Media Codes and Ethics

Full Text
Ordeal by Fire in the Killing Fields of Gujarat
Editors Guild of India Fact-Finding Mission Report

Media Codes and Ethics  

The media has long been subject to formal and informal media codes. Foremost among these are constitutionaland statutory injunctions. Article 19(2) permits imposition of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speechand expression in relation to “the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, publicorder, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”. 

On the onset of the latest communal outbreak in Gujarat, the Chairman of the Press Council, Justice K.Jayachandra Reddy issued an appeal calling upon the media “to mould public opinion on correct lines inregard to the need of friendly and harmonious relations between various communities and religious groups andthus promote national solidarity…”.   

On April 3 Mr Reddy noted with deep anguish “that a large number of newspapers and news channels in thecountry and, in particular, a large section of the print and electronic media in Gujarat has, instead ofalleviating communal unrest, played an ignoble role in inciting communal passions leading to large scalerioting, arson and pillage in the State concerned.” He called once more on the media to observe “propernorms and standards … and not to distort or exaggerate (and) not to employ intemperate, inciting andunrestrained language”. The local papers were particularly enjoined to strict adherence of this norm. 

The Press Council Chairman asked the media “to be peace makers and not abettors, to be trouble shootersand not trouble makers” in the present situation. He concluded by reminding the media that contravention ofethical norms in reporting or commenting on matters pertaining to communal harmony is likely to invite penalaction under provisions of Section 295-A of the Indian penal Code and allied provisions”. Section 295-A isakin to Section 153 and relates to speech and writings which wilfully injure religious sentiments andmaliciously incite communal hatred. 

In its Report to the National Human Rights Commission, the Gujarat Government insisted that “the majoracts of violence were contained within 72 hours”. It asserts, however, that “on account of widespreadreporting both in the visual as well as the electronic media, incidents of violence on a large scale startedoccurring in Ahmedabad (and) Baroda cities and some towns of Panchmahals, Sabarkantha, Mehsana, etc”. TheNHRC was not greatly impressed. It referred to Articles 19(1)(a) and I9(2) and went on to express itself “clearlyin favour of a courageous and investigative role for the media”. At the same time, it added, “theCommission is of the view that there is need for all concerned to reflect on possible guidelines that themedia should adopt, on a ‘self-policing’ basis, to govern its conduct in volatile situations, includingthose of inter-communal violence, with a view to ensuring that passions are not inflamed and further violenceperpetrated”. 

Mr L.K.Advani, Home Minister, urged the media to practice “responsible journalism” when he addressedthe National Union of Journalists at Tirupati on April 6. He deplored the general decline in media values hesensed in the coverage of the December 13 terrorist attack on Parliament and the more recent events inGujarat. The age-old convention of not mentioning the names of communities involved had been abandoned by asection of the media. 

The question of naming the religious identity of riot victims was the subject of considerable deliberationin the Second Press Commission, the National Integration Council and the Press Council. The Editors Guild isseized of the matter. The issue is undoubtedly highly sensitive and complex. Technology has introduced a newdimension to the debate, though this by itself cannot be a reason to ignore content. A balance has to bestruck and where it is struck will vary with circumstances. Barkha Dutt puts it pithily: “Naming thecommunity under siege in Gujarat was moot to the story. In fact it was the story”. Rajdeep Sardesai adds:“It was the mob that was determining the pace of events, and not the channels who were merely reporting whatwas happening on the ground”.