(लोकसत्तात शनिवार, २३ ऑक्टो. २०१० रोजी प्रसिद्ध झालेली २५ हजार व्होल्टचा मृत्यु ही बातमी ज्यावरून घेण्यात आली, तो हा मेल. यातील घटना वर्षभरापूर्वीची आहे, हे लक्षात न घेताच तो लोकसत्ताच्या बातमीदाराने भाषांतरित केला आणि अवघाचि घोटाळा झाला...)
Dears,
With deep pains (and tears in my eyes), i am sorry to inform You that yesterday morning, one of my dear friend's elder son (Mr. Aditya Suresh Joshi), age 19, studying in 1st year of engineering, died in Keshvani Hospital, Mumbai. He was admitted in Keshavani Hospital as burned patient.
Reason
4 days back this boy had gone to Amravati (One of the district place located in State of Maharashtra) on study tour. After their study was over, he, his classmates & his teachers, all of them were standing on "Badnera" railway station to catch the train. "Badnera" is the name of the railway station for "Amravati" city.
As soon as they arrived on Badnera Railway station, many of them started taking pictures of their friends using "Mobile Phones" and/or "Digital Camera". One of them complained that, in his camera, he was not able to capture more number of friends in one frame. He was not able to catch the angle. Another boy suggested that let's climb on train boogie and take picture so that all of them can be accommodated in single frame.
At that there was one goods wagon (all of them were oil tankers) train resting between 2 main railway lines.
Kumar Aditya climbed up oil boogie. Above his head, 40,000 volts electrical line was passing through. As soon as he clicked the digital camera? 40,000 volt current passed through the camera flash light to his camera and then from his camera to his fingers and then from his fingers to his body. All this happened within fraction of minutes. Next moment he was thrown from the top. His body was half burned on the spot.
At that time, his father (my friend) was traveling in Bangkok. His many friends in Pune came to know about this via mobile SMS. They instantly arranged air ambulance in Amravati and his burned body was brought to Keshavani Hospital, Mumbai. i was told that this is the best hospital in Mumbai. For 1 and 1/2 day or so he was talking to his relatives. When he was admitted to the hospital, at that time only, doctor informed his relatives that don't keep great hopes. Because of lot of complex issues in half burned body? He died yesterday morning.
Now how many of us are aware about this technological threats & dangers? Honestly, Kumar Aditya and his father was not aware. His family was not aware. Our entire friend circle of more than 12,000, we were not aware. Now should we call ourselves as fully educated and fully knowledgeable people? Think of it. Please avoid mobile phones on petrol outlets. Please avoid talking on mobile phones while driving. i also know many of my friends who do not bother about this good suggestion and each one of them have opted for "Chalta Hai Yaar Attitude". Please avoid talking on mobile phones while they are in charging mode. Avoid charging mobile phones near Your bed and/or near wooden furniture. Avoid mobile phones near high voltage electrical lines like railway stations and use flash lights. My friend, his family members and we all friends learned our lesson with loss of young life. Now Would You like to empower Your friends about this accident so as to avoid future accidents? We can save human life by empowering all the IT users who are in Your network? i have done "My Karma {with deep pains & tears in my eyes}" by empowering You about this horrible experience.
२००९-१० या वर्षासाठीचे पारितोषिकप्राप्त बातमीदार
राज्यस्तरीय-
प्रथम- बाळकृष्ण तथा प्रमोद कोनकर, रत्नागिरी (अडीच लाख रूपये), द्वितीय- विनोद फाटे,बुलढाणा (दीड लाख रूपये) तृतीय- अजित झळके, सांगली (एक लाख रूपये.)
विभागीय स्तर-
कोकण विभाग- प्रथम- संजय मालवणकर,सिंधुदुर्ग (एक लाख), द्वितीय-नितीन देशमुख, रायगड (७५ हजार).
नाशिक विभाग- प्रथम- रामकृष्ण पाटील, धुळे, (एक लाख रूपये) द्वितीय- शंकर वाघ, मालेगाव नाशिक, (७५ हजार) तृतीय- विजयसिंह होलम, अहमदनगर (५० हजार),
पुणे विभाग- प्रथम- दत्तात्रय आराध्ये, सोलापूर, द्वितीय- विश्वास दिवे, कोल्हापूर, तृतीय- संतोष वळसे पाटील, पुणे.
