Two years ago, when I told some of my more cynical fellow-tribals from the journalistic fraternity that I was about to complete a textbook on media ethics, they smirked. Media ethics? That’s an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, they said glibly. What became apparent to me then was that the image of the journalist in India has taken quite a battering. There are many among the aam admi who still trust the journo more than the hawaldar, the patwari or the magistrate and believe that he or she could articulate (if not redress) their grievances. But these days are disappearing fast.
News is meant to be objective, fair, unbiased and neutral—this is what sets apart such information and opinion from advertisements that are paid for. In recent years in India, the distinction between news and advertisements has been sought to be deliberately blurred if not obliterated altogether. The rot really set in with the ‘Medianet’ initiative of Bennett, Coleman & Co Ltd (BCCL), which publishes The Times of India, The Economic Times and so on. BCCL charges film producers, fashion designers, actors, celebrities, sportspersons, corporate captains and socialites for featuring them in some of its newspaper supplements—the so-called Page 3 phenomenon.
Later, the BCCL group initiated a ‘private treaties’ scheme whereby it entered into financial or shareholding arrangements with various companies. Simply put, instead of receiving money for advertising, bccl would receive unknown quantities of equity shares in companies that were existing advertisers or potential advertisers. In return, these firms were to receive advertising space in BCCL-owned media ventures. The scheme’s success turned BCCL into one of the largest private equity investors in India.
By 2008, BCCL had nearly 200 companies as its private treaty clients. If favourable news is published about a client and adverse news is not reported, both the publishing company and the advertising company stand to gain—the conflict of interest was clear even if company spokespersons sought to defend the move as a pure marketing initiative. The fall in stockmarket indices in 2008-09 and the decision of the income tax authorities to value the transactions at old ‘inflated’ valuations (that is, at the share prices prevailing at the time a company entered into a private treaty agreement with BCCL), which had to be shown as assessable taxable income, robbed the scheme of some of its sheen.
As in the case of Medianet, while the private treaties scheme was started by BCCL, others were quick to follow. On August 27, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued guidelines that made it ‘mandatory’ for all media companies to disclose their interests in companies about whom articles were published or TV programmes broadcast. Time will tell whether these guidelines are properly implemented.
Over the last few years and since 2009 in particular, the phenomenon of ‘paid news’ has acquired an even more pernicious dimension by entering the political sphere or in reporting on candidates contesting elections. Numerous favourable or complimentary ‘news’ reports on candidates appeared in newspapers and were broadcast on TV channels across the country in the run-up to the Lok Sabha as well as state legislative assembly elections in Maharashtra and Haryana that year, obviously without disclosing the fact that monetary transactions had taken place between media houses and the candidates concerned.
The entire clandestine operation has become widespread and now cuts across newspapers and TV channels, small and large, in different languages and located in various parts of the country. Worse, these illegal operations have become organised, involving ad agencies and PR 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 criticise their political opponents. Candidates who do not go along with such extortionist practices are denied coverage. To use BJP leader Arun Jaitley’s words, it became a relationship between the blackmailer and the blackmailed.
The deception or fraud 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 do not disclose the true expenditure incurred on campaigning, thereby violating the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which have been framed and are meant to be enforced by the Election Commission under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The newspapers and TV channels concerned typically receive funds 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 media company concerned or its representatives are violating the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961, among other laws.
Epidemic: Eenadu’s Ramoji Rao, commenting on his paper’s paid news ‘incident’, said it’s part of a bigger malaise. (Photograph by T. Narayan)
Substantial sections of the media have become participants and players in practices that contribute to this growing use of money power in politics. This in turn undermines democratic processes and norms while hypocritically pretending to occupy a high moral ground. It has also tarnished the country’s reputation as foreign newspapers have started writing about, and commenting adversely on, such malpractices. Media companies that put out ‘paid news’ damage—if not destroy—their own credibility. Whereas such malpractices were confined to individual transgressions and to a few newspapers and TV channels till the recent past, the sheer scale of what is taking place now is alarming and frightening. Indeed, it strikes at the very core of democracy, turning the media from being the fourth estate and a watchdog of society into a ‘first estate’ of sorts by influencing democratic processes.
