media

Who’s Watching What on Indian TV? It’s Complicated

The current scope of audience measurement may not be doing enough to fully assess exposure diversity in India’s various regions. Yet this aspect of measuring local audiences is missing from media policy consultations.

How many people are watching your TV programmes can determine whether your media company flourishes or fails.

It also influences what content is produced and who it caters to, which is crucial in a country as diverse as India.

But current audience measurement systems are falling short.

In April 2024, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India issued a consultation paper proposing an increase in the sample size used by the Broadcast Audience Research Council to measure television audiences, to better address this issue.

The size and socio-economic demographics of the audiences that programmes, websites and apps attract determine the advertising rates they can command.

To maintain neutrality, industry participants typically commission an independent third party, such as the Broadcast Audience Research Council or Nielsen to measure what media the audience is consuming.

This data not only informs advertising placements and pricing but also guides decisions on content production.

Media regulators, like the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, espouse the “diversity principle”, which seeks to ensure that media content reflects the diverse population of the country encompassing various languages, cultures, religions and social groups.

Making diverse content available is not enough; it is also essential to ensure that it is consumed. Researchers refer to this as “exposure diversity”, which is primarily assessed using audience data.

Policy interventions in audience measurement could potentially ensure that media content serves the public good and not just commercial interests, but governments rarely regulate audience measurement directly, leaving this enterprise to self-regulation by the industry.

The sample size debate

Measuring media audiences typically involves recruiting a panel of households with metered television sets.

This data from tens of thousands of households is then extrapolated to estimate the viewing behaviours of the entire population, resulting in the all-important TV rating points.

Whenever controversies arise regarding the accuracy of these ratings, critics often point to the low sample size.

Over the past two decades, critics have argued that samples of 5,000, 20,000, or even 50,000 households are insufficient to represent India’s vast population. Consequently, regulators such as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India have suggested increasing the sample size.

However, this discussion often overlooks a crucial detail: the required sample size for large populations is independent of the total population size. It depends more on the diversity of viewing habits.

Imagine if India had only one channel, with every household owning one television. In that case, a sample size of just 100 people might suffice to estimate ratings.

But India comprises numerous socio-cultural regions, each with unique audience behaviours. To capture viewing behaviours each subgroup of the population must be represented adequately. As content catering to these regions has expanded, the need for larger samples has become evident.

The current sample size of 55,000 certainly needs to be increased, especially given the rapid growth in the number of television channels. There were 905 satellite TV channels in the financial year 2022-23.

Other controversies surrounding ratings have focused on the unreliability of ratings for news channels and the ease with which these numbers can be manipulated.

Advertising on news channels is often not based on ratings, but on how salient a news channel’s brand is and the estimated affluence of its audience.

While assessing exposure diversity in news consumption is crucial for policy considerations such as the diversity principle, current recommendations to increase sample sizes are unlikely to address this issue effectively.

Moreover, the imperfections in viewership of news channels alone are unlikely to persuade the industry to broaden the scope of audiences they’re measuring.

Measuring online audiences

For newer ways of consuming media – such as social media platforms, websites and mobile apps – measuring audiences increasingly relies on web analytics rather than just sample-based user panels.

Often, consumption occurs within the walled gardens of platform giants like Meta and Google, where metrics are provided by the platforms themselves rather than by third parties.

This dynamic, according to both academic research and industry participants, results in measurements becoming less transparent and arguably less objective, despite consumption behaviours being easier to capture at scale.

Policy consultations ought to consider how to assess exposure diversity in this complicated environment.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has pointed out that audience measurement needs to catch up with how people watch TV today. They suggested having multiple agencies to encourage competition and improve data quality but have been vague about how they might coexist.

However, history shows us that disputes in audience measurement often lead back to a single-provider model. When multiple players have competed, they’ve usually served distinct interests.

For example, before the Broadcast Audience Research Council, two companies, TAM and aMAP, both provided TV viewership data in India.

My own study found that only TAM was used as a currency for advertising, while aMAP helped with making internal decisions to tweak content. Eventually, since aMAP could not be accepted as a currency it folded around 2012.

This familiar pattern in audience measurement competition has played out in several countries including the United States. There, Audits of Great Britain and Nielsen, once competitors, ultimately teamed up to expand their combined global presence. So, even with multiple players, reducing bias or challenging the Broadcast Audience Research Council’s monopoly seems unlikely.

The contemporary media ecosystem in developed markets such as the United States features multiple audience measurement providers that coexist and can be seen as competitors, yet they cater to fairly distinct stakeholder interests.

For example, Nielsen measures linear (traditional) TV viewing, while ComScore assesses multi-platform online traffic, among other metrics.

Facebook and Google provide their own metrics, which companies like Nielsen incorporate into their measurement products.

Local audiences matter

Policy consultation on better measuring audiences in India has overlooked the need to establish separate local audience measurement systems, which report viewership separately for each subnational region.

Local audience measurement is vital for ensuring regional and community-specific content gets the attention and resources it needs. This helps foster local cultures and provide relevant content to smaller, distinct communities within a larger nation.

In the United States, audience measurement became a policy issue, especially regarding the diversity principle and particularly at the local level.

The television industry in India until the early 2000s was dominated by the preferences of the major metros and the Hindi-speaking regions.

In the last two decades, a lot of the growth across genres has been in regional content in local languages other than Hindi. Yet small towns and rural India and certain regions such as Kashmir and the northeastern states remain underrepresented in measurement systems.

The logistical difficulty in physical access and their relatively low economic potential for advertisers disincentivise the industry to expand its measurement ambit to include these regions or build parallel local audience measurement systems. Only a regulatory interest along with a subsidy could help address such measurement blind spots.

A persistent lack of regulatory framework has largely facilitated the growth of media in India, particularly since the economic reforms of the early 1990s enabled the expansion of television. Policy measures regarding audience measurement appear to reflect a similar pattern.

Harsh Taneja is Associate Professor of New and Emerging Media at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

This article was originally published on 360info.org under a Creative Commons licence.

I&B Ministry Refuses to Disclose Info on Content, Status, Consultative Process of Broadcasting Bill

In response to RTI requests by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, the government denied information citing Section 8(1)(d) and section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

New Delhi: The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has refused to provide details of the status of the Broadcasting Service (Regulation) Bill, including a copy of the bill that was circulated to select stakeholders in July 2024, the list of persons with whom it was shared, responses received through the Right to Information (RTI) have revealed.

Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj, through an RTI, had sought to know a list of names of all stakeholders with whom the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill was shared in July 2024, a copy of the text of the bill, and records authorising the sharing of the bill.