औरंगाबाद विभाग- प्रथम- संदीप बेदरे, बीड, द्वितीय- वैभव स्वामी, बीड, तृतीय- बालाजी फड, लातूर.
अमरावती विभाग- प्रथम- विकास देशमुख, वाशिम, द्वितीय- संतोष वानखडे, अकोला तृतीय- प्रकाश लामणे, यवतमाळ.
नागपूर विभाग- प्रथम- नरेश रहिले, गोंदिया, द्वितीय- चेतन भैरम, भंडारा, तृतीय- महेंद्र बिसेन, गोंदिया.
जिल्हास्तरीय पुरस्कार-
रायगड- प्रथम- मजिद हजिते (२५ हजार), द्वितीय- सलीम शेख (१५ हजार).
रत्नागिरी- प्रथम- शिवाजी गोरे (२५हजार), द्वितीय- श्रीमती जान्हवी पाटील (१५ हजार), तृतीय- राजेंद्र चव्हाण (१०हजार),
सिंधुदुर्ग- प्रथम-महेंद्र मातोंडकर, द्वितीय- कृष्णकांत गावडे, तृतीय- भरत सातोसकर.
धुळे- प्रथम- गणेश सूर्यवंशी, द्वितीय- सरदार परदेशी, तृतीय-रावसाहेब चव्हाण.
नंदूरबार- प्रथम- कमलेश पटेल, द्वितीय-मुकेश सोमवंशी, तृतीय-बी.एस.मण्यार.
अहमदनगर- प्रथम- संदीप रोडे.
पुणे- प्रथम- बाळासाहेब तांबे, द्वितीय-संजय येलवाड, तृतीय- राजेंद्र गलांडे.
सातारा- प्रथम- आनंदराव पाटील, द्वितीय- श्रीकांत कुंभारदरे, तृतीय- दिलीप भोक्ते.
सोलापूर- प्रथम- राजकुमार सारोळे,द्वितीय- मारूती बावडे.
कोल्हापूर- प्रथम-विजयकुमार पाटील, द्वितीय-आप्पासाहेब माळी.
सांगली- प्रथम- अमृत चौगुले, द्वितीय-विनायक जाधव.
औरंगाबाद- प्रथम- चंद्रशेखर कुरणे, द्वितीय- सतीश अन्वेकर.
परभणी- प्रथम- आनंद पोहनेरकर.
हिंगोली- प्रथम- पठाण फिरोज खां शफीऊल्लहा खॉं, द्वितीय-प्रकाश इंगोले, तृतीय- शेख इलियास शेख अब्दुल.
बीड- प्रथम- संजय तिपाले, द्वितीय-रवी उबाळे, तृतीय- शेख माजिद हाफीज.
नांदेड- प्रथम- हरीहर धुतमल, द्वितीय- राजेश गंगमवार.
लातूर- प्रथम- एजाज शेख,
यवतमाळ- प्रथम- प्रशांत भागवत, द्वितीय- श्रीकृष्ण जावळकर.
बुलढाणा- प्रथम- गजानन सावळे, द्वितीय-फहिम देशमुख, तृतीय-प्रशांत देशमुख.
अकोला- प्रथम- अशोक राणे, द्वितीय- मो.शब्बीर मो.याकुब. तृतीय- रामराव वानरे.
वाशिम- प्रथम- सौ. भारती सोमानी, द्वितीय- मोहन राऊत, तृतीय-सुधाकर क्षीरसागर.
नागपूर- प्रथम- सुदाम राखडे, द्वितीय- हरिदास लुटे, तृतीय- धनराज लांजेवार.
वर्धा- प्रथम- अनिल मेघे, द्वितीय- मालती गावंडे, तृतीय- ओमप्रकाश अग्रवाल.
गोंदिया- प्रथम- हुपराज जमईवार, द्वितीय- सुरेश येडे, तृतीय- विकास बोरकर.
चंद्रपूर- प्रथम- गुलाब माकडे, द्वितीय- विलास दुर्योधन, तृतीय- बाळू निमगडे.
गडचिरोली- प्रथम- फहिमखान इब्राहिमखान, द्वितीय- नंदकुमार काथवटे, तृतीय- केशवराव दशमुखे.
