Viable alternative (TheHoot.Org. 22/10/05)

Sanghvi talked of choices, competition etc., language of marketing managers and not of an editor.

-- By Dasu Krishnamoorty

In the last few days, media have become the story, said Vir Sanghvi, editor of Hindustan Times. Rightly so. These days saw anniversaries of three print media (Prajasakti, the Tribune and Outlook) where politicians complained and editors explained. The Prime Minister in his mild manner pointed to the damage irresponsible financial reporting could do. Sonia Gandhi, a target of media apathy for years after her bereavement, lamented the rise of sensationalism in Indian journalism. The engagement between the two sides showed politicians’ reluctance to hurt media with nothing more lethal than a feather and media’s oft-repeated claim to divinity and freedom from institutional accountability.

Representing emerging trends in accountability, Sanghvi wrote his weekly column where he made a mention of Sonia Gandhi’s complaint about sensationalism and linked it to the Prime Minister’s reference to the damage that a report about an imaginary PMO meeting to discuss rise in the sensex caused. "That is plain wrong," Sangvhi countered angrily. He asserted that journalists had always operated in a web of accountability and told us how "individual journalists were constantly being held accountable by editors." Okay. But who are editors responsible to? Accountability means you recognize an external agency as having the right to call you to account for departure from journalistic ethics. It is not a matter between the editors and their staff. Isn’t that so?

More pedestrian logic follows. He said, "We are accountable to increasingly demanding viewers and readers all of whom have more choices than before. If we stop doing our jobs, people stop reading or watching us." First, choices are no answer to accountability. Second, no major newspaper suffered fall in circulation as a result of reporting lapses. Third, the reader is not member of any organized community that will register a collective response by boycotting an errant newspaper.

Then, there are defamation laws that are aimed at ensuring responsible journalism, said Sanghvi, adding that "the libel laws are very strict." Yes, the laws are strict which does not mean that they are enforced strictly. Sanghvi will have to do a lot of research just to show us a case where the judges asked for more than an apology from an editor facing charges of defamation. Assuming that people shunned litigation because defamation cases took a long time, he said that it was a problem with all cases. Sanghvi knows that people shun going to courts not because of delays but because the common man, victim of defamatory reporting, cannot equal the resources of a media organization. The New York Times spent millions of dollars to defend Judith Miller. But the basic question is why should newspapers publish defamatory stuff and inflict on the victim the pain and cost of contesting in a court?

Sanghvi talked of choices, competition etc., language of marketing managers and not of an editor. Of course, speaking at the Outlook anniversary, Vinod Mehta did not agree. He said, "The editor and the marketing manager walk together, perhaps the editor is a few steps ahead. But we work as a team." Vinod is a different editor, who sees nothing wrong in approaching the prime minister for a favour on behalf of his publisher (something H.K.Dua refused to do), an editor who believes accountability is an in-house affair, and who fondly calls his dog "editor." I am surprised that the dog has not protested.

"Unlike the bad old days of Doordarshan, we all have choices," said Sanghvi. Bad old days indeed, when you could listen to Kishori Amonkar or Kumar Gandharv’s celestial music, when you could watch Yamini Krishnamurthy or Birju Maharaj dancing, when farmers got free advice on a hundred problems related to agriculture, when you could see the Republic Day parade and Beating the Retreat sitting in your drawing rooms. What are the choices the farmer gets now, Mr Sanghvi? Doordarshan and All India Radio have done for this country what Sainath is doing through the Hindu. And, who are the people who have the benefit of these choices? This is what N.Ram has to say about choices: "While cable and satellite have tremendously increased viewing options, with certain splendid exceptions, they failed to offer a better and richer choice of television content."

"How does the financial media deal with market-moving stories that have no basis in fact," asked the Prime Minister. In reply, if the speeches made at the time of the Press Council vs. the press acrimony are any indication, the editors clearly preferred internal codes of conduct and standards of due diligence. Of course, there are moth-balled codes of ethics of All India Newspaper Editors’ Conference and the Press Council of India. The latter code is a dead letter. Also, could we extend this privilege of self-regulation to other organizations now overseen by regulatory bodies? Still, if a mistake occurs, would an internal memo from the editor to the reporter undo the damage of a mistake?

