the incident. One Kannada channel went so far as to invite the family of one of the accused on their show. It emerged that the daughter of the accused was also studying in the same school. The revealing of such information is not just a violation of privacy, but also the law. Do you think such a situation can be improved?
I believe there is need for a basic level of regulation and a complaints council where consumers of news can complain and have channels held to account. There should be substantial fines for violating basic standards of ethics.
Is there an aspect of the media that needs to be debated, but is not receiving adequate attention?
The issues of media ownership and the need for quality public broadcasting.