केसरी पत्र प्रसिद्ध होण्यापूर्वी त्यासंबंधी प्रसिद्ध करण्यात आलेले पत्रक...
केसरी(मराठी वृत्तपत्रांचा इतिहास, रा. के. लेले, कॉन्टिनेन्टल प्रकाशन, प्रथमावृत्ती १९८४, पान २७९-२८०)
स्थितिं नो रे दध्या: क्षणमपि मदांधेक्षण सखे
गजश्रेणीनाथ त्वमिह जटिलायां वनभुवि
असौ कुंभिभ्रांत्या खननरवरविद्रावितमहा:
गुरूग्पावग्राम: स्वपिति गिरिगर्भे हरिपति:
- जगन्नाथराय
वरील केसरी नावाचे वर्मानपत्र निव्वळ महाराष्ट्र भाषेत येत्या १८८१ सालच्या आरंभापासून दर मंगळवारी काढण्याचा विचार खालील मंडळीने केला आहे. या पत्रात एरवीच्या वर्तमानपत्राप्रमाणे बातम्या, राजकीय प्रकरणे, व्यापारासंबंधी माहिती वगैरे नेहमीचे विषय तर येतीलच, पण याखेरीज लोकस्थितीवर निबंध, नवीन ग्रंथावर टीका वगैरे विषयांचाही त्यात समावेश केला जाईल. तसेच विलायतेत ज्या राज्यप्रकरणांची वाटाघाट होते ती इकडील लोकांस समजणे अवश्य असल्यामुळे त्यांचाही सारांश रूपाने यात संग्रह करण्याचा बेत केला आहे. आजपर्यंत वरील तीन विषयांवर म्हणजे देशस्थिती, देशभाषेतील ग्रंथ व विलायतेतील राजकाण या विषयांच्या संबंधाने जसे यथास्थित उद््घाटन व्हावयास पाहिजे होते, तसे कोणत्याही वर्तामापत्रात झाले नाही असे म्हणणय्ास हरत नाही. तर ही मोठी उणीव नाहिशी करून टाकण्याचे आम्ही मनात आणले आहे.
वरील वर्तमानपत्रात प्रत्येक विषयाचे विवेचन जे करावयाचे, ते केवळ निप:क्षपात बुद्धीने व आम्हास जे खरे वाटेल त्याल अनुसरून करावयाचे असा आमचा कृतसंकल्प आहे. अलीकडे बादशाही अमलाच्या सुरवातीपासू तोंडपुजेपणाचा प्रकार बराच वाढत चालला आहे यात संशय नाही. हा प्रकार अत्यंत अश्र्लाघ्य असून देशाच्या हितास अपायकारक होय, हे कोणीही प्रांजल मनुष्य कबूल करील. तर सदरील पत्रातील लेख त्यास ठएविलेल्या नावाप्रमाणे येतील असे समजावे.
या पत्राचा साचा सुबोध पत्रिकेसारखा धरण्यात येईल. किंमतही त्याच मानाने अगदी थोडी ठेविली आहे. ती सालीना आगाऊ एक रुपया दहा आणे इतकी आहे. मागाहून दर मुदलीचा ठेवला नाही. सरते शेवटी आमच्या आर्यबंधूंस एवढीच विज्ञापना करण्यात येते की, त्यांनी या लोकहिताच्या नवीन कृत्यास आपला उदार आश्रय द्यावा. तो जसजसा मिळेल तसतशी आम्हास उमेद येऊन, हे पत्करलेले काम यशाशक्ती तडीस नेण्यास आम्हांकडून बिलकूल कसूर होणार नाही.
- विष्णू कृष्ण चिपळूणकर बी. ए.
- बाळ गंगाधर टिळक बी. ए., एलएल. बी.
- वामन शिवराम आपटे एम. ए.
- गणेश कृष्ण गर्दे एल्. एम्. अँड एस्.
- गोपाळ गणेश आगरकर बी. ए.