In its response, the MIB has said that the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill was “placed in the public domain on 10.11.2023 along with explanatory notes for comments of the stakeholders and the general public, which is available at this Ministry’s website www.mib.gov.in. In response, multiple recommendations/ comments/ suggestions were received including from various Associations.”

Ministry response silent on current status, refers to old statement

The ministry response stated that certain parts of the draft bill was updated subsequently and a fresh draft will only be published after detailed consultation.

“Series of consultations were held with the stakeholders on the draft Bill subsequently and based upon the deliberations therein, certain parts of the Bill were updated and shared with certain participants for comments. However, it has been decided to provide additional time till 15.10.2024 to solicit comments/ suggestions on the draft Bill placed in public domain on 10.11.2023 itself and that a fresh draft will be published after detailed consultations,” it said.

It added that the bill is at the drafting stage and referred to a statement on X (formerly Twitter) put out by the ministry in August.

The old draft version the Ministry referred to had all draconian features of a fully controlled media environment and a bid to push digital media into government and executive control. Right to Information or RTI applications had at least partially revealed the negative feedback that MIB had got after the first draft was circulated.

In its response to the RTI request seeking a copy of the bill and the names of the stakeholders to whom it was circulated, the ministry has refused to provide it by citing t Section B(l)(d) of the Right to Information Act 2005.

“It is informed that Section 8(l)(d) of the Right to Information Act 2005 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information and Section 8(l)(e) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Given the above position, the information requested in the RTI application is denied,” it said.

In a statement, Bhardwaj said that the ministry has invoked the exemption “without demonstrating how the disclosure would ‘harm the competitive position of a third party’ and which is the third party whose interests would be harmed.”

‘Selective sharing of a version of the bill raises serious questions’

“The secrecy in the deliberation and consultative process is alarming given the far-reaching consequences of the bill. The selective sharing of a version of the bill raises serious questions about the consultative process,” Bhardwaj’s statement said.

“The Ministry has not provided any specific response to the queries on whether the 2023 or 2024 versions of the Broadcasting Bill have been withdrawn. No specific exemption clause has been cited to deny the information sought. As a result, there is no clarity on the status of the Broadcasting bill,” the statement added.

“This violates peoples’ right to information and erodes public trust in the law-making process. The failure to furnish requisite information will be challenged in the appeal process under the RTI Act.”

The ministry’s statement on X in August came after about 14 copies of watermarked versions of a variation of the December draft to select ‘stakeholders’ was put out in July.

Once news got out on August 12, that the government has also asked for a return of the physical copies of the second draft it had put out, critics of the bill saw it as the Modi government putting the bill on ice.

The draft bill had evoked criticism for looking to bring all news and news-adjacent content online – text, podcasts, audio, video – under its sole regulatory oversight. In December 2023, the Internet Freedom Foundation had written that: “By expanding the restrictive regulations currently applied to cable tv and radio, to “Over-the-Top” (“OTT”) content & digital news published by individuals/ companies, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (“MIB”) is allowing for executive control over online free speech and artistic content.”

Who Is a Gau Rakshak?

Why do large sections of the media refer to an alleged murderer, or at the very least, a shooter, as a ‘gau rakshak’?

The bare facts

August 24, 2024:

CCTV cameras installed at the Gadpuri toll plaza on the Delhi-Agra national highway show a red Renault Duster being followed by a Maruti Suzuki Swift on the night of August 24.

Shots are fired from the Swift on the Duster. The rear wind screen of the Duster shatter. One person in the Duster is injured.

The Duster stops. Shots are fired on the Duster “this time from point-blank range,” a report says. The injured person dies.

September 03, 2024:

The police hold a press conference and announce the arrest of five persons riding in the Swift.

The reporting

Here is an excerpt from one of the many reports in the media:

“Kaushik, according to sources involved in the investigation and in Haryana Gau Seva Ayog, might have acted on a false tip-off, which was provided by rivals of one of his companions that night.

“Aryan had gone to Vardhaman mall with his landlady, her sons Harshit and Shanky, and their neighbour Kriti Sharma. Shanky was an accused in another attempted murder case. Harshit and Shanky had taken their Duster. Sources said Kaushik had received a specific tip-off about this Duster and that its occupants were transporting beef.

“‘Anil and his team tried to stop the Duster, but when they started speeding, the gau rakshaks felt that their information was correct and they started chasing,’ said a source. ‘But why they opened fire at the vehicle without any provocation is not clear,’ the source added.

“At one point of the high-speed chase, the gau rakshaks in a Swift fired at the Duster. A bullet hit Aryan in the neck. As he bled profusely, Harshit stopped the car near Gadpuri toll plaza. But the gau rakshaks caught up, walked up to the Duster’s window where Aryan was seated and fired at him again. Then they fled.”

A photograph of the report is given below:

The reason for providing a photograph is because the link to the story provides a detailed version and uses somewhat different terminology.

The meaning: Implied and otherwise

Here is an attempted analysis of the four paragraphs of one of the reports reproduced above.

The very first paragraph provides strong guideposts on what should the reader expect in the report. To paraphrase, it informs the reader that the shooter (Kaushik) is associated with a noble cause, The Haryana Gau Seva Ayog, and there is a likelihood that he might have “acted on a false tip-off”, the implication being that the shooting was not really his fault. He was involved in a noble cause and was misled.

The second paragraph provided further clues in the same direction. One of the occupants of the Duster, the vehicle which was shot at, “was an accused in another attempted murder case”, the message being, “he was not a good guy”.

The third paragraph casually slips in some seemingly unrelated information about one of the persons accompanying the deceased, saying, “Shanky was an accused in another attempted murder case”, and providing an apparent justification the act of shooting, saying, “Sources said Kaushik had received a specific tip-off about this Duster and that its occupants were transporting beef”.

These seemingly innocuous sentences are meant to subtly influence the readers’ minds.

The fourth sentence also provides a justification for the action of the shooter. It is clear from the sentence, “‘Anil and his team tried to stop the Duster, but when they started speeding, the gau rakshaks felt that their information was correct and they started chasing,’ said a source.”

The fifth sentence is the proverbial last straw. It appears to be a straightforward presentation of facts of the case but the use of the expression “gau rakshaks” for criminals, twice in four sentences, is a clear attempt to influence to evoke sympathy in the minds of the readers.

Who is a gau rakshak?

In an attempt to learn ‘who’ is a ‘gau rakshak’ and how does one acquire the title of ‘gau rakshak’, the Haryana Gau Seva Ayog, mentioned in the report was searched for. It turned out that this was formed under The Haryana Gau-Seva Aayog Act, 2010.