Amidst this marketspeak, N. Ram (speaking at the Prajasakti anniversary) represented media orthodoxy, lamenting "there was too much editorializing masquerading as news in the various Indian media." Delivering the keynote address, Ram said, "We need to have benchmark practices by having a Readers’ Editor or a Public Editor to perform the role of ombudsman within newspapers and other organizations." In the absence of a consensus on who would bell the cat, Ram’s suggestion on the appointment of a Readers’ Editor commends itself.

Journalists must learn to speak the language of responsibility. That is what Ram did. Privileges must be earned. Journalists do not have a divine right to make mistakes and claim immunity. It is natural for media to reflect the changes that are sweeping every society benefiting from newer technologies which, however, do not grant freedom from accountability. This repeated emphasis on self-correction and self-regulation by editors at every seminar and in every article erodes their credibility. If media content leads to social or market upheaval, they cannot exempt themselves from responsibility, saying like Vinod Mehta, "We have deadlines to meet and we have to be first with the news. We make mistakes. Mistakes of judgment, mistakes of fact, mistakes of prejudice, mistakes under competitive pressure."

Mistakes should not be made, not because they are embarrassing to the newspaper but because they hurt the reputation of an individual or an institution; they increase social tensions; they play havoc with the market. Fire-fighting exercises such as corrections or rejoinders do not douse the fires. Since the Press Council is seen as a state imposition, editors, desk and bureau chiefs should agree on coming together to fashion mechanisms, not of control or regulation but of vigil, constant vigil on copy before it appears in print.

In short, appoint a readers’ editor/public editor/ombudsman who must have the same powers and resources as those, for instance, in the New York Times or Guardian. It is a full-time job "to collect, consider, investigate, respond to, and where appropriate come to a conclusion about readers' comments, concerns, and complaints in a prompt and timely manner, from a position of independence within the paper," said Ian Mayes Guardian’s Public Editor." The Hoot carried in June an article () on what they do. Editor&Publisher published last week a story of how a reporter at the Bakersfield Californian had been fired for apparently making up quotes, lifting comments from an Associated Press story, and even stealing four paragraphs of an article published 10 years ago. We can compare this with the Times of India’s silence on regular plagiarisation in its papers to appreciate the need for an ombudsman.

As evidence of self-regulation, the New York Times came out two years ago with a 15,000-word expose of its own failure of editorial vigil in the case of Jayson Blair. This week, the Times’ new Public Editor Byron Calame will review its handling of Judith Miller’s performance. "I certainly will expect The Times’ explanation to address these fundamental questions: Was Ms. Miller’s contact with the source she is protecting initiated and conducted in genuine pursuit of a news article for Times readers? Why didn’t she write an article? What kinds of notes are there and who has them? Why wasn’t she exploring a voluntary waiver from the source?" he said.

Today, we have the Press Council alone as a watchdog body. But it has failed badly. As evidence of their commitment to at least self-regulation, newspapers must appoint a Readers’ Editor or the equivalent of it, empowering him in the same manner as the British and American newspapers do. This is necessary not only to discourage irresponsible reporting but also to prevent the use of freedom of press for non-journalistic purposes. Writing for the Indian Express, N. Ram has painted a picture of the Indian press that immediately warrants a genuinely autonomous self-regulatory agency such as an ombudsman or the British Press Complaints Commission, sponsored and managed by journalists themselves.

In his article, N.Ram said, "Confusion reigns about the functions and roles of journalism and the media vis-a-vis the market and society. Increasing concentration of ownership in some sectors of the Indian media; higher levels of manipulation of news, analysis, and public affairs information to suit the owners’ financial and political interests; unmistakable tendencies of tabloidisation and dumbing down; the downgrading and devaluing of editorial functions and content in some leading newspapers and broadcast organizations; the growing professional willingness to tailor news and the editorial product to subserve advertising and marketing goals set by owners and senior management personnel; Murdoch-style price wars and aggressive practices in the home bases of competitors, raising fears about media monopoly; and rampant corruption are deeply worrying tendencies."