- महादेव बल्लाळ नामजोशी
The WEF & WAN-IFRA teams have rescheduled the 17th World Editors Forum to HAMBURG, Germany, from 6 to 8 October 2010, alongside the IFRA Expo (4 to 6 October). The programme is available at: www.wefhamburg2010.com
The new headline of the conference is: The Tablet Year: why mobile news will change the news business. Our goal is to show how new mobile platforms will give media organisations more opportunities to distribute news, engage younger readers and allow content monetization.
We also consider that the link between the Editors Forum and the IFRA Expo, where the latest Content Management Systems (CMS) will be presented, is a good opportunity for senior news executives to mix theory and practice, experience and technology.
Some traditional events of the Newspaper Congress have been added in order to enrich the programme:
* the annual World Press Trends report with all figures from 190 countries including yours (45 minute session)
* the INNOVATION presentation about new business models for media organisations (90 minute session)
* the Golden Pen award ceremony (60 minute session).
I would like to remind you that the TRENDS IN NEWSROOMS 2010 report (160 pages report sold for 249 euros) will be given for free to the Forum's participants.
More information about accommodation, practical information and social events are already available on the conference website: www.wefhamburg2010.com
With kind regards,
Bertrand Pecquerie
Director WORLD EDITORS FORUM
bertrand.pecquerie@wan-ifra.org
The World Editors Forum is the organisation for editors and senior news executives within WAN-IFRA.
Visa regulations to enter Germany for the Editors Forum and IFRA Expo:
www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/WillkommeninD/EinreiseUndAufenthalt/Visabestimmungen.html
The fifteenth general elections to the Lok Sabha took place in April-May 2009 and in order to ensure free and fair coverage by the media, the Press Council of India issued guidelines applicable to both government authorities and the press. After the elections, a disturbing trend was highlighted by sections of the media, that is, payment of money by candidates to representatives of media companies for favourable coverage or the phenomenon popularly known as “paid news”.
The deception or fraud that such “paid news” entails takes place at three levels. The reader of the publication or the viewer of the television programme is deceived into believing that what is essentially an advertisement is in fact, independently produced news content. By not officially declaring the expenditure incurred on planting “paid news” items, the candidate standing for election violates the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which are meant to be enforced by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Finally, by not accounting for the money received from candidates, the concerned media company or its representatives are violating the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961, among other laws.
The phenomenon of “paid news” goes beyond the corruption of individual journalists and media companies. It has become pervasive, structured and highly organized and in the process, is undermining democracy in India. Large sections of society, including political personalities, those working in the media and others, have already expressed their unhappiness and concern about the pernicious influence of such malpractices.
During his inaugural address at a seminar on “General Elections 2009 and Media Reporting” on May 13, 2009, that was organized by the Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, three days before the results of the fifteenth general elections were declared, Hon’ble Chairman of the Press Council of India Justice G.N. Ray expressed grave concern about the covert emergence of the “paid news” syndrome and this issue was discussed threadbare during the seminar.
Subsequently, representations against such malpractices were received from several veteran journalists (such as the late Shri Prabhash Joshi, Shri Ajit Bhattacharjea, Shri B.G. Verghese and Shri Kuldip Nayar). They alleged that sections of the media had received illegal payments for providing favourable coverage to candidates who had stood for the Lok Sabha elections.
On June 6, 2009, the Press Council of India expressed serious concern over the phenomenon of “paid news” that doubly jeopardized the functioning of an independent media in the country and the working of Indian democracy by influencing free and fair elections. The Council noted that the press provides a service that is akin to a public utility – it exercises its right to inform because the public has a right to know. The press thus functions as a repository of public trust and has the obligation to provide truthful and correct information to the best of its ability when such information is being presented as news content. Such news content is distinct from opinions that are conveyed through articles and editorials in which writers express their views.
There is an urgent need to protect the right of the public to accurate information before voters exercise their franchise in favour of a particular candidate in the electoral fray. An opinion that was expressed in the Council is that one reason for the proliferation of the “paid news” phenomenon could be that on account of the limits on election campaign related expenditure that have been imposed by the Election Commission of India, candidates have chosen this alternative to publicize themselves, in the process posing a danger to the conduct of free and fair elections. It was suggested that the powers that are vested in returning officers appointed by the Election Commission before the elections take place are adequate for such officers to issue notices to the press to explain the basis of particular “news” reports and ascertain whether financial transactions had actually taken place between candidates and representatives of media companies.