No mention of the expression ‘gau rakshak’ was found in the Act. The closet expression was found to be ‘member’.

Section 2(e) of the former, Gau-Seva Act, says ‘member’ means a member of the Aayog and includes the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Section 4 (1) says that the Aayog shall consist of two classes of members, official and non-official.

‘Official’ members described in Section 4(1)(I), are ex-officio government functionaries such as principal secretary, financial commissioner, director general of police, and so on.

‘Non-official’ members are described in Section 4(1)(II) of the Act, which says, “There shall be twelve non-official members including Chairman and Vice-Chairman to be nominated by the government”.

Further, Section 4(2) states the following:

“(2) The non-official members shall be nominated by the Government from amongst thc persons engaged in the welfare of cow’ namely:-

six non-official members representing registered Haryana Rajya Gaushala Sangh in the State;
six eminent humanitarians working selflessly for the welfare, protection and preservation of cow.”

The only other law found in the state of Haryana in this connection is The Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015.

This also does not have any mention of the expression ‘gau rakshak’, or anything else even remotely connected to it.

What does all this mean?

So, why do large sections of the media refer to an alleged murderer, or at the least, a shooter, as a ‘gau rakshak’?

Obviously, it is for every reader to decide, but how many readers (or as is these days, called ‘consumers’) of what is called, ‘mainstream media’, are discerning enough to think about this and how many just accept it on the face value? One possible explanation is that it is a deliberate insidious attempt by the so-called mainstream media to influence the thinking of their readers.

It is left for the readers to be careful of such attempts.

80% Journalists Laid off During Covid-19 ‘Forced to Resign’, Finds Press Council Panel Report

Only 25 per cent of the journalists who deposed before the committee said that they received formal emails from their companies about retrenchments. In nearly 75 per cent cases, all communications regarding retrenchments were oral.

New Delhi: Majority of the journalists who were laid off during the Covid-19 pandemic were forced to resign or opt for voluntary retirements and terminated from their positions by their news organisations, according to a report by the Press Council of India (PCI) to study the impact of retrenchment of journalists during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The report titled “Report on retrenchment of journalists by media groups during the Covid-19 period” was prepared after a total of 51 journalists from 17 news organisations across English, Hindi, Marathi, Bengali languages and 12 journalist unions and associations deposed before the committee formed in September 2023.

The report states that 80 per cent of the journalists who appeared before the committee said that they were forced to resign, opt for voluntary retirements and terminated from their positions. Only 37 per cent said that they had received severance pay.

The report states that independent estimates by former PCI member Balwinder Singh Jammu and independent journalist Cyril Sam had found retrenchments to be around 2,300-2,500. However, the actual figures are likely to be higher as their data is restricted largely to the English language media.

Nearly 80 per cent of those who deposed were from three major publishers – 19 from Bennett Coleman & co. Ltd, 14 from HT Media and 8 from The Hindu Publishing Group. Journalists from English-language news media based in New Delhi and Mumbai represent a bulk of those who deposed before the committee.

The report, prepared on the basis of physical depositions and online submissions, was adopted by the PCI on August 5. The sub-committee that was set up in September 2023 included Gurbir Singh, Prajnanda Chowdhury, P. Sainath, Snehashis Sur, L.C. Gupta and Cyril Sam.

‘Forced to resign’

The report states that only 25 per cent of the journalists who deposed before the committee said that they received formal emails from their companies about retrenchments. In nearly 75 per cent cases, all communications regarding retrenchments were oral. At the physical hearings, 80 per cent journalists claimed they were ‘forced to resign’ and didn’t receive any advance notice or formal communication about salary cuts and retrenchments.

Kavitha Iyer, currently working as an independent journalist, was retrenched from The Indian Express’ Mumbai bureau on July 27, 2020 after spending 18 years at the publication. The report cites an email to her colleagues that was published in 2020 with Iyer’s permission by Cyril Sam as part of his research into retrenchments by news media organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Iyer said she was informed at a meeting – at which she was asked to leave her phone outside – that she would “have to resign” and accept the relieving letter or be terminated.

Iyer wrote in her email that had she been informed even a few days in advance, “explaining that the inevitable is about to happen, that this is a business decision with no bearing on the work I do, I would have still been unhappy to exit, but would have retained my pride in this organisation and its commitment to humanity. Sadly, we are all now a little less human and a little more virus.”

The report said that nearly all the journalists who deposed before the committee in New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata narrated a similar experience.

In an open letter on LinkedIn to news organisations on August 3, 2020 Ashish Rukhaiyar, who was laid off from The Hindu in June that year said that reporters were sacked on the phone, and some called to the office and asked to submit their resignations on the spot.

“They were threatened that if they do not resign, they would lose out on payouts they are entitled to under law. There was absolutely no method in this madness. No memos, no performance related warnings, no red flags in appraisals, etc,” the letter is quoted as saying in the report.

Among those who deposed before the committee, 44 or 80 per cent reported that they were impacted financially. In addition, another 34 said that they had to dip into family savings, 17 were forced to take loans, and 12 journalists were forced to relocate.

Deepak Turbhekar, a photographer employed by the Bennett, Coleman Co’s Mumbai Mirror, was asked to resign in January 2021 by the HR over a WhatsApp call broke down before the sub-committee and said that while he was threatened with a termination if he did not resign, he was paid only one month’s salary after having worked at the organisation for 16 years.

Subsequently he had to use his Provident Fund savings to repay his home loan in Mumbai and even sell his wife’s jewellery to support his elder daughter’s education.

“I don’t have money to buy equipment for photography and am no longer doing news photography as it isn’t sustainable. Freelance news photographers are paid between Rs100-125 per photo. I see no hope for the future,” he said to the subcommittee.

While only a few resisted being forced to resign, they were eventually terminated.

Shruti Ganpatye, who worked at the Mumbai Mirror, said to the sub-committee that she was one of three people who resisted the organisation’s attempts to make them forcibly resign, out of a total of about 100 journalists who were asked to resign by the organisation.

“Only basic salary for the last two months was offered as retrenchment compensation.

“Only 3 persons including me, of an estimated 100 employees who lost their jobs in the Mumbai Mirror, refused to resign and were eventually terminated. I wrote emails asking for more compensation, however, there was no response from the company,” she is quoted as saying to the panel.

Apart from financial struggles, journalists also said to the panel that their mental health suffered due to the retrenchments.

