Media ownership lacks public accountability

Media ownership lacks public accountability 
By Deepak Parvatiyar

(The article has been published in India Media Centre’s journal, Media Critique)

We may blame the global recession for the impact on the Indian media industry where we witness frequent job cuts. But do these job cuts in the media industry make news like they do in other industries? Here is a case in point. Can our working journalists today agitate the way employees of debt ridden airline companies have done?
While job cut in media sector goes unnoticed, it has a much deeper implications. In a recent seminar organized by Concerned Journalists’ Initiative presided by veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar, it was pointed out that the systematic and methodical destruction of working journalists’ unions by newspaper owners has done an irreparable harm to the working journalists’ cause and in the process, to the freedom of the pen. This has contributed to a breed of servile journalists whose first priority today is to secure an extension of their contract.
Here I refer to a recent interview of former chairman of the press council of India, Justice (Retd.) PB Sawant, in a Review of Indian Journalism Critique magazine. I quote: “A contract is a journalist on a contracted basis. The editors of newspapers have almost always been hired on contract basis. As far as journalists below editors are concerned, I’m against the contract system. I want regular employment and therefore If they are guaranteed permanent employment, they’ll not be in a position to put in their work with heart. They’ll be more loyal. Suppose one commits any error, any disciplinary action can be taken against him as against any other employee. What crime have the journalists committed that they should be on a contract basis and the other employees on a regular basis? This is also work, intellectual work. About private ownership, if the owners only own the newspaper and keep themselves completely away from the day to day work, then whether it’s private ownership, co-operative or government ownership, it’ll not matter. Private ownership has never been aloof from the day-to-day workings; in fact they’ve been controlling the working of all media, even electronic media. Then it ceases to be private and becomes individual journalism.” Sawant, in the said interview, went on to state that in a privately owned media unit, even the Managing Editor is no different from any other private employee.
“Merely giving a different designation does not change his duty or loyalty to the owner. Sometimes the inconvenient editors, when they are not to be sacked, are kicked up to Managing Editor,” he was quoted as saying.
Despite the doctrine of encouraging small and private media for a healthy democracy, media ownership has remained a contentious issue in our country. We know that small media entrepreneurs are largely dependent on government advertisements and prone to succumbing to the diktat of the government of the day whether in the state or in centre. Many of them are started also with the “I need local power” motive. At the same time big media owners’ priority is commercial viability of their respective brands. Hence, the concept of the controversial paid news!
Unlike during the independence movement and to an extent during emergency, the media house owners today are more commercially driven entrepreneurs. This has meant that their loyalty is more towards the sponsors and government than the public interest. Besides, despite the mushrooming small media industry, it is a fact that there is a wide disparity on the readership issue which means that only a handful of media houses in the country dominate the media market. This in turn means the media industry, like in many parts of the world, is still oligopolistic in nature in our country. So how can it be fully accountable and dependable in serving the public interest?
As we find as working journalists, with just a few big players in the industry, the question is not only that of whether they are presenting a diversity of opinions, but also of whether they are willing to present information that may be damaging to either their advertisers or to themselves. The journalists don’t have any say in the policy matter because they have limited job options. It is a fact that media barons have always nourished their preferred political links. In bargain, they get the political patronage. The alignments are well-defined across the country and have given rise to another ownership trend, that of personality driven media houses – a desirable propaganda tool especially during elections.
Take for example in Tamil Nadu, if the DMK has the Sun TV group and the 2G scam tainted Kalaignar television, the AIADMK has Jaya TV with a 24-hr news channel. Makkal TV owes allegiance to Dr. Ramadoss of the PMK while Tamil Nadu Congress leaders KV Thankabalu and Vasanthakumar respectively run the Mega TV and Vasanth TV. Similarly DMDK leader and actor Vijayakant owns Captain TV while VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan has the backing of Thamizhan TV.
In neighboring Andhra Pradesh, media houses aligning with a particular political party is an old phenomenon. While Telugu daily Eenadu blatantly supported NR Rama Rao and then N Chandrababu Naidu of the Telugu Desam Party, Congress’s late YS Rajasekhara Reddy roped in his industrialist son YS Jaganmohan Reddy into the media business to launch Telugu daily Sakshi and a television channel of the same name. Jagan’s rivals claim he also has stakes in Telugu news channels – TV5, NTV and I News. Not to lag behind from his share in the media, TRS chief K Chandrasekhara Rao owns T-News.
Similarly in West Bengal, as we noticed in the last assembly elections, Kolkata TV, Newstime, Channel 10 all promoted Mamta Banerjee while 24 Ghanta was pro Left. If independent reports are to be believed, then in Assam, about 90 percent of the media is owned by politicians or backed by them.
As we move from southern and eastern India to the western part, the story is no different. For example we all know about Bal Thackeray’s Saamna and also know about Sharad Pawar’s stake in the Sakal group and Jawahar Darda’s Lokmat group.
The list goes on and on. We have discussed political ownership of media houses, the big media houses run by big business houses as well as the compulsions of the small media owners. So what does this mean? When we ponder over the ownership issue and the plight of the journalists, can we say that what we are actually discussing is a captive media in our country?
This debate is not yet over. Consider the latest trend of cross media ownership. Studies have shown that cross-media control is increasing in order to adapt to the changing business environment fuelled by technology and changing consumer habits. It is inevitable but has its consequences. A concerned Telecom Regulatory Authority of India chief Rahul Khullar has gone to the extent of warning that cross media ownership leading to a monopoly of opinions could pose a grave danger and TRAI wants a consultation paper on media ownership. The concerns are not unfounded. Imagine just one media house controlling all contents of opinion through cross media ownership! What impact will it have on democracy if there is no plurality and diversity of opinion? Yet a bigger challenge lies on the regulation aspect of cross-media ownership particularly after stock market regulator SEBI reportedly started probing whether Reliance Industries had made requisite disclosures before announcing its investment in the TV18 group which would ultimately fund a consolidation with the Eenadu TV group. This meant the investment potentially creates a cross-media empire which spans digital divides to encompass print publications, news and entertainment broadcasting, consumer internet, film production and e-commerce. The ambit of the regulator, as Khullar reportedly said, will explore the need for a mandatory disclosure requirement for affiliation and ownership and the limits on market share needed to ensure plurality and diversity. What is also required is greater freedom to journalists and a job security to them.
Media ownership patterns and permutations today are a direct consequence of the globalisation of neo-liberal economics. But does this mean total abdication of public accountability? I wish to refer to an incident of December 22, 1921, when Mahatma Gandhi’s personal secretary Mahadev Desai dared the British government and not just brought out a hand-written copy of the newspaper, The Independent, but even wrote a letter to the Commissioner that read: "Dear Mr. Knox, Now that you have gagged me, I have pleasure in sending you herewith a copy of the manuscript paper I have commenced issuing from today. Please acknowledge receipt and oblige. Yours truly, Mahadev Desai” Desai was sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment. There is another example of Ramnath Goenka, who showed the courage to stand against the Emergency. Do our present day media owners have the same courage and missionary zeal now? It is time to introspect at a time when media is a big business for the owners and when journalists struggle for their survival. (The writer is a New Delhi based senior journalist and film maker. He is the Chief Media Advisor of a media house, Isha Creative Vision Private Limited).