The Press Council of India felt that in pursuance of the mandate given to the Council by Parliament, it was incumbent upon this statutory authority to examine the issue in all its dimensions through detailed research and consultations. Such an exercise was deemed necessary to maintain the faith of the public in the media and also make appropriate recommendations to check such malpractices from recurring on a wide scale before the forthcoming rounds of elections at both the Union and state levels.
On June 10, 2009, the Delhi Union of Journalists communicated with the Press Council telegraphically and expressed its concern at reports of money power having played havoc with the media coverage of the elections that had taken place. Shri S.K. Pande, President, Delhi Union of Journalists described the “paid news” phenomenon as unethical, unfair and an infringement of the right of journalists to report freely. He further informed the Council that selected journalists had been targetted by the managements of media companies for not acquiescing with such malpractices.
It may not be out of place in this context to state that the attention of the Press Council of India had been drawn as early as April 2003 by one its members (the late Shri N. Thiagrajan) about the publication of advertising material in the garb of news reports for a fee. At that time, the Council had urged the media to introspect whether such practices enhanced the credibility of news reportage and advised that journalistic propriety demanded that advertisements should be clearly distinguishable from editorial content.
The Press Council of India, through its Chairman and its members, participated in or initiated a number of discussions and debates on this issue between May 2009 and March 2010.
On July 3, 2009, exercising the powers conferred on the Council under Sections 8(1) and 15 of the Press Council of India Act, 1978, a Sub-Committee of the Council comprising two members, namely, Shri Kalimekolan Sreenivas Reddy and Shri Paranjoy Guha Thakurta was constituted. The two members, together with the Press Council of India Chairman Justice G.N. Ray, the Council’s Secretary, Smt Vibha Bhargava and other members, met a wide cross-section of stake-holders in New Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad and also perused through many letters and representations that were sent to the Council. These have been listed in Annexures “A” “B” “C” and “D” at the end of the report. Annexure “E” carries the guidelines that were issued by the Press Council for the media and government authorities during elections. The report of the Sub-Committee follows.
Corruption in the mass media in India and elsewhere is as old as the media itself. If there is corruption in society, it would be unrealistic to expect the media to be free of corruption. India is the world’s largest democracy. A vibrant and diverse mass media is an important pillar of democracy in the country. The independence of the media facilitates adherence to democratic norms. Article 19 of the Constitution of India confers the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of the country and to the media as well.
In recent years, corruption in the Indian media has gone way beyond the corruption of individual journalists and specific media organizations -- from “planting” information and views in lieu of favours received in cash or kind, to more institutionalized and organized forms of corruption wherein newspapers and television channels receive funds for publishing or broadcasting information in favour of particular individuals, corporate entities, representatives of political parties and candidates contesting elections, that is sought to be disguised as “news”.
News is meant to be objective, fair and neutral – this is what sets apart such information and opinion from advertisements that are paid for by corporate entities, governments, organizations or individuals. What happens when the distinction between news and advertisements start blurring, when advertisements double up as news that have been paid for, or when “news” is published in favour of a particular politician by selling editorial spaces? In such situations, the reader or the viewer can hardly distinguish between news reports and advertisements/advertorials.
This report tracks the blurring boundaries between news and advertisements/advertorials and highlights the efforts made by individuals and representatives of organizations who have painstakingly chronicled the selling of editorial space for money during elections.
Over the last few years and since 2009 in particular, the phenomenon of “paid news” has acquired a new and even more pernicious dimension by entering the sphere of political “news” or “reporting” on candidates contesting elections. Numerous favourable or complimentary “news” reports and feature articles on representatives of political parties, including candidates who have been contesting elections, have appeared in newspapers across the country in the run-up to the Lok Sabha as well as state legislative assembly elections and similar kinds of information have been aired on television channels without disclosing the fact that monetary transactions have taken place between the concerned candidate or political party to which he or she belongs and the owners or representatives of particular media organizations.
The deception or fraud that such “paid news” entails takes place at three distinct levels. The reader or the viewer is deceived into believing that what is essentially an advertisement is in fact, independently produced news content. Then, candidates contesting elections to not disclose the true expenditure incurred on campaigning thereby violating the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which have been framed by, and are meant to be enforced by, the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The concerned newspapers and television channels typically receive funds for “paid news” in cash and do not disclose such earnings in their company balance sheets or official statements of accounts. Thus, by not accounting for the money received from candidates, the concerned media company or its representatives are violating the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961, among other laws.
