by Kuldip Nayar
Today the bulk of our newspapers and television channels are owned and run as family enterprises. The proprietors are usually the real editors, even when they have a front man called ‘editor’. A few newspapers have members of their family formally trained. The Hindu took pride in this but N. Ram, the editor-in-chief, has stopped that practise which the newspaper adhered to for 140 years. He has appointed a professional editor and also a CEO, probably to underline that the journalism is an industry, not a profession.
Shamlal once told me that he as the editor of the Times of India, was never rung up by Shanti Prasad Jain, the then owner of the newspaper, and that the latter did not even remotely suggest to him which line he should adopt on any particular subject. Throughout Shamlal’s long tenure, Shanti Prasad never expressed his disapproval of anything the editor wrote. By contrast, the attitude of his son, Ashok Jain, who inherited Bennett Coleman & Co., publisher of the Times of India, was quite different. He was committed to commercial success and would ensure that the newspaper did not come into conflict with his business interests or those he promoted. Giri Lal Jain, the then editor of the Times of India, rang me up one day to ask whether I could speak to Ashok Jain, whom I knew well, to get Samir Jain, his son, off his back. Giri said that Ashok Jain, whatever his preferences, treated him well but Samir’s attitude was humiliating. Inder Malhotra once recounted to me how senior journalists were made by Samir to sit on the floor in his room to write out the names of invitees on cards sent by the organization.
I flew to Bombay and spoke to Ashok who frankly said he would have no hesitation in supporting his son because the latter had increased the revenue tenfold, from Rs 8 lakhs to Rs 80 lakhs. ‘I can hire many Giri Lal Jains if I pay more but not a Samir,’ said Ashok. I conveyed this to Giri who did not last long with the newspaper.
The reason why the Statesman adopted an independent line even after the induction of C.R. Irani of the Swatantra Party as managing director was the influence of J.R.D. Tata. It is another matter that he caved in when the CPM took over in West Bengal. N.J. Nanporia, the editor, would tell me that Irani was afraid to suggest anything to him because he knew that ‘I [Nanporia] can speak to JRD directly’. During the Emergency, Irani bought majority shares in the Statesman at book value because the owners were petrified and did not want to have anything to do with the Statesman or any other newspaper.
In the Indian Express, RNG did not interfere until Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980. He would see the morning newspaper, which in those days was printed at midnight. Even if he noticed that a story was incorrect – he had wide contacts and knew what was happening in political circles – he would not stop its publication. He would tell me (I was the editor of the Express News Service) that such and such correspondent had got it all wrong; nothing beyond that.
Another instance of proprietor’s whimsical attitude was the dismissal of Vinod Mehta from India Post owned by Vijaypat Singhania. Vinod was a very close friend. I was so worked up by his dismissal that I convened a public meeting at Constitution House and asked Vinod to come from Mumbai and address it. The hall was full. I was disappointed when he did not say a word against his proprietor, much less against the cult of proprietorship. He read my thoughts and said, ‘You are mistaken if you thought I would say anything about proprietors. I have to look for another job.’
It is difficult to think of an ideal structure for the ownership of newspapers or television channels. I suggest that the leading ones should have an Ombudsman to ensure that they adhere to the policy enunciated by them. The Ombudsman should ensure that the employees are not shunted out by the proprietor, as Ram did in the Hindu to force N. Ravi and Malini Parthsarthy to resign.
Another suggestion is to separate the financial side from the editorial one. I mean that editor should have an annual allocation which he manages and the proprietor should not interfere so long as editor remains within the budget. Any additional financial demands should be worked out between the two.
In our days, the business or the advertisement department would maintain a distance from the editorial section because they were aware that we did not welcome even their managers. Whenever a press note or some other material came from them, we just threw it into the wastepaper basket. Even when they wrote B.M. (Business Must), it made no difference. Today a new innovation called CEO has been introduced in newspapers as if the press was an industry or business house. The CEOs matter more than editors. Some newspapers, like the Times of India, have no editor. They proudly pronounce that the market is more important than the editorial content and are proud to sell news columns. That is how the term ‘paid news’ has come into currency, although the practice has been misused by regional papers beyond all limits.
The Emergency in 1975–77 was the watershed. The way journalists capitulated and got co-opted by the establishment led proprietors to wonder whether they were at all indispensable. If they were willing to obediently follow the government’s diktats why not those of their paymasters? Many leading newspapers have to obtain the approval of their proprietor for the editorial they write and for the articles they use. Nearly all proprietors have their political prejudices and preferences.
