self regulation of media

Do you think self-regulation is effective when it comes to Indian television?

Self regulation in my veiws is......
I see self-regulation and the promotion of quality journalism as additional safeguards of media freedom and even of media power. but when the journalists are asked they say “ we must have self- regulation — but for the other channel, but not us!” When it comes to constructing their own news, they think very little of professionalism and traditional norms, such as getting both sides of the story or three sides of the story.
EXAMPLE taking the recent Anna Hazare movement. How many of the editors and anchors who shout very loudly in favour of Anna Hazare actually believe in what he’s saying? But the editors are aware that a story like Anna Hazare, for a middle class, urban audience, is very appealing, and therefore, play to that. Now, having played up the story for four to five months, they now think that there may be some doubts among the audience against the Anna Hazare story. So the media is also raising questions about [Team Anna]. They change very subtly based on the popular mood, or what they perceive to be the popular mood. They are extremely good in attracting the urban, middle-class popular mood, and have their fingers on the pulse. ANOTHER example, they know that Jessica Lal will work; so they let it go on and on. The same is happening with corruption which is very big now. I once went on a program on NDTV which was scheduled for 30 minutes — but the program went on for two hours. When they were asked why they were extending the program. They answered “it was because of the number of emails and calls that the channel was receiving”. They believed that viewers wanted to see more. So they just extended the program and changed their whole schedule. This is how they determine not just the content of the news, but what prominence will be given to a particular news item.

Self-regulation is not censorship and not even self-censorship. It is about establishing minimum principles on ethics, accuracy, personal rights and so on, while fully preserving editorial freedom on what to report and what opinions to express. Self-regulation helps the media respond to legitimate complaints, and correct mistakes in a trial-and-error way. It is in our own interest that we get an independent regulator comprised of people from the industry and eminent citizens. But we have to ensure that, under no circumstances, should we allow the government in – in any form. We are being very short-sighted here. if we go on delaying creating an effective regulator , then we are inviting the government to step in. For the moment, public support is with the media, but it is slowly turning against us. The moment the government senses that there is enough anger against the media or opposition to the media, they will step in. They’re already trying to do so. They take one step forward and another one back. So I think we would be very stupid and short-sighted if we didn’t create one very fast. We’ve been talking about this for at least 5 years plus, and nothing concrete has come of the discussions. And by very fast, I mean we should do this in the next three months.

The reasons in which media regulation would help ...
1. It would preserves editorial freedom;
2. It would helps to minimize state interference;
3. It would promotes media quality;
4. It is evidence of media accountability;
5. It would helps readers access the media THE VARIOUS REASONS WHY I THINK SELF REGULATION IS NECESSARY
It is good for democracy because democracy is not only about disputes. It is also about a shared culture of disputing in a rational and fair manner. Governments, even if freely elected, are participants in the political contest and therefore are not best-suited to enforce rationality and fairness. Besides, democracy is incompatible with 12state custody of the press. Media self-regulation is an effort to impose democracy’s political culture, independent of political forces. It also advances the transition from a government-owned, state-controlled press to one owned and controlled by civil society.

It is good for the public because It is quite natural for media consumers to seek guarantees about the value of journalists’ information. Codes of ethics provide guidance on editorial standards, while complaint mechanisms offer a kind of “quality insurance”. Complaints launched with self-regulatory bodies come at no cost, unlike court proceedings. This is a considerable advantage for the average citizen. There are benefits for complaining politicians, such as the speedy resolution of disputes, and the satisfaction of seeing mistakes acknowledged publicly and voluntarily by the press.
It is good for the press because by promoting standards, self-regulation helps maintain the media’s credibility with the public. This is particularly welcome in new democracies, most of which are also new to an independent press. Media self-regulation helps convince the public that the free media are not irresponsible. At the same time, self-regulation protects the right of journalists to be independent, and to be judged for professional mistakes not by those in power but by their colleagues.When it comes to correcting factual errors or violations of personal rights by the press, satisfaction over the judgments of self-regulatory bodies lessens pressure on the judiciary system to sanction journalists.

THE CURRENT SITUATION OF SELF REGULATION IN INDIA

It is likely that freedom of the Indian news media will come under increasing pressure and threat unless they move precisely to set their house in order. They need to ensure that transparency, accountability, and social responsibility are more than slogans. With no codes of values or practice binding journalists and the media industry, and no mechanisms for self-regulation such as internal news are in place within major news organizations other than one or two, the government and legislative forays in disciplining the news media through external regulation going beyond the present Press Council is becoming increasingly evident.

The more discerning critical voices make the point that ‘self-regulation’ either does not exist within the Indian media industry or, where it exists, is not effective. Self-regulation, the Press Council chairman has proclaimed, that there no profession can be called a profession unless it has an enforceable code of conduct and sanctions against those who violate it. India and its news media can learn valuably from the parallel discussion of media-related issuestaking place in the United Kingdom, which has been provoked by the rogue practices of an influential section of its media.
The Indian situation cries out for such an independent, comprehensive, hard look into the culture, practices, and ethics of the news media and into questions of what kind of regulatory and governance mechanisms can be worked out and put in place. The object must be the same to support ‘integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical.

“Nobody knows what the long term holds for India’s news media. It should be possible, through some kind of regulation, to reform the system to put an end to the major ethical transgressions, not to mention rogue practices like paid news.”

“For the topic CUREENT SITUATION OF SELF REGULATION I have taken refrence from the LEVESON ENQUIRY 2011 ..”
.