The entire operation is clandestine. This malpractice has become widespread and now cuts across newspapers and television channels, small and large, in different languages and located in various parts of the country. What is worse, these illegal operations have become “organized” and involve advertising agencies and public relations firms, besides journalists, managers and owners of media companies. Marketing executives use the services of journalists – willingly or otherwise – to gain access to political personalities. So-called “rate cards” or “packages” are distributed that often include “rates” for publication of “news” items that not merely praise particular candidates but also criticize their political opponents. Candidates who do not go along with such “extortionist” practices on the part of media organizations are denied coverage.
Sections of the media in India have willy-nilly become participants and players in such practices that contribute to the growing use of money power in politics which undermines democratic processes and norms – while hypocritically pretending to occupy a high moral ground. This has not merely undermined democracy in India but also tarnished the country’s reputation as foreign newspapers have started writing about, and commenting adversely on, such malpractices.
In addition, owners of media organizations have financial relationships, including share-holdings, with advertisers, resulting in only favourable information about such advertisers getting disseminated and unfavourable information against them getting blacked out. Such trends have been discernible in sections of the Indian media for some years now. The regulator of the country’s capital markets, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), has written to the Press Council of India on the issue of “private treaties” between media companies and other corporate entities and suggested disclosure of financial holdings and mandatory enforcement of guidelines to ensure that the interests of investors are adequately safeguarded – these suggestions have been endorsed by the Press Council of India which, in 1996, drew up a set of guidelines that are particularly applicable to financial journalists.
Certain publications (such as Mint) have drawn up their own codes of ethics that are worthy of emulation as a measure of self-regulation. But self-regulation is not adequate for checking rampant malpractices and corruption that have assumed epidemic proportions in many sections of the print medium as well as the television medium.
In the area of political “paid news”, given the illegal and clandestine nature of such malpractices, it is not easy to find clinching evidence that pins responsibility for such corrupt practices on particular persons and organizations. There is, however, a huge volume of circumstantial evidence that points towards the growing use of the media for publishing “paid news” which is a form of electoral malpractice. Identical articles with photographs and headlines have appeared in competing publications carrying bylines of different authors around the same time. On the same page of specific newspapers, articles have been printed praising competing candidates claiming that both are likely to win the same elections. Nowhere is there any indication that the publication of such “news” reports has entailed financial transactions or has been sponsored by certain individuals or political parties.
When confronted with circumstantial evidence that substantiate allegations of “paid news”, the standard reaction of individuals and representatives of media organizations accused of corrupt practices is to pretend that nothing untoward has happened since the evidence is circumstantial in nature. The typical response of representatives of political parties as well as media organizations who have been named and against whom specific allegations of corruption have been levelled, is to flatly deny these allegations. In private, however, these very same people acknowledge that the cancer of “paid news” has spread deep into the country’s body politic and needs to be removed.
Such malpractices have destroyed the credibility of the media itself and are, therefore, detrimental to its own long-term interests. It needs to be noted in this context that so long as journalists (in particular, those who work in non-urban areas) are paid poverty wages or are expected to earn their livelihood by doubling up as advertising agents working on commissions, such malpractices would continue to be rampant.
It can be argued that the proliferation of the “paid news” phenomenon can be related directly to the diminution of the role and the status of editors in media organizations and the erosion of the freedom enjoyed by journalists under the Working Journalists Act. As more and more senior journalists chose to work with their employers under fixed term contracts, they opted out of the protection that was accorded to them under the provisions of the Act. Until the 1970s and the 1980s, many editors would not brook any “interference” from the management of the company they would be employed by – the number of such editors started dwindling as more and more senior journalists started acceding to every whim of their managers and employers instead of their editors. With managers playing a more influential role in the selection and presentation of news, it was not surprising that the importance of the news started getting determined by the revenues that would be generated for the media company.