The contract system under which a newspaper hires a journalist for a particular period of time was introduced after the Emergency. This goes against the letter and spirit of the Working Journalists Act which Jawaharlal Nehru had passed in parliament to guarantee a journalist his/her job. He said that as they would be working independently and objectively they ran the risk of annoying either the proprietor or the government. Nehru argued that while the former had the power to exert pressure on and even sack a journalist if s/he did not heed instructions, the other had the authority to influence the proprietor to sack ‘uncomfortable’ journalists. I have consulted some legal authorities who say that the contract system violates the Working Journalists Act and is therefore ultra vires. Despite my pleas, the various journalist unions have not gone to court to challenge the contract system.
The reason Nehru took steps to ensure the permanency of journalists’ jobs was because he felt that there was no opposition to the Congress worth the name. He wanted the press to be a critic of the government and point out where it had erred. He also ensured that the Indians would own the newspapers run by the British. The Statesman in Calcutta and the Times of India in Bombay, the Mail in Madras, and the Pioneer in Lucknow changed hands from foreigners to Indians.
I have known journalists leaving one newspaper for another to improve their prospects but can count on the fingers of one hand those who resigned on a point of principle. There was a time when journalists preferred resignation to regimentation. This profession is notorious for unemployment. Once Frank Moraes, a leading editor then working for the Indian Express, asked Challapati Rao, another doyen of journalism, what he (Rao) thought was the reality about an editor’s relationship to the owner. Rao said that Frank Moraes was the myth while Goenka was the reality. Frank used to write a weekly column titled ‘Myth and Reality’.
Journalists have for their part reconciled themselves to the situation of being at the mercy of proprietors. Journalists had won the battle when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had sought to introduce an anti-defamation bill which, if enacted, would have restricted the freedom of the press. There was a strong old Indian-style protest at India Gate. Even Goenka joined the demonstration, holding aloft a placard that screamed: ‘I am against the anti-defamation bill.’ What animated the atmosphere was the unity of journalists who had risen in force against the government’s effort to silence them.
The protest reignited, at least momentarily, the old spirit of speaking out. I wrote the oath: ‘If ever the freedom of the press is threatened we cannot and will not remain silent.’ During the agitation, Amitabh Bachchan, who was then a member of the Lok Sabha, called on me. He had moved into my neighbourhood, Vasant Vihar. I told him how Rajiv Gandhi, a friend of his, had completely alienated the press because of the anti-defamation bill. He must have s
poken to Rajiv because the bill was withdrawn within 24 hours of Amitabh’s visit.
The government has learnt its lesson and I doubt whether it will venture to restrict the freedom of the press in the foreseeable future even though it may have constituted a Group of Ministers to find ways to ‘supervise’ the press. Electronic media is facing the challenge but I do not find anyone picking up the gauntlet. My real concern stems from the corporate sector which is dictating who will write a column where and say what. It may be the remark of a cynic but it is true that the news is written on the back of advertisements. This has become starkly apparent with the involvement of journalists in the lobbying by Nira Radia along with ministers and top bureaucrats for leading industrialists like Ratan Tata and Mukesh Ambani. Radia quit the business when the recordings of her conversations and that of those she pressurized was leaked to the media.
The corporate sector dictates not only to small but also to large newspapers on the line they should or should not adopt on important economic matters. The rivalry within the corporate sector is also affecting the press because the comparatively more powerful industrialist can arm twist a newspaper proprietor and advise him or her not to run the advertisement of a rival. There is something in what Lord Northcliffe, the newspaper magnate in the UK, said: ‘News is what somebody, somewhere wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising.’
As there are many foreign players both in the corporate sector and the share markets, they too have begun to have a ‘say’. The foreign equity of 26 per cent in the media, permitted by the government is a Trojan horse, dangerous in the long run. We have our traditions and cultural values which are not appreciated by foreign equity-holders; they are not sensitive to our ways. As I have said elsewhere, I am firmly opposed to foreign equity in the news media.
Freedom of the press is as much a moral concept as is the right to freedom of speech. A shallow, unthinking attitude on the part of newspapers gets reflected in the news stories and articles they publish. Reporters do not always cross-check the information they receive and often write one-sided versions of events and about people of no consequence. Often good stories are not followed up properly and planted stories make it to the front page. Even factual information provided by a newspaper is often incorrect, and for a price.
The term ‘paid news’ became official after the 2008 Lok Sabha election when packages were openly offered: covering favourable news, photographs, and archives in support. I took this up with the EC and implored it to appoint a committee to investigate the allegations. Some party leaders had assured me that they would inform the committee about the amount they had paid to particular newspapers and journalists. The EC took up one case. However, the Press Council of India appointed a committee which investigated the charges. The report was first suppressed and then altered because the council members, under pressure from their owners, could not reach a consensus. Some portion of the report is as follows:
In recent years, corruption in the Indian media has gone way beyond the corruption of individual journalists and specific media organizations—from “planting” information and views in lieu of favors received in cash or kind, to more institutionalized and organized forms of corruption wherein newspapers and television channels receive funds for publishing or broadcasting information in favor of particular individuals, corporate entities, representatives of political parties and candidates contesting elections, that is sought to be disguised as “news”.