“The retrenchments emotionally affected 40 (80%) journalists who deposed before the committee. Retrenchments also impacted the self-worth and the confidence of 40 (80%) journalists. Depression was reported by 30 (60%) journalists and 27 (54%) experienced social withdrawal. Senior journalists, in particular, were emotionally most affected. This was also witnessed in physical hearings where many senior journalists experienced emotional turmoil and were moved to tears,” the report said.

‘If scribes have no job security, freedom of press is compromised’

The report states that while journalists were worked on the frontlines during the pandemic, and were categorised as essential workers by the Union government, it did not stop media companies and organisations from retrenching journalists.

“The reasoning for including the news media in the ‘essential workers’ category was a recognition that the circulation of news and information is especially very important during a crisis period when people are struggling to cope with the changing pandemic situation on a daily basis, and when rumour mills in the unofficial channels of information are clouding people’s understanding. However, we have to record that this ‘essential workers’ directive was ignored by most of the media companies, and they showed scant respect to the Union government’s directive, firing and retrenching journalists at will,” the report stated.

According to data collated by the Network of Women in Media, India, 626 journalists from India died on the line of duty during the period, as the COVID-19 infection affected newsrooms and journalists.

In its recommendations, the report stated that if journalists do not have job security then at that very juncture, freedom of press is compromised.

“The poor job security for journalists made them particularly vulnerable during the COVID-19 period where some managements appeared to use the pandemic financial crisis as an excuse to downsize employment levels much beyond what could be justified by their financial requirements,” the report said.

In this regard, the panel has in its recommendations, urged the union ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Law and Justice to introduce a Model Contract for journalists with “certain mandatory clauses which may inter alia include minimum tenure of service – 7-10 years –, provision of giving PF, Gratuity, ESI in applicable cases, provision for leave, yearly increment in salary etc.”

It has also recommended that journalists be provided with insurance against events such as natural disasters or global pandemics, fast track pending labour disputes, easy access to compensation and benefits which has been deprived to those journalists who are not “accredited” with the government and steps to protect journalists’ mental health.

The panel has noted that while the decline in the reach and financial conditions of the print media has thrown up its own challenges, there is a need for the Union government to continue the mapping of journalist retrenchments annually.

“As we have seen an unnaturally high level of job losses has an adverse impact on the quality of our information ecosystem and freedom of expression; and regular monitoring will help us deal with the problem more effectively,” it said.

The Rogue Media and a Few Good Men

To use a computer analogy, the mainstream corporate media served as the mainframe of Modi’s tyranny, manufacturing and processing fake news and hateful propaganda that appealed to the darkest instincts in the human mind.

Wherever in the netherworld he prowls, Joseph Goebbels must certainly be awed by the masterful practitioners of his art in the mainstream Indian media. He purveyed the hypothesis that “the truth was the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State”; that there is “no need for propaganda to be rich in intellectual content”.

His square-moustachioed overlord appended the injunction that to be potent, propaganda should appeal to the meanest intelligence among those it seeks to reach and should never acknowledge even an iota of right on the other side.

How well did our media absorb the fascist dicta In the ten years of Modi’s creeping authoritarian rule when mainstream journalism and propaganda joined forces and became indistinguishable from one another! Both traditional print and electronic media, instead of acting as a check against the abuse of government power became the primary instruments of the abuse.

The Reporters Without Borders (RSF) collective, recognising the pivotal role of journalism in protecting democracy has emphasised that ‘journalism is the main vaccine against disinformation’. In its World Press Freedom Index rankings, compiled every year, India has slipped from 140th out of 180 countries in 2013 – bad enough – to an all-time low of 161 in 2023.

The precipitous decline has been attributed to media takeovers by oligarchs close to PM Modi and his stranglehold over the narrative through fake news, misuse of laws to terrorise journalists, and through his army of trolls who have waged appalling hate campaigns against anybody who questioned his authoritarian style. But what has been lost sight of in that critique is the spinelessness of the mainstream media through it all, which is the theme of this lament on Indian journalism.

There is no denying that autocracy is inhospitable to journalism. We experienced this during the Emergency when the press was under siege. More than 250 journalists were arrested including the redoubtable Kuldeep Nayyar. Many foreign correspondents were banned from entering India and accreditation of numerous reporters were withdrawn; besides, the recalcitrant media outlets were starved of advertisements. And yet I maintain that there was a huge difference in the response of the media then when compared to now.

The Emergency clampdown was brutal, in-your-face and took no prisoners whereas Modi’s regime used the much more subtle and effective approach of imposing a creeping, insidious authoritarianism behind the veneer of democratic functioning. Existing laws were manipulated to intimidate the media and dissenters were branded as anti-national by equating the regime with the nation.

Extreme deterrent punishment was the exception rather than the rule. And yet, the press during the Emergency was less dishonourable and did not grovel before authority in the depraved manner it has in the last ten years. By and large, the journalists at that grim time were cowed and sullen but certainly not the whooping lickspittles of today.

LK Advani accused the press during the Emergency of “choosing to crawl when asked to bend”, but has since watched apathetically as a dysfunctional media, exhibiting the most shameful toadyism, not merely crawled but became cheerleaders and facilitators of the tyrant. Too many in today’s media have a lot to be ashamed of!

The peaceable, non-confrontational tradition demands that one avoids specifically naming and shaming individuals who are culpable and instead, limit oneself to calling out their doings that are unacceptable. But in a situation where certain elements in the media embedded with the regime waged war on truth and facts for the last ten years with the evil intent of shoring up an authoritarian, one has a bounden duty to call them out.

This is imperative, especially because their ‘non-biological’ idol still holds the reins of government, albeit considerably shrunken, and lest we forget, they too are still around, less cocky and almost apologetic in tone and demeanour, though there are still the arrogant oddballs who continue to spew arrant nonsense.

In the full-scale assault on journalism by journalists in the last ten years, there are a few who stand out for their unmitigated desecration of the journalist’s calling. Leading the charge is our Indian counterpart of the infamous former Fox News host, Tucker Carlson who is busy these days in singing hosannas to Vladmir Putin.

Our homegrown Carlson clone, the TV anchor who can claim copyright on the phrase “the nation wants to know”, is the most strident propagandist for Modi and toxic Hindu nationalism, spouting falsehoods and hate by the minute, incapable of reasoned argument.

About Carlson and his ilk, the inimitable Christopher Hitchens had once made an indecorous but telling remark: “If you give him an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.” I’ll leave it at that!

Last year, soon after its formation, the INDIA Alliance decided that the bloc’s representatives would not appear on the “hate-filled” shows of 14 news anchors across nine major national channels. Anyone who has watched the programmes of these blacklisted journos would straight away apprehend that they are unabashed BJP zealots out to demonise the Opposition, spread hate against Muslims, evade debates on key issues like electoral bonds or unemployment and brazenly propagandise for the Modi regime.