Renowned journalist, the late Shri Prabhash Joshi spoke extensively in public about “paid news”. The Rural Affairs Editor of The Hindu Shri P. Sainath has written a series of articles on the phenomenon, many of which have highlighted the manner in which the electoral campaign of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra Shri Ashok Chavan was conducted through newspapers in September-October 2009. When contacted, Shri Chavan denied that neither he nor any of his associates had paid money for media coverage and said that he had nothing to do with the manner in which “news” about him was carried by publications and television channels before the state assembly elections.
The Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists conducted a detailed sample survey to highlight the manner in which newspapers had published “paid news” items before the Lok Sabha elections and the state assembly elections that were conducted simultaneously in April-May 2009. Particular candidates who stood for elections in Andhra Pradesh named publications whose representatives had asked them for money to publish favourable news items about themselves. Once again, representatives of these media organizations flatly denied the allegations. One candidate (Shri Parcha Kodanda Ram Rao of the Loksatta Party in Andhra Pradesh) formally represented to the Election Commission that he had paid a particular newspaper (Eenadu) to publish favourable “news” about himself and had included the payment in his official expenditure statement.
A number of senior journalists have formally complained about the phenomenon of “paid news” to the Press Council of India and the Election Commission of India, as has the Editors Guild of India. Various unions of journalists, including the Delhi Union of Journalists, have condemned such malpractices in the media. The National Alliance of People’s Movements, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, also prepared a report highlighting instances of “paid news” appearing in newspapers before the 2009 general elections.
The phenomenon of “paid news” has attracted the critical attention of many individuals and sections of Indian society. For instanced, the Vice President of India and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Shri Abdul Hamid Ansari, Union Ministers such as Information & Broadcasting Minister Smt Ambika Soni and Human Resources Development Minister Shri Kapil Sibal, spokesperson of the Indian National Congress Shri Manish Tewari, senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Member of Parliament (MP) Shri L.K. Advani, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and BJP MP Smt Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and BJP MP from the Rajya Sabha Shri Arun Jaitley, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Shri Prakash Karat, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Shri K. Rosaiah, noted actor Shri Amitabh Bachchan, among many others, have all expressed their concern about the “paid news” phenomenon in the country. A number of seminars and conferences on the issue have taken place.
A detailed discussion on the subject took place in the Rajya Sabha during which Information & Broadcasting Minister Smt Soni stated that the government was actively considering the option of providing more powers to the Press Council of India to check this phenomenon which is undermining the credibility of the media and democratic processes. She said the media acts as a repository of public trust for conveying factual information to the people. However, when paid information is presented as independent news content, it misleads the public and hampers the ability of people to form correct opinions.
In the final analysis, the question arises as to what can be done to check such corrupt practices in the media that compromise democratic processes. Can anything be done at all in this regard? The answers are not easy nor are they simple or clear-cut. Despite its quasi-judicial status, the Press Council of India has limited powers. The Council has the power to admonish, reprimand and pass strictures but cannot penalize the errant or those found guilty of malpractices. Besides, the Council’s mandate does not extend beyond the print medium. A proposal to amend Section 15(4) of the Press Council Act, 1978, to make the directions of the Council binding on government authorities, has been pending for a long time and should be amended to provide the Council more “teeth”.
Appointing ombudsmen in media organizations and better self-regulation are options to check the “paid news” phenomenon. However, self-regulation only offers partial solutions to the problem since there would always be offenders who would refuse to abide by voluntary codes of conduct and ethical norms that are not legally mandated. The owners of media companies need to realize that in the long term, such malpractices undermine not just democracy in the country but the credibility of the media as well. Civil society oversight can also deal with the problem, but only to an extent. New rules and guidelines can be introduced and extant ones modified or amended. For instance, there should be debate among all concerned stakeholders as to whether a directive of the Supreme Court of India that enjoins television channels to stop broadcasting campaign-related information on candidates and political parties 48 hours before polling takes place can and should be extended to the print medium since such a restriction does not apply to this section of the media at present.
A number of politicians cutting across party lines have suggested an amendment to Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to declare the exchange of money for “paid news” as a corrupt practice or an “electoral malpractice”. It can be effectively argued that the existing laws of the land (including the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Representation of the People Act, the Income Tax Act) have the potential to check such malpractices provided the concerned authorities, including the Election Commission of India, are not just proactive but also act in an expeditious manner to apprehend those indulging in practices that are tantamount to a corrupt practice (including an electoral malpractice) or committing a fraud.
