OVER A CUP OF COFFEE - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
A hue and cry is made on the one day stopping of the NDTV as if total ban has been done on it. The said channel had exhibited with direct telecast of the Pathankot Attack by terrorists and the Government has come to a conclusion that the channel gave some vital information to the enemy in the process, namely who were inside the Camp and what action was being taken. If the channel feels that it has not done anything wrong and its footages are as similar to the other channels and has not crossed its limits in reporting and have not given any information to the enemy intended or otherwise, then they should say so and bring it to the notice of the government. The Government has given adequate time for Channel to take recourse by whatever means it feels fit, either to bring more details and show they are not at fault or to go Judiciary, to clear the air. Instead the usual mobbing up of the channels to cry press/media freedom is at peril and make the guild/Press club to speak on behalf of them does not speak well of the Channel. While Gopu agreed with Shyam that the Channel should have taken directly with the Government before putting up a show of aggrieved, he felt that the punishment meted out was too small for the nature of abuse reported. He felt that the one month ban should have been enforced as stipulated as guidelines existing.
There is bound to be reactions for and against, subject being of freedom of expression. But all this is due to the behaviour of the channels in general by not observing- not being aligned to any particular party in power or opposition and telecast dispassionately without a penchant to show off that they are the first and in the process care not exercised for the final product to come out of the channel. Even when an error has crept in such a process, the best thing the channel should have done is to apologise to the viewers for having telecast a news item in a particular way and that the corrected facts are like this. Facts once told will never need correction and only when prejudiced views are telecast, it is bound to be taken back at sometime or the other. In this particualr case, the TV channel should have owned responsibility for telecasting sensitive information and should have given an undertaking to the government that such errors will be dealt with and Anchors, Editors responsible will be appropriately taken up. This would be possible only when you feel that you are at fault. Once when you are ready to accept you are at fault and not willing to put your angle and establish your motive is not to telecast sensitive information to enemy, the proper way should have been to have a dialogue with the government on the subject after the show cause. If on the other hand, the channel feels it is being victimised, then also, it should explain why it is not wrong to the Ministry and also if the Ministry is not accepting its views, it should go for legal remedy.
It has become a fashion, in this country, to agitate for everything and dramatise everything and not to take options of dialogue and if failed to legal remedy.
They brand themselves as the new saviours of freedom of expression and care a hook for the various alternatives available before an agitation. We have seen recently opinions of OROP not brought in Parliament and other forums by Politicians and instead chose to bring home their point on a dead man's funeral. This is how politicians of the country behave and many channels are in the grip of the politicians and the channels are shameless in telecasting other than truth in many cases. And these people sitting in ivory-towers talk of self-regulation of their channels. Even with control, the sorry spectacle of temporary closure of channels on many previous occasions have happened. Self regulation can work only when people have personal honesty to the core. When people want to incite trouble, those who do not have unbiased reporting and have political leanings and show their hatred for individuals- then the rule for these becomes show me the man and I will show you what is right.
Thus when politicians are corrupt and channels are controlled by business barons and these politicians, control has to be there and the guidelines stipulated has to be followed and ban imposed by not minimising than what stipulated. On the other hand, the channels have to follow all procedures to bring their view, why they feel they are not wrong and also take to legal course and agitations are no way to settle score. Adequate time should be given to the channels while taking action by the government as rightly done in this case.
Shyam and Gopu parted bidding bye from the coffee club.
A hue and cry is made on the one day stopping of the NDTV as if total ban has been done on it. The said channel had exhibited with direct telecast of the Pathankot Attack by terrorists and the Government has come to a conclusion that the channel gave some vital information to the enemy in the process, namely who were inside the Camp and what action was being taken. If the channel feels that it has not done anything wrong and its footages are as similar to the other channels and has not crossed its limits in reporting and have not given any information to the enemy intended or otherwise, then they should say so and bring it to the notice of the government. The Government has given adequate time for Channel to take recourse by whatever means it feels fit, either to bring more details and show they are not at fault or to go Judiciary, to clear the air. Instead the usual mobbing up of the channels to cry press/media freedom is at peril and make the guild/Press club to speak on behalf of them does not speak well of the Channel. While Gopu agreed with Shyam that the Channel should have taken directly with the Government before putting up a show of aggrieved, he felt that the punishment meted out was too small for the nature of abuse reported. He felt that the one month ban should have been enforced as stipulated as guidelines existing.
There is bound to be reactions for and against, subject being of freedom of expression. But all this is due to the behaviour of the channels in general by not observing- not being aligned to any particular party in power or opposition and telecast dispassionately without a penchant to show off that they are the first and in the process care not exercised for the final product to come out of the channel. Even when an error has crept in such a process, the best thing the channel should have done is to apologise to the viewers for having telecast a news item in a particular way and that the corrected facts are like this. Facts once told will never need correction and only when prejudiced views are telecast, it is bound to be taken back at sometime or the other. In this particualr case, the TV channel should have owned responsibility for telecasting sensitive information and should have given an undertaking to the government that such errors will be dealt with and Anchors, Editors responsible will be appropriately taken up. This would be possible only when you feel that you are at fault. Once when you are ready to accept you are at fault and not willing to put your angle and establish your motive is not to telecast sensitive information to enemy, the proper way should have been to have a dialogue with the government on the subject after the show cause. If on the other hand, the channel feels it is being victimised, then also, it should explain why it is not wrong to the Ministry and also if the Ministry is not accepting its views, it should go for legal remedy.
It has become a fashion, in this country, to agitate for everything and dramatise everything and not to take options of dialogue and if failed to legal remedy.
They brand themselves as the new saviours of freedom of expression and care a hook for the various alternatives available before an agitation. We have seen recently opinions of OROP not brought in Parliament and other forums by Politicians and instead chose to bring home their point on a dead man's funeral. This is how politicians of the country behave and many channels are in the grip of the politicians and the channels are shameless in telecasting other than truth in many cases. And these people sitting in ivory-towers talk of self-regulation of their channels. Even with control, the sorry spectacle of temporary closure of channels on many previous occasions have happened. Self regulation can work only when people have personal honesty to the core. When people want to incite trouble, those who do not have unbiased reporting and have political leanings and show their hatred for individuals- then the rule for these becomes show me the man and I will show you what is right.
Thus when politicians are corrupt and channels are controlled by business barons and these politicians, control has to be there and the guidelines stipulated has to be followed and ban imposed by not minimising than what stipulated. On the other hand, the channels have to follow all procedures to bring their view, why they feel they are not wrong and also take to legal course and agitations are no way to settle score. Adequate time should be given to the channels while taking action by the government as rightly done in this case.
Shyam and Gopu parted bidding bye from the coffee club.
I am in agreement with Gopu. The punishment is too small and it should be 1 month as recommended by IMC.
ReplyDeleteI Concur With The analysis. But The Govt. Seems To Have Climbed Down Due To Some Pressure & Giving Some Token Punishment As A Show.
ReplyDelete