In July 2009, a two-member subcommittee of the Press Council of India, comprising K. Sreenivas Reddy and myself, was constituted to examine the phenomenon of paid news. The subcommittee, after meeting people in different parts of the country and receiving written and oral representations, submitted a detailed report running to over 36,000-words to the Council in April. A 12-member drafting committee of the PCI was thereafter constituted. On July 31, the Council decided by a narrow majority (by a show of hands as no formal voting was recorded nor dissenting notes allowed) not to annex the full report of the subcommittee to the 3,600-word report of the drafting committee before submitting it to the government. The subcommittee’s detailed report was consigned to a mere footnote. The publishers’ lobby eventually won. But, in the process, the sub-committee’s 71-page report became ‘forbidden fruit’ attracting more readers than it otherwise may have.
I was deeply disappointed at the Council’s decision. Some of my colleagues too were keen on the subcommittee’s report being made official as we believed it may have shamed some of those named. The full report of the subcommittee has been leaked and finds place on a number of websites (including www.outlookindia.com). The curious situation that currently prevails is that the detailed report of the PCI subcommittee on how corruption in the Indian media undermines democracy is not official but is nevertheless in the public domain.
Pre-Paid Boys: Maharashtra CM Ashok Chavan and the President’s son Raosaheb Shekhawat
During the course of our investigations, we received representations from around 100 people from across India. There were many complaints against Hindi daily Dainik Jagran, the largest circulated daily newspaper in India and among the five most widely circulated dailies in the world. We also received complaints against Dainik Bhaskar, the second highest circulated daily; Lokmat, the most widely circulated Marathi daily; Hindustan, Punjab Kesari, Eenadu, Sakshi and also against the largest circulated English daily in the country, The Times of India, among others. It used to be claimed that the ‘leader guards the reader’ but in this instance, the leaders themselves took the lead in cheating the reader and lowering ethical standards.
Two examples are noteworthy. On April 30, 2009, election day, the Varanasi edition of Hindustan carried a story that deceptively looked like a news item on top of its front page with a headline that suggested that there was a “wave in favour of the Congress”. The following day, the newspaper apologised to its readers for the mistake. The representatives of Hindustan told the PCI that when they realised their mistake they were ‘quick’ to point this out to readers—by when polling was, of course, over. This was the only instance of a publication acknowledging that it had made an error. The rest chose to brazen it out.
The PCI was given a letter that had been published in Outlook (January 18, 2010) in which Rajiv Verma, CEO, HT Media Limited wrote: “We do not pass off sponsored news in the garb of editorial content. To the specific instance related to the Varanasi edition of Hindustan..., the articles were published under the advertiser-sponsored content tag. Owing to a mistake by an overzealous advertising manager, the style and look turned out to be similar to the main paper. To remove any confusion among our readers, a clarification was issued the very next day on the front page of Hindustan’s Varanasi edition. The erring manager was also suitably reprimanded. We have had no instance of any editorial transgression other than the unfortunate incident stated above....”
Telugu Spice: P. Kodanda Rama Rao of the Loksatta Party admitted to paying Rs 50,000 for positive coverage. (Photograph by P. Anil Kumar)
Dr K. Nageshwar, member of the Andhra Pradesh legislative council, told the PCI how he had been maligned. “On February 6, 2009, the day elections to the Andhra Pradesh legislative council took place, Sakshi quoted the Mahboobnagar district president of the BJP virtually describing me as a traitor. What was worse, the newspaper defamed me by claiming that I was visually challenged because I had ignored the advice given by scientists and stared at a solar eclipse. This was a complete cock-and-bull story. I wrote to the newspaper and also represented to the Election Commission but nothing happened thereafter.”
Obviously, the entire media fraternity cannot be painted with the same brush. The very fact that this malaise is being widely reported in sections of the media proves that there are many upright journalists left in India who are unhappy about the corruption they see in their profession. If journalists arrogate to themselves the right to criticise all sections of society, they should not shy away when the microscope is turned on them.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT