PRESS FREEDOM: NEW MEDIA, NEW DEMOCRACIES
PRESS FREEDOM: NEW MEDIA, NEW DEMOCRACIES
Representatives of the International Press Institute (IPI) had an interactive session with Indian journalists at the Press Club of India, New Delhi on March 1, 2012. The representatives included Alison Bethel McKenzie, Executive Director and Barbara Trionfi, Senior Press Freedom Adviser at the International Press Institute with headquarters in Vienna; and, N. Ravi, the chairman of the India Chapter of IPI and a former editor-in-chief of ‘The Hindu’ published from Chennai.
The International Press Institute was formed in October 1950 by 34 leading editors from 15 countries at Columbia University in New York, USA. It was founded after the Second World War with the belief that a free press would contribute to the creation of a better world. Today, IPI has as global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists from prestigious media organisations all over the world.
Opening the session, the chief of the Indian chapter of IPI, N. Ravi explained that India joined the IPI some 62 year ago and is among the founding fathers of this institution. India was privileged to host the World Congress of the IPI in 2001 when two Nobel laureates, His Holiness Dalai Lama and Amartya Sen, addressed the delegates.
According to N. Ravi, the core concerns of the IPI revolve around (i) criminal defamation—dragging journalists to courts by authorities and others on charges of defamation necessitating personal appearance thereby causing harassment to the journalists; (ii) attacks on journalists—the incidence of violence against journalist by extra-constitutional authorities leading to physical assault and even murder of journalists with the idea of intimidating journalists; and (iii) lack of resolve and political will on the part of the government to protect the journalists who are targeted by motivated and vested interest groups.
Speaking on the occasion, Alison Bethel McKenzie, Executive Director of IPI, Vienna explained that the Indian Chapter of IPI is counted among the oldest units of the institution and is one of the 17 national commissions constituted by the IPI.
Outlining the goals of the IPI, Alison touched upon (i) furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom: (ii) protection of freedom of opinion and expression; (iii) promotion of free flow of news and information; and, (iv) improvement of the practices of journalism.
‘The mission of IPI is to address issues of press freedom,’ remarked Alison. She said, the IPI team visited Nepal and Bangladesh for an exhaustive study of the situations prevailing there. The IPI representatives meet the President, the Prime Minster and other high officials in countries from which gross violations of the freedom of press are reported.
IPI’s Death Watch tracks journalists and media staff who are deliberately targeted because of their investigative reporting or simply because they were journalists. The IPI also follows journalists who are caught in the crossfire while covering dangerous assignments.
The IPI started keeping track of journalists’ deaths from 1997. According to IPI records, 103 journalists were killed in 2011; 101 were killed in 2010 and 110 were killed in 2009. These mark the highest number of deaths since IPI started keeping tabs on the deaths of journalists. The latest figures indicate a worrying trend.
Alison revealed that Latin America figures among the most dangerous places for journalists accounting for excessive violation of the freedom of press with maximum cases in countries like Mexico, Ecuador etc. She said, ‘journalists are attacked, kidnapped and murdered for reports that put some people in uncomfortable positions.’ The safety of woman journalist and journalists covering conflict areas are of prime concern to IPI. In some countries, women journalists are groped, grabbed and molested and IPI is looking at the possibilities of organising training programmes for ensuring their safety in such countries.
The IPI is campaigning to get the laws relating to criminal defamation repealed in every country. Some countries like the UK have already repealed such defamation laws. Criminal defamation cases are used to harass journalists and the person filing such cases need not be a politician or a police official. Anybody can file such cases alleging damages resulting from irresponsible reporting.
New democracies that are emerging in the Arab world and other parts of the world have no history of independent press. Criminal defamation is often part of the archaic laws of such countries and they pose hindrances to investigative journalism as it suits monarchy and dictatorial regimes. There is often confusion at government as well as media levels as to the rights of the journalists under changed circumstances.
The changes in thebusiness module of the media during the last few decades have thrown up new problems. For instance, many of the editors and publishers today are not journalists who have come up the hard way. Many of them are influential politicians and shrewd businessmen who have bought their way into media business. Such people are often found wanting in knowledge of standard professional practices of journalism and journalistic ethics.
The purpose of IPI is to show solidarity with local media suffering from intimidation and enter into a dialogue with key decision makers who can influence media policy. Barbara Trionfi, Senior Press Freedom Adviser at the headquarters of IPI in Vienna, whose area of operation is Asia-Pacific, reminded the delegates that ‘the IPI is only as strong and effective as its members’ and she emphasised the need for consolidation in this direction.
Barbara considers Asia as a unique region with regard to press freedom. ‘In Asia, particularly southeast Asia, people are influenced by Confucian philosophy and local cultures. The people here are given to the belief that the rulers are enlightened beings and know how to rule their countries. Therefore, they believe that it is fine for the rulers to decide as to what kind of media they should have, how the media should behave and what they should report or not report.’
They argue that Asian values are very different from western values and that makes for an interesting study of the system that prevails in that part of Asia. This kind of argument helps some people to defend their power. The Police or politicians do not want to have anything to do with this because it suits them.
In countries like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka, journalists fear that if they report on sensitive issues that might endanger their lives as well as the lives of their family members. Journalism is a profession full of pitfalls and any slip up in information gathered by the journalists may land them in jail. In many countries the political clan refuses to accept the role of the media and there is resistance to freedom of the press. ‘The IPI works with its members and journalists in those countries to restore the freedom of the press,’ explained Barbara.
Barbara also spoke of the close links that developing between journalists and politicians or political parties which lead to corruption. This also affects objective reporting.
In response to a question from the audience regarding safety of journalists, N. Ravi clarified that tolerance levels of the government, politicians and officials are lower at district and state levels as compared to the national level and journalists at these levels face more risk of retribution. He said: the national media is capable of vigorously fighting back efforts at muzzling the media. In this effort, it also finds support from a strong voice of the opposition parties in the Parliament. The best way to bail out local reporters working at district levels from sticky situations it to ensure that the matters pursued by the reporter find coverage in the national media. Once that happens, the local authorities will think twice before trying to stifle or harm the reporter.
The coverage of underworld and organised crime is becoming more and more dangerous as also follow-up of mafia-related cases. There is also need to protect journalists from violent protesters.
Replying to another question, Alison was critical of Julian Assange and Wikileaks saying that the documents were procured in an illegal fashion and were doled out without context. I personally feel that Julian Assange and Wikileaks did a fine job and a great service to the world by exposing the hypocrisy of powerful nations scheming and conspiring against other nations and people.
Alison also said that journalists cannot break into offices to get stories. This is again a debatable issue. In India, a journalist is as good as his or her next story. While what Alison says is indeed an ideal situation for a journalist, no newspaper would pay its journalists to wait around for stories to turn up on their own. The journalist has to work vigorously and dig out facts to roll out stories day after day. If you do not produce stories you would be shown the door sooner than later. Also, you need documents and evidence to support your story. Otherwise, you would be weak-kneed and standing on feet of clay if and when your stories are challenged.
Most sensational reports in newspapers and electronic media openly state that they are in possession of such document. Clearly, no government department would on its own volition part with such damning evidence. Also, no government department is going to come out and say: look we are guilty of such and such scams, so please investigate and report them.
Journalists have to cross the line in public interest occasionally to expose corruption and other improprieties indulged in by people in high places. When and how far to go are issues that have to be worked not by the journalist concerned in consultation with the organisation he or she works for so that he or she may be defended if the need arises.
There is always a difference between good journalism and legally permissible journalism. A good journalist has to use his discretion to decide which side of the line he wants to be on stories keeping in view public interest and national interest. Here it is important to point out that anti-establishment journalism may sometimes be in the interest of the nation.
I just realised that none of the speakers spoke on the ‘new media’ which is the emerging web-based media on the internet posing new challenges to the traditional media though the topic for discussion was ‘Press Freedom: New Media, New Democracies.’
(This was the second of a series of talks planned by the Press Club of India, New Delhi to take a look at the changing face of the media).
|
|
