tv hate speech

Self-Regulatory Body Issues Guidelines Against Hate Speech for Electronic, Digital Media

The guidelines issued by the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority come a fortnight after the Supreme Court asked why anchors cannot be taken off air for allowing hate speech on TV.

New Delhi: The News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) on Monday, January 30, issued “guidelines for prevention of hate speech” which direct editors, editorial personnel, anchors, journalists and presenters who are part of its member organisations to refrain from using “language and agenda-driven words”, “terms and adjectives” and “all forms of expression” which among other things advocate violence or engender hatred against individuals or communities.

These guidelines come just about a fortnight after a bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna, had, while hearing a batch of cases involving allegations of hate speech, asked the independent broadcasting self-regulatory body about the action taken against anchors for hate speech. “How many times have you taken off anchors? Have you dealt with anchors in the way you send a message?” Justice Joseph had asked.

Incidentally, the NBDSA covers nearly 80% of all news and digital channels. The Authority was originally set up by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) 14 years ago as the News Broadcasting Standard Authority (NBSA). The name was later changed to NBDSA as the body opened itself to digital platforms too.

New guidelines do not cover Sudarshan TV, Republic TV

It is also pertinent to note that the new guidelines issued by NBDSA do not cover two major channels – Sudarshan TV and Republic TV – which had walked out of the NBA a few years ago.

These guidelines state that NBDSA has “received several complaints concerning the increase in the use of inflammable, derogatory, extremist, divisive, hurtful language and rhetoric in news programmes.” It said such usage, targets individuals or groups or communities based on their religion, gender, race, national or ethnic origin, and/or sexual orientation” and affects their inherent dignity and equality and disturbs the social harmony in general.

In light of these complaints, NBDSA said it was is of the view that “dissemination of such expression through the media has a powerful and pernicious impact on the delicate social fabric of the country and violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India.” Therefore, it reasoned that it had “become necessary to lay down Guidelines for Prevention of Hate Speech, which the members must bear in mind before broadcasting and/or publishing any news item.”

The guidelines also caution against using “expressions of contempt, disgust or dismissal which advocate for the exclusion, boycott, or segregation of members of a community”; using harmful stereotypes, language which is intimidating, and which has a tendency to result in social and economic exclusion and segregation, and disseminating conspiracy theories in news programmes.

The NBDSA also noted that merely broadcasting a disclaimer to any programme would not absolve the editors, anchors, journalists or other editorial personnel of responsibility in case of a violation of the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and the guidelines. It also noted that it would be “closely monitoring” the compliance of these guidelines.

In the past, NBDSA had also issued an “advisory on hate speech” on November 11, 2022 and “specific guidelines for anchors conducting programmes including debates” on October 28, 2022.

The Supreme Court of India. Photo: Pinakpani/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

Several directions in the past on ‘communal colour‘ in programmes

Talking to The Wire, NBDSA counsel Nisha Bhambhani said: “We had issued guidelines to the anchors and an advisory on hate speech. We have also given several directions on communal colour which is equivalent to hate speech without calling it hate speech.”

She said many of the directions of the Authority, which are all uploaded on its site pertain to giving a communal colour which borders on hate speech. “So they were mostly about how the anchor had got a panel which was biased or the monologue or programmes were tracked in a manner which was communal and gave a communal colour. I am sure we also had one or two which actually could be called hate speech,” she said.

Also Read: SC’s Words on TV ‘Hate Speech’ Strike Several Chords, But Will Govt and News Anchors Listen?

‘Authority plays role of court like PCI, but not accorded commensurate status by Centre’

On the work done by the Authority, as a quasi-legal body, she said: “We have had the maximum number of chairpersons who were former justices or chief justices of Supreme Court. We have had Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice A.K. Sikri as heads of NBSA. Also, due to us, there have been around 4,000 complaints which have been disposed of and have not come to court – at the first level or at the second level. At the second level, the complaints were actually less.”

But while NBDSA has performed the same kind of role as the Press Council of India for the print media, it has not been accorded the same powers by the Union government. “This body was formed in 2008. We have always told the Union of India that if you recognise our court justice, we will have jurisdiction over all the channels,” Bhanbhani said, adding that this however did not happen.

On the channels moving out of the NBDA, which was created more to self-regulate them, to avoid scrutiny by the body, she said: “Now what happened is that NBF [National Broadcasters Federation] was formed by Republic TV as it did not want NBSA to be recognised. It also filed an affidavit in ongoing court proceedings in the matter. And the Union of India said we can’t recognise the court and guidelines of NBDA. At that stage, we were on the verge of permission from the court, where we would have the jurisdiction as the Supreme Court had said give us the affidavit and we will strengthen it.”

‘Problem’ is that not all channels are part of us, NBDSA told SC

Bhambhani said NBDSA has also explained its “problem” to the Supreme Court – “ that not everyone is our member. Both Sudarshan and Republic are not.” She added that “a majority of the times, after watching Republic or Sudarshan, the NBDA is blamed without realising that they are no longer our members. That is why we sought that our court be recognised.”