Their primetime debates are a noisy slugfest where the dissenting view is shouted down or muted. These guys have been identified and named but tragically, their acerbic style has spurred the mushroom growth of kindred copycats. Today’s journalism is chock-a-block with such amoral loudmouths who have sold their souls to Modi and his regime.

In the final phase of the recent Lok Sabha election, amidst the frenzied ‘400 paar’ hoopla, Modi indulged his retinue of adoring journalists with a blitzkrieg of carefully manicured interviews – as many as 64 such exchanges in April and May. Millions of viewers were subjected to an interminable public relations exercise of overweening hubris on the one side and craven veneration on the other.

In a nauseating display of delusional grandstanding, Modi used these interactions to give full vent to his imagination, spouting falsehoods, making misleading claims, getting emotional about his mother, projecting omnipotence and even drawing up a visionary roadmap to 2047. Without exception, the awed interviewers asked only ‘softball’ questions that were clearly from a predetermined script.

But something went terribly wrong! I am convinced that the hyped two-month long love affair between Modi and the ‘godi’ media was a deadly embrace that turned out to be the kiss of death for the Modi cult! Here’s how.

Disarmed by the fawning obsequiousness of his questioners, Modi went berserk, making unhinged statements that he will never be able to live down: ‘the day I do Hindu-Muslim, I won’t be fit for public life’; the world did not know about Mahatma Gandhi till Attenborough made his film; his two corporate henchmen took tempos full of currency notes to the Opposition; he interceded with Netanyahu to pause the war in Gaza during Ramadan; and the faux pas of faux pas when he affirmed his own immaculate conception! As the Bard would have said, Modi was hoist with his own petard, the Vishwaguru image now in tatters!

Print media by and large also chose not to ask probing questions which needed to be asked all the time.

The burning crises in Kashmir and Manipur were covered mainly through government handouts, thereby exposing the reader only to the government’s propaganda. Investigative journalism had been all but given up.

Major scandals such as the Pathankot RDX mystery, Pegasus, Rafale, Electoral bonds were buried by deliberate neglect. There was the occasional censure but in the main, most newspapers were chary about taking on Modi directly, submissively acquiescing in his falsehoods, corruption and missteps in policy.

One had to turn to fact-check sites such as Alt News to get the true picture, a sacred responsibility that the mainstream media had abdicated. Alt News did a magnificent job in debunking the regime’s misinformation aimed at vilifying the Muslim community, despite paying a heavy price. One of the editors, Mohammed Zubair spent a month behind bars allegedly for “hurting Hindu sentiment” but in reality, for calling out Modi and his bigots.

While the mainstream media operated as the Modi regime’s most potent propaganda and campaigning tool and as the tyrant’s cheerleaders, it was the outliers – the alternative media that helped unveil the distortion, lies and half-truths purveyed by the regime and thus helped rescue Indian democracy.

I have in mind the independent digital websites like The Wire, Scroll and Newslaundry and Newsclick and Caravan magazine, whose editors dared to exercise the sacred right to free speech at great personal risk and did what the Godi media failed to do, i.e. present a coherent, truthful picture of the political and cultural landscape and the regime’s frontal assault on democracy.

They provided a platform for voices that would otherwise not have been heard; for instance, Karan Thapar whose marvellous, probing interviews with leading opinion-makers deepened the viewers’ perspective and understanding of the grim situation under the Modi regime, thereby striking a bludgeon blow for democracy.

Every episode provided an object lesson on how to conduct an interview – a far cry from the simpering interactions of the Godi media with the Vishwaguru.

In the same category of outliers, I include journalists who, unwilling to compromise their moral principles, quit mainstream journalism and independently ventured into social media, harnessing YouTube to reach their audiences – Ravish Kumar, Ajit Anjum and Abhisar Sharma, to name a few. This roll of honour cannot but include the brilliant social media activist, Dhruv Rathee who did as much, maybe more than anybody else to expose the rot in the system during the Modi years. (For a better understanding of the critical role played by independent journalists, I would recommend Aakar Patel’s piece of August 6.)

Allow me to conclude with two statements of Modi which are relevant to the subject being discussed: I) “If I am judged for my work, many myths about me as an autocrat or otherwise would become clearer. I feel false propaganda will not last and truth will ultimately prevail.” ii) “social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities.”

Unwittingly, the Vishwaguru was prescient and got it right! A few good men exposed him for the authoritarian that he was and the fake propaganda that his regime purveyed. And it was mainly social media that they used to show that humanism was what matters and not the communal identity politics that he has purveyed all his life!

(Mathew John is a former civil servant. The views are personal)

Moving Away From a Written to Oral Tradition in News

What an overworked and stressed younger generation is open to, is a sort of community media rave party.

Few know that on August 15 this year, the Committee to Protect Journalists called on the Indian government. It requested that proper consultations with media publishers be ensured when the Parliamentary Committee reshapes the latest Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill that is rather opaque so far. The Bill as it stands today, according to CPJ’s Asia Programme coordinator, “could have a chilling effect on press freedom in India.”

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

The earliest draft of this dreaded Bill was prepared in 2018, on the eve of general elections, at the instance of the Election Commission. The aim was to ‘initiate a multi-stakeholder engagement process to take stock of the critical gaps in the extant section of the Representation of peoples Act of 1951’ which could no longer cover various kinds of non-print digital media. But as Forster had once observed, in India every hole has two exits. When discussions with various stakeholders – political parties, Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) and major online platforms got going, multiple holes and loopholes surfaced.

Should the exercise address the legacy media and its e-avatars, or also include the new kids on the media block like Facebook, Google, WhatsApp, and Twitter (now X), termed till then as ‘intermediaries’? The NBA (National Broadcasters’ Association) was quick to point out that for a uniformly applicable Bill, the rights, duties and responsibilities of not only the print, but all electronic and digital media would also need to be clearly redefined. And that would take time.

At this point the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology officials submitted that the so-called intermediaries were only carriers not independent creators of news content. They could, therefore, continue to be governed by the existing Information Technology Act, not (the dreaded and complex) Section 126 of the Representation of Peoples Act that forbade promotional news for 48 hours before voting. The intermediaries said in case they were informed of carrying dubious and objectionable content, they needed only to warn those that had created it and failing to receive a satisfactory answer, take the item down.

So a revised draft Bill was submitted in January 2019. But its contents remained unknown until July 2019 when an RTI elicited an answer that finally put onto public domain. By the time the contents were made available to the Election Commission, there was only a tiny window left for its enforcement. So despite lingering misgivings, the status quo prevailed. The draft Bill, we learnt, had to wait for parliamentary clearance which could only happen after election results would have helped create a new parliament.