News is meant to be objective, fair, and neutral, and that is what sets apart such information and opinion from advertisements that are paid for by corporate houses, government organizations, or individuals. What happens when the distinction between news and advertisements begins to blur, when advertisements double up as news, or when ‘news’ is published in favour of a particular politician through sale of editorial space? In such situations, the reader or the viewer is in no position to distinguish between news reports and advertisements /advertorials.
Corruption is not confined to politicians, public servants, or the corporate world. The media too has blackened its face. Not only have reporters or correspondents changed their copy or withheld information for a consideration, but they are also involved in scams, vis-a-vis the appellate income tax tribunal. Stories about them are related in whispers but, for obvious reasons, rarely in print. I do believe there should be greater transparency in relation to editors.
My suggestion to the Editor’s Guild of India was that editors should annually file with the Press Council of India a list of their assets and that of their spouse. If they did not wish the press council to come into the picture, they could post their assets on the Internet. Like Caesar’s wife, editors should not only be honest but seen to be so. My suggestion was not to the liking of many editors.
Honesty in money matters is important for editors but it is crucial in the running of newspapers. The printed word is still gospel truth for our readers. I know of editors who mould their writings to please the powers that be at the time and that do a U-turn when there is a change of government. Different political parties when they come to power use advertisements to influence the media. Ninety-five per cent of the newspapers in India cannot resist this temptation because government advertisements constitute a substantial part of their revenue. The television networks are no different.
The Centre and the states should set up autonomous boards, headed by an eminent person or former high court judge, to determine the distribution of advertisements. This is public money and its misuse is a dishonest practice for which ministers should be held responsible.
Speaking the truth is dependent on your basic attitude towards people. If it is people-friendly, if you genuinely like being with people, if you are sufficiently interested in listening to what they say they will freely confide in you. Will Rogers, the legendary American folk philosopher, used to say: ‘there are no strangers; only friends I have not met’. That should be a good reporter’s attitude to people.
Cynicism or pessimism in the conditions that exist is not the correct approach. A beginning has already been made in the form of the Right to Information Act. It is limited, but it is for us all to expand its boundaries.
What has disappointed me most is the compromises that journalists make to advance their careers. Indeed, success has become synonymous with passiveness. If you know how to get along, you advance in life and begin to believe that talent does not matter, but conformism does.
If the lives of successful men and women were to be traced, most of them belonged to the tribe which knew how to get along. They never came in anyone else’s way, they never walked out of step, they never made anything an issue. Their preference was to remain silent and when, at all if they chose to speak, they were seldom out of tune. Some would criticize them for playing it safe but by any yardstick they were successful and climbed higher and higher up the ladder.
Intellectuals are no better. Conformism has become the badge of their community. They rationalize every occurrence in their lives. Independent thinking is only a facade behind which they live in security and prosperity. The rule, ‘I sing the song of him whose bread I eat’, sums up their philosophy. They would do anything to retain what they have. It is not that they do not appreciate the value of sacrifice or the suffering of others, but it is a precept they want others to follow but not themselves.
Whether journalists believe in anything at all is difficult to say but my general impression is they are primarily interested in themselves. They may speak about values, and they ceaselessly speak about principles but it is material rewards that they hanker after. I realize that change is the law of life, and that there cannot be any progress without change. However, are journalists bringing about change? In the words of a philosopher, ‘No doubt, when modesty was made a virtue, it was a very advantageous thing for the fools, for everyone is expected to speak of himself as if he were one’.
Ascribing information to ‘reliable sources’, or ‘government sources’ is a con
venient path to shirk responsibility. Similar phrases are also often used in political reportage to enable the creation of stories from mere hearsay, conjecture, and speculation. Identification of the sources from which the information publicized has been obtained is an accepted professional practice, except in stated and specified circumstances. Widespread use of such phrases as ‘it is believed’, ‘it is understood’, ‘according to sources’ or no mention of a source at all opens the road wide to speculation, exaggeration, planted and even invented stories being passed off as authentic news.
To ensure credibility, sources of news items should be identifiable by name and/or designation or at least credible proximity to the informant. In the event of confidentiality being sought, the reporter must assume responsibility for the credibility of the source and it is the responsibility of the copy editor to ensure that the claim is genuine. These rules must be made known to the editorial staff and the readers. If broken, offenders must be punished and the case publicized to maintain the credibility of the media and to check inclusion of planted stories.
While I agree that self-regulation is no regulation there should be a code of ethics which journalists should follow to the last word. Any control, big or small, will end in some form of censorship. What Jawaharlal Nehru said at the All India Editor Conference holds good: ‘By imposing restrictions you do not change anything. You merely suppress the manifestation of certain things, thereby causing the idea and the thought underlying them to spread further. Therefore, I would have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated press.’