Incidentally, in October 2020, the Bombay high court asked why the Union government could not ratify and enforce the guidelines issued by private bodies such as the NBSA. The court had raised the question when counsel for the NBSA Neela Gokhale had submitted that it had taken action on several complaints received against news channels.

Another senior counsel, Arvind Datar, had pointed out that the NBSA had also imposed Rs 1 lakh maximum fine on some news channels for content that breached its guidelines and that while all other channels had apologised and paid the fine, the Republic TV had refused to do so. Gokhale had added that “the Republic TV then walked out of the National Broadcasters Association (NBA) and formed its own association, the National Broadcasters Federation.”

News18 India Fined Rs 50,000 by Self-Regulatory Body for Platforming ‘Extreme Views’

The NBDSA said that during a debate on hijab, anchor Aman Chopra failed to stop the other panellists from crossing the boundary.

New Delhi: The self-regulatory body for news broadcasters recently fined News18 India Rs 50,000 for the way in which a discussion on the hijab ban in Karnataka was conducted, saying the channel gave panellists a platform to express “extreme views” which could adversely affect communal harmony.

The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA), which is the self-regulatory body for all members of the News Broadcasters & Digital Association, issued the order on October 21 based on a complaint filed by an individual.

The programme against which the complaint was filed was a debate conducted by News18 India – aired on April 6, 2022 – on the controversy that emerged in Karnataka following a ban imposed by the government on wearing hijab in educational institutions. Then Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri had praised a Muslim girl who had responded to a group of boys heckling her with “Allahu Akbar”.

During the broadcast, the anchor Aman Chopra referred to the Muslim students as “hijabi gang”, “Hijabwali Gazwa Gang” and made a false allegations that they had resorted to rioting, the complaint said. He also claimed that Zawahiri and terrorist organisations were behind the hijab row in India. One panellists accused another panellist of being a supporter of terrorist groups, the complaint said.

Also Read: As TV Anchors Use Mob Attacks on Sadhus to Fuel Anti-Muslim Hate, Real Dangers Ignored

The NBDSA said that the channel was free to choose the topic of discussion “as it comes within the freedom of expression of the broadcaster” but said it is primarily concerned with the fact as to whether the broadcaster and anchor adhered to the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards during the show.

“It is reiterated that NBDSA did not have any issue with the subject of the debate. However, on examination of the matter, it found that the problem lay with the narrative and the tilt that was given to the programme,” the order, signed by NBDSA chairperson and former Supreme Court judge A.K. Sikri says.

The body said that it did not find merit in the broadcaster’s submission that the terms “Hijabi Gang”, “Hijabwali Gazwa Gang” and “the Zawahiri gang” were used only in respect of the “invisible powers which were allegedly behind the controversy” and not in respect of the students who were protesting.

Muslim women in hijab participate in a candle light march during a protest rally over the ‘hijab’ ban in Karnataka, in Kolkata, February 11, 2022. Photo: PTI Photo/Swapan Mahapatra

It also “strongly deprecated” the tendency of the broadcaster to associate those panellists who were in favour of the hijab with Zawahiri and labelling them as “Zawahiri gang member”, “Zawahiri’s ambassador”,”Zawahiri is your God, you are his fan”, etc. The NBDSA said it also did not find any justification in linking those panellists or persons who were supporting the hijab with Al-Qaeda by airing tickers stating “#AlQaedaGangExposed”.

The order says that the anchor had not only acted in flagrant disrespect of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards but had also failed to abide by the decision of the Bombay high court in Nilesh Navalakha vs Union of India (2021), which enjoins an anchor to apply their mind to prevent the programme from drifting beyond the permissible limits.

NBDSA noted that even the Supreme Court has recently stressed on the role of the anchor to maintain a balance between the panellists and the crucial role they play in stopping hate speech. “However, in the instant case, not only had the anchor failed to stop the other panellists from crossing the boundary but had given them a platform to express extreme views which could adversely affect the communal harmony in the country,” the order says.

It said the programme violated the principles relating to impartiality, neutrality, fairness and good taste & decency under the Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage, apart from the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards. “NBDSA stated that the broadcaster would be well advised to guide and train its anchor on how to conduct debates on such sensitive issues,” the order notes.

Keeping in mind the “repetitive nature of the above violations”, the NBDSA decided to impose a fine of Rs 50,000 on the broadcaster and admonished the broadcaster. It said if such violations are repeated in future, it may have to direct the broadcaster to ensure the presence of the anchor Aman Chopra before it. The body also directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the programme from its website and all platforms within seven days of the order.

Also Read: SC’s Words on TV ‘Hate Speech’ Strike Several Chords, But Will Govt and News Anchors Listen?

Two other orders issued

The NBDSA also issued two other orders related to News18 India on the same day, one relating to a programme on “bulldozer justice” aired on April 20, 2022 and another in which the complaint said the channel created a false narrative around the demolition of a temple in Rajasthan’s Alwar, aired on April 22, 2022.