Also read: Broadcasting Bill is an Effort to Censor Voices of the People Who Use Technology to Speak Truth to Power

In 2019 the Modi government registered a historic win. But between 2019 and 2024, an undreamt of evolution of communication tech took place, spurred further by the COVID-19 years when most communication had to happen online. This changed news dissemination patterns radically and in 2024 the election results revealed that the new media had become a parallel source of communication between rival parties and the new voters. So while youth and women in particular were targeted on old media, they registered a dissatisfaction with the incumbents. Thus, BJP, despite its advertising blitz with multiple women’s empowerment offers, its proximity to media barons, Doordarshan and even independent news channels on TV, failed to arrive with a full majority in the House. In contrast a new opposition coalition now presents a formidable force in the parliament and demands debates and discussions before it will allow any proposed Bill to become law.

In 2019 the legacy print and Tv media, flush with government advertising had enormous persuasive powers. No more. Young consumers’ attention and advertising revenues have turned more and more towards the fast-paced online portals and podcasts for a young, mobile India. Also although literacy levels have risen steadily, the move is clearly away from the print to the traditional Indian oral ways of communication. The young are reading less and watching mostly live streamed news and entertainment round the clock. Older TV broadcasting is down from 200 million homes in 2019 to 176 million, according to the annual FICCI-EY report, and this has reversed flow of revenues from print to digital. A wave of consolidations and mergers has created several new mega media groups that consist of both Indian and non-Indian players. So fact is today three technologies are competing in the new media market and search engines, the internet, satellite and cable are shaping and distributing news differently.

In such times a Broadcast Bill itself appears as a misnomer. It was framed way back in 2013 soon after which a new government took charge and made clear its wish to force fit a tight censoring of government unfriendly news and morally questionable, ‘anti-national’ content in media. But by now the digital media is a hydra-headed entity. It has introduced tech savvy young individual bloggers, vloggers and podcasters and public influencers with millions of followers.

So it was just as well that the old opaque version of Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill of 2018 did not become law and has been referred to a Parliamentary Committee. The Committee faces an immensely complicated task. Its priority should be to restore order in the categories of news as it is today and prevent the new law from becoming a weapon for retributive injustice and destruction of free public information. This means, as the CPJ has requested, ensuring that the new Committee consults not only government technocrats but also representatives of media bodies and content producers and portals. The Committee must also consider the implications of AI-led news and go through a transparent working process and make the contents of the new Bill on line to the public.

Greying potbellied leaders may still be a big deal in politics but trying to look young is being rejected quietly the world over. Mass migrations from and into India have chalked out hybridised global definitions of free media and democracy. News and entertainment are unavoidably global and can be dubbed in many languages. Meanwhile, both Google and Meta have rejected the work from home patterns that proliferated since COVID. Older media bodies that seem to control news cycles from home with a much pared down staff are fast reaching the end of their core competence. Old style panel discussions, exit polls, conspiracy theories and self promotion by ridiculously overdressed politicians seem comic and boring to young viewers who are hugely attracted to TikTok spoofs and rural reels with singing in dialects.

What an overworked and stressed younger generation is open to, is a sort of community media rave party. This has created a demand for stand up comedians and Dastan Goi baithaks and stories by literary greats being shown alongside bite-sized news. Live streaming of news by mavericks with desi cutting chai gossip attitudes is overtaking all those overly made up godi anchors speaking shuddh Hindi or propah English. Deshbhakti films no longer rock. But gritty serials like Paatal Lok, Panchayat and Mirzapur do. This is the media pot producing real influencers that all political parties wish to engage come elections.

Mrinal Pande is a writer and veteran journalist.

Saakhi is a Sunday column from Mrinal Pande, in which she writes of what she sees and also participates in. That has been her burden to bear ever since she embarked on a life as a journalist, writer, editor, author and as chairperson of Prasar Bharti. Her journey of being a witness-participant continues.

Overarching Definitions, Advisory Council’s Power: What Stakeholders Said on Draft Broadcasting Bill

The Internet Freedom Foundation has accessed collectives’, rights bodies’ and think-tanks’ comments from a response to a Right to Information request it had filed with the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

New Delhi: The Internet Freedom Foundation has published a summary of comments submitted by stakeholders during the public consultation on the draft Broadcasting Bill, 2023, which reveal that many raised concerns about the future of the rights to free speech and information and press freedom.

The IFF was among organisations that submitted comments on the Bill, in December 2023.

The IFF accessed others’ comments from a response to a Right to Information request it had filed with the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The ministry initially told IFF that comments submitted by stakeholders cannot be disclosed without their consent as that would violate their privacy and intellectual property rights. However, the ministry also purportedly requested a sum of Rs. 934 from IFF to send it copies of the 417 pages of comments it could share with them. IFF notes that it found that the MIB did not share all comments based on the fact that several comments were made publicly available by the organisations themselves – but did not find their way to the RTI packet IFF received.

Access Now

The global non-profit organisation Access Now which focuses on digital civil rights said in its comments that the Bill threatens fundamental rights such as free speech, expression, access to information, and press freedom. The group raised the fact that the uniform regulation of internet-based content, including OTT platforms and social media providers of news and current affairs, would pose problems and also impact news media’s ability to report freely, leading to self-censorship.

Additionally, Access Now was alarmed by the Union government’s extensive powers to monitor and restrict content. They pointed out that the tripartite regulatory framework in Clause 24 of the Broadcasting Bill, 2023, resembles the controversial IT Rules of 2021, which is being challenged in the courts, including by The Wire.

Access Now has also highlighted the lack of independence of the Broadcast Advisory Council, which could amplify government censorship.

It has recommended the complete withdrawal of the draft Bill.

Also read: The Broadcasting Bill Broadly Casts the Citizen as a Subject

Civis

The Civic Innovation Foundation’s non-profit platform Civis collected over 1900 feedback points through their website, analysed public discussions on social media platforms like YouTube, X and LinkedIn and conducted a sentiment analysis to gauge key concerns about the bill.

Civis highlighted the need for precise definitions in Clause 2 of the draft Bill, particularly for terms like ‘broadcasting’ and ‘broadcasting network,’ to avoid the whole gamut of digital content, such as independent digital creators, coming within its purview. They emphasised the importance of strengthening Clause 19, related to the Programme Code, to include safeguards for free speech and prevent indirect censorship.