An empowered Press Council of India should appoint observers who would assist the Election Commission of India to check the “paid news” phenomenon during election campaigns. These are among the conclusions and observations that have been laid down in greater detail at the end of the report. All these steps may not entirely stop such malpractices in the Indian media but could reduce their incidence to an extent.
News reports that are printed in publications or broadcast on television channels are meant to provide information that is not only of interest to the public at large but information that is supposed to be truthful or factually correct and at the same time, balanced, objective, fair and neutral. This is what clearly sets apart such information described as news from either opinions expressed in editorial articles or, more importantly, advertisements or commercials that are paid for by corporate entities, governments, organizations or individuals. When the distinction between news and advertisements start blurring, when advertisements double up as news that have been paid for, or when “news” is published or broadcast in favour of a particular politician or a political party by selling editorial space, the reader or the viewer is misled or duped into believing that an advertisement or sponsored feature is a “news” story that is truthful, fair and objective.
This report on “paid news” prepared by a Sub-Committee of two members of the Press Council of India tracks the blurring boundaries between news and advertisements or “advertorials” and highlights the efforts made by certain individuals and representatives of organizations who have painstakingly chronicled the selling of editorial space for money, especially during the April-May 2009 general elections in the country and also during the September-October 2009 elections to the state assemblies of Maharashtra and Haryana.
This report also documents the denials that have been issued by representatives of media organizations and political personalities against whom specific allegations of corruption and malpractice have been levelled and against whom a considerable volume of circumstantial evidence has been acquired, collated, documented and presented before the Press Council of India. Moreover, this report summarizes the depositions that were made by over 50 individuals and representatives of various organizations (including media organizations, journalists’ unions and political parties) before the members of the Press Council in New Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad and through written letters and representations and also through electronic mail.
The media industry in India and elsewhere has become increasingly difficult to regulate due to several reasons: technological developments, the globalisation of media conglomerates and the trend of certain suppliers and creators of news (public relations practitioners, advertisers and interest groups) getting closely involved with the working of media organisations. The dynamics of the media industry aside, the sheer extent of influence exercised by the media over the public at large is reason enough for subjecting the ethical practices and business activities of media organisations to critical scrutiny.
The concepts of democracy and of the market are both built on the principle of individual choice, but there is a danger that those who have accumulated wealth in the market will use it to exert influence over decisions that should be governed by democratic principles. Media institutions face particular dilemmas because these organisations represent a key element of an effective democracy while being, for the most part, commercial entities seeking success in the market by maximising profits. The commercial activities and market interests of media institutions might distort the role they play in the formation of public opinion and consequently in upholding principles and norms of democracy. Favourable coverage for those in positions of power and authority by the media, for commercial reasons, might influence the decisions made by these people.
A widespread problem is the attempt to influence public debate through the purchase of advertising space and the purchase of favourable editorial comment. Although some owners and editors of media companies try to erect a firewall – or a “Chinese Wall” – between journalists or content creators/producers, on the one hand, and buyers and sellers of advertising space, on the other, in some newspapers, magazines and television channels, this wall has too many convenient access doors. Most journalists are employees, increasingly, of large companies or organisations whose primary aim is to maximise profits and returns to shareholders. Insofar as journalists’ duties are in part defined by their role in corporate organisations, most of the ethical dilemmas they face begin with the inherent conflict between the individual’s role as a journalist providing independent information to the public and his or her employer’s quest for profit.
Corruption in the mass media in India and in other countries of the world is as old as the media itself. If there is corruption in society, it would be unrealistic to expect the media to be free of corruption. India is the world’s largest democracy. A vibrant and diverse mass media is an important pillar of democracy in this country. The independence of the media facilitates adherence to democratic norms. Article 19 of the Constitution of India confers the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of the country and to the media as well. In recent years, corruption in the Indian media has gone way beyond the corruption of individual journalists and media organizations: from “planting” information and views in lieu of favours received in cash or kind, to more institutionalized and organized forms of corruption wherein publishers of newspapers and owners of television channels receive funds for publishing or broadcasting information in favour of particular individuals or corporate entities that is disguised as “news”.
What follows is first, an outline, and then, detailed accounts of such corrupt practices in sections of the media in India.