Like Access Now, the organisation expressed concerns about the frameworks for the Broadcast Advisory Council and highlighted the need for independent oversight bodies, separate from government influence, for ensuring unbiased enforcement of the Bill’s provisions.

Deepstrat

The think-tank Deepstrat expressed concerns about the broad definitions of terms like “news and current affairs programs” and “OTT” in Section 2 of the Bill, calling for clearer definitions to avoid ambiguity and protect freedom of speech and expression.

The organisation emphasised the risks of granting regulators the power to censor online content and news, highlighting the need to protect the fundamental right of free speech. It also noted that Clause 27 of the Bill, which outlines the composition of the BAC, lacks balanced representation and raised concerns about its independence and impartiality due to the predominance of government members.

Internet and Mobile Association of India

IAMAI also expressed concerns around Clause 2 and its sub-clauses which give a wide definition for ‘broadcasting networks’ and ‘broadcasting network operators’. They also said that “OTT” platforms are already regulated under the IT Rules, 2021. Their suggestion was that OTT platforms be kept outside the purview of the Bill.

The IFF notes that the organisation also raised concerns about the Union government’s ability to bypass the first two tiers of grievance redressal and refer matters to the BAC which implies that they have overbroad powers and this may further restrict the rights provided by Article 19 of the Constitution to publish content as a form of freedom of speech and expression and right to carry on trade or occupation.

IAMAI compared the overbearing Bill with light touch regulatory practices of other foreign jurisdictions like Australia, Japan and other countries.

CCAOI

The trust CCAOI raised concerns regarding several provisions in the Bill. Like others, CCAOI also raised concerns on the BAC’s regulatory ambit. It also highlighted the problems of clubbing regulation of conventional broadcasters with OTT broadcasting services and recommended separate regulations for the different services and industries.

DIGIPUB

The digital news media organisation DIGIPUB highlighted impediments in the consultation process, mainly the draft bill and its accompanying explanatory note being exclusively released in English, posing a linguistic barrier for public involvement, the IFF reported.

It observed that the Bill exposes those disseminating news that may be perceived as unfavourable by the government to significant risk.

Indian Newspaper Society

In addition to similar concerns as the ones above, the Indian Newspaper Society noted that articles published on the online news portals are identical to the ones published in printed newspapers and the only difference could be that these portals operate in languages distinct from newspaper publications.

Ramoji Rao: The Media Baron Who Ran Many Successful Businesses and Supported Chandrababu Over NTR

Media baron Cherukuri Ramoji Rao who owned a huge business empire has died while undergoing treatment for a heart ailment at a corporate hospital in Hyderabad in the early hours of Saturday (June 8). The Telangana government has announced his funeral with state honours.

He is survived by his wife Tatineni Rama Devi, elder son Kiron Prabhakar, daughters-in-law Sailaja Kiron and Vijayeswari, three granddaughters and a grandson. He was 87.

Rao was admitted to a hospital with breathlessness on June 5 and underwent stent placement. He was put on ventilator on Friday afternoon as his condition deteriorated.

Rao, the media baron

Rao was the chairman and editor-in-chief of Eenadu group which publishes the leading Telugu daily Eenadu from 23 centres, including Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Bengaluru with a print run of two million copies daily. He is credited with the introduction of tabloids for district editions of Eenadu which was the first for any Telugu newspaper. The practice has now percolated to location-specific editions in Hyderabad and other major cities

He was also founder of ETV network of 15 channels in various languages, most of which are now owned by Reliance Industries-controlled media conglomerate Network 18. The Telugu channels in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are retained by the group.

Rao shot to fame with the launch of the Visakhapatnam edition of Eenadu from an abandoned cinema studio on August 10, 1974. The first day of the edition was a big hit as the first page, with bold headlines, made the announcement of the resignation of United States President Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal. The edition was launched specifically from Visakhapatam as no other newspaper had publication centre there.

A second hand printing machine acquired from Kerala for Rs 96,000 was used to print 4,000 copies a day from the premises that was taken on a 33-year lease. The same year Hyderabad edition of the newspaper was launched and, within four years, it became an undisputed leader in the newspaper industry overtaking Andhra Prabha.

Humble beginnings

Rao was mainly a business entrepreneur who started off his career to become a billionaire with Margadarsi Chit Funds in Hyderabad in 1962. Along with two other partners, he launched the firm to receive small savings from investors. Today, it has grown to become a Rs 7,750-crore outfit employing 4,000 staff across the country.

Born in a poor agricultural family in Pedaparupudi village of Krishna district in Madras Presidency, British India in 1936, he has lived in Delhi in mid-1950s to work as an artist with an advertising agency and has done odd jobs simultaneously. He slept on a mat in a room that did not even have a table fan. It was said that finding a match for him was difficult as no one came forward to give him bride. His marriage with Rama Devi in 1961 took place on a condition that he would move to Hyderabad, which changed his fortune.

The business empire

After his success in Margadarsi Chit Funds, he started an advertising agency in his elder son’s name in 1965 with his Delhi experience. Then he diversified into setting up a fertilizer outlet with his agricultural background and an outdoor advertising agency to erect hoardings of Coromandel Fertilisers and Dunlop tyre company in 1970. He personally oversaw the work standing on the roads in Hyderabad.

It was Margadarsi which fuelled many of his expansion projects later. He forayed into film production through Usha Kiron Movies with hits such as Mayuri and Mouna Poratam.

Notably, the Annadata programme in Rao’s Telugu ETV channel, telecasted in the morning hours, which portrayed lives of farmers and methods of cultivation had the highest TRP ratings in the past. The magazines Annadata, and Sitara to review Telugu movies were also started by him.

He also owns Priya Foods which primarily sells pickles apart from Mayuri Films in which he was involved in distribution of films after production and a range of other businesses from ship breaking, hotels, handicrafts to fruit drinks and nut powder.

The Kalanjali shopping malls which sells fabrics for women is run by his elder daughter-in-law Sailaja Kiron while Dolphin group of hotels which meets hospitality requirements at Ramoji Film City and Visakhapatnam is controlled by his younger daughter-in-law Vijayeswari. His son Suman Prabhakar who was a well known name among TV viewers as a writer, director and actor died after battling cancer for five years at the age of 45 in 2012.

What is significant to Rao’s expansion mode in business was his refusal to have his name on any of the projects except Ramoji Film City which is certified by Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s largest film studio complex at Abdullapurmet on the outskirts of Hyderabad. A public school in the name of his wife Rama Devi was also started at the entrance to the film city six years later.

Rao constructed the filmcity, spread over 2,000 acres, during the rule of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) with which he was friendly in 1996. He lived in a four storied house atop a hillock that overlooked a helipad for visiting VVIPs. He sat in all white, wearing a half sleeve white shirt, trousers and white shoes, in a gilded throne — as shown in mythological movies. He spoke to visitors sitting in the throne

Politcal favouritism and controversies

The acquisition of such large chunk of land by Rao was mired in controversy, inviting threat to his life from Naxalites. He lived under close security and rare movement outside the complex since then.

The local offices of Eenadu newspaper and studios of TV channels were also shifted to the film city. The staff of Eenadu went on a strike protesting against the shift. They said it was done to escape payment of 30% house rent allowance to cut down on salary costs in a rural area with lower housing rents.

The Congress government headed by Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy had also slapped criminal cares against Margadarsi for accepting deposits as a non-banking final company against Reserve Bank of India (RBI) norms. Following a charge that Margadarsi was unable to refund deposits of investors, Rao resorted to 26% sale of stake in Ushodaya Enterprises to private equity firm Blackstone group.

The Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy government also booked Margadarsi group on similar charges after Jagan was at the helm in the residual state of Andhra Pradesh. Like his father, Jagan used his Sakshi daily to expose Rao’s business practices.

Eenadu was seen as the mouthpiece of TDP when the party was formed in 1982. A reporter and a photographer of the daily followed the 1938-model Chevrolet van of the party founder N.T. Rama Rao, labelled ‘Chaitanya Ratham,’ to publish huge photos of him shaving and bathing by the roadside in the run up to the 1983 assembly elections. The TDP won 202 out of 293 assembly seats to form the first non-Congress government in the state.

Rao did not show the same patronage to NTR when he was dethroned by N. Chandrababu Naidu during the former’s third term in 1996. NTR and his wife Laxmi Parvati were made to wait at the entrance to Rao’s house at Chikoti Gardens in Begumpet for ten minutes before he met the couple. They sought his help seeking better coverage of news for NTR-TDP against injustice by Naidu but Rao hardly gave them ear.

Rao was also strictly opposed to formation of the Telangana state though former chief minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao who pioneered the statehood agitation had called on him to seek help.

When it became clear that separate Telangana would be a reality, Rao secured a licence for ETV Telugu channel exclusively for Telangana three months before bifurcation of the state. Eenadu newspaper also started a Telangana slant after Chandrasekhar Rao’s meeting with the media baron.

Rao called on Narendra Modi after he became prime minister seeking help for construction of Om religious city, a spiritual centre with models of 108 famous temples across the country, near Ramoji Film City. Among several recognitions, Rao was conferred with Padma Vibhushan in 2016, four Filmfare awards in the south and National Filmfare award. He was also the chairman of Editors Guild of India.

‘2023 Was a Devastating Year for Journalism’: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

And 320 journalists and media workers were imprisoned, the highest number ever.

On the occasion of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, delivered a video address emphasising the many dangers journalists face and the sacrifices they make while reporting on corruption, crime, rights issues, and climate change. The statement calls for greater protection and support from governments and employers. It also calls attention to the significance of independent, ethical journalism in promoting open debate and evidence-based policies to address the future crises.

The full text of the address is below:

When I think of the values of journalism, I think of trust, truth and integrity.

I think of the countless, fearless individuals daring to question.

Daring to challenge power, risking their lives to document atrocities, corruption and crime, and to stand up against oppression.

2023 marked one more devastating year for journalism.

71 journalists and media workers were killed.

It was a year characterised – again – by impunity. Only 13% of the murder cases have been investigated.

And 320 journalists and media workers were imprisoned, the highest number ever.

When we lose a journalist, we lose our eyes and ears to the outside world. We lose a voice for the voiceless.

We lose, in fact, a human rights defender.

World Press Freedom Day was established to celebrate the value of truth and to protect the people who work courageously to uncover it.

We are marking it this year in an era of acute global turmoil and the profound fragmentation and polarisation of humanity.

Conflict is boiling over in many places – from Myanmar, to Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza and several other parts of the world – causing intolerable human suffering.

Disinformation is infecting our media and digital landscapes, fuelling hate and division.

And as climate change batters our fragile planet, the lives and livelihoods of future generations are under the gravest threat this world has ever known.

This year, World Press Freedom Day centres on journalism in the face of the environmental crisis.

I honour the journalists around the world who are working to hold polluters accountable for the damage and the devastation.

They are driving open debate and critical thinking.

And by separating facts from lies and propaganda, they are pushing for evidence-based policy decisions on the climate crisis that the world so urgently needs.

Their work is fundamental to trigger change, yet it can also be dangerous.

Particularly if they are perceived to hamper the economic interests of the powerful actors engaged in harmful or illegal environmental activities.

Environmental journalists need stronger commitments from their governments and their employers to protect them.

Better and safer working conditions.

An expanded media space for coverage on environmental issues.

And the right to work free from attacks, hate campaigns, and physical and legal harassment.

The dramatic consequences of inertia and inaction on the climate crisis are unfolding as we speak.

This doesn’t have to be the case.

We need independent, ethical and quality journalism perhaps now more than ever. On the climate crisis – and on all crises – journalists serve as the ultimate allies in human rights. Because in their pursuit of facts, evidence and accountability, we have one of our best hopes to build societies based on truth and trust.

Free and Responsible News Media Requires an Encouraging Environment: Mumbai Press Club to Editors

New Delhi: After the recent demise of a senior journalist in Mumbai, the Mumbai Press Club on Friday, March 1, issued an open letter to editors and media houses urging them to ensure that newsrooms are “safe and supportive” and that journalists can work “without fear of harassment”.

In its letter, the managing committee of the club underlined that “the harassment of journalists in newsrooms, particularly the pressure being brought to generate exclusives or breaking stories” is a deeply concerning trend impacting the news industry. Further, the death of a journalist who was working with a prominent daily was referred to as “a tragic example of this newsroom pressure to be one-up on rivals”.

Highlighting how changes in the advertisement model have led to job cuts, layoffs and non-renewal of contracts in the media, the letter pointed out that bureau chiefs and editors are well-placed to understand the changing conditions but they have been found to be insensitive and even complicit in making working conditions worse.

“We urge all media houses and leadership teams to address this issue and to create a better and more professional workplace culture. Free and responsible news media requires an encouraging environment where journalists can bring out their best and perform their duties without fear or favour,” the letter added.

The letter was posted in the Mumbai Press Club’s X (formerly called Twitter) handle:

AN OPEN LETTER TO EDITORS AND MEDIA HOUSES pic.twitter.com/FJtlNynqW7

— Mumbai Press Club (@mumbaipressclub) March 1, 2024