About the demolition of alleged illegal constructions, the NBDSA “strongly deprecated the tendency of the broadcaster to generalise sensitive issues” and the use of offending tickers like “Jihadi”, which it said was totally unnecessary. “Had the debate confined to the menace of illegal constructions and the steps that are required to contain such illegal constructions, there could not have been any problem. However, the narrative of the programme gave an altogether different tilt and in the process violated the guidelines prescribed in the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards which was impermissible,” the order says, asking the broadcaster to take down this video also.

On the programme about the temple in Alwar, the self-regulatory body deferred its decision after the channel informed it that several FIRs were registered in respect of the programme and its anchor and that the matter is currently being investigated by Rajasthan Police and is also sub-judice before the Jaipur and Jodhpur benches of the Rajasthan high court.

Watch | ‘Why is Govt a Mute Spectator?’: SC on Indian Media’s ‘Hate for Profit’ Model

How did television news come from ‘boring yet informative’ Doordarshan to ‘entertaining and agenda driven’ Sudarshan News?

While hearing a batch of eleven writ petitions seeking directions to the Union government to regulate hate speech, a bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy made some critical oral observations regarding television news channels. It said the government has remained a mute spectator to instances of hate speech on television.

What else did the court say?

How did television news come from ‘boring yet informative’ Doordarshan to ‘entertaining and agenda driven’ Sudarshan News?

That and a lot more on hate speech in this video.

‘Chronology Samajhiye,’ to Know the Modi Govt’s Stand on TV Slanging Matches

Hearing Union I&B minister Anurag Thakur admonish news channels for ‘inviting guests who are polarising, who spread false narratives and who shout at the top of their lungs,’ was ironic, because the current regime had discreetly signalled ‘friendly’ media to spread toxicity.

Chronology – the word imparted new meaning by Union home minister Amit Shah while detailing progression from the Citizenship Amendment Bill to the National Register of Citizens in April 2019 – must be factored in when assessing the Supreme Court’s recent direction to the Union Government to “indicate its stand” on “recommendations made by the Law Commission of India” regarding amendments in laws to deal with hate crimes.

The formal directive came during the hearing last week, when the apex court expressed anguish and concern over hate speech being used as a tool by news channels for increasing viewership. These media outlets were fittingly termed the “chief medium of hate speech” by Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy.

Except for a handful, news channels attempt to outdo rivals in whipping up hatred against the target ‘selected’ for the day by an invisible conductor. But, it is also necessary to recognise news channels as amplifiers of the vituperative narrative, produced and spread over social media every day in an organised manner to further the regime’s political narrative.

Also read: SC’s Words on TV ‘Hate Speech’ Strike Several Chords, But Will Govt and News Anchors Listen?

The interim order was issued when the court was addressing the “phenomenon of hate speech and the inadequacies of the current law in preventing it in a meaningful way”.

The judges chastised channels for allowing hate-mongering individuals from political groups adequate airtime in the hope of driving up profits and TRPs.

But more importantly, the court asked the Union government why it is “standing by as a mute witness when all this is happening” and treating it as “a trivial matter”.

This is where chronology is important, for Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Thakur would dispute the court and argue that the government preceded the court in criticising news channels. His ministry would cite Thakur’s speech at the 47th annual gathering of Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development, delivered two days prior to the court hearing the clutch of 11 writ petitions seeking directions to regulate hate speech.

Yet, hearing Thakur admonish news channels for “inviting guests who are polarising, who spread false narratives and who shout at the top of their lungs,” was ironic, because the current regime had discreetly signalled ‘friendly’ media to spread toxicity through its staple of vitriolic discussion programmes, more shouting matches than rational conversations, in which its representatives begin with the knowledge that the ‘referee’ is on their side.

Thakur’s public speech was not the first time that the government changed tack on spiteful content.

In July, the minister, feeling the international heat on account of the Nupur Sharma episode, left leading anchors and editors of news channels perplexed by asking them to dial down debates with the potential to incite religious polarisation. They had previously presumed that such coverage had this regime’s blessings. Furthermore, ‘suggestions’ often emanated from social media teams of the ruling party and officials in the government.

Also read: Backstory: The Toxic News Studio Enables Hate-Mongers Like Nupur Sharma

Neutralising the media was among the Modi regime’s priorities from 2014.

With rising corporate ownership of the media, this period witnessed many in the news industry repeating the Emergency act of predecessors, famously dubbed by L.K. Advani as “crawling, when asked to bend”.

The Supreme Court, whose judges are possibly among demographic groups consuming these debates, rightly stepped in and clubbed various petitions as part of the current Chief Justice of India’s efforts at streamlining. This ensured that a host of issues related to hate speech was examined systematically. The court asking the Centre to respond to the Law Commission’s viewpoint that “new provisions in IPC are required to be incorporated” to put an end to hate speech, is welcome.

Justice Joseph specifically called for an “institutional mechanism” to deal with hate speech. He suggested a set of rules on the lines of Vishaka Guidelines, the norm till they were superseded in 2013 by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act.

The court unambiguously indicated its disinclination to wait while the Union government dragged its feet and said that these guidelines could be in place till changes are made in law. One hopes for the Court’s definitiveness to be retained when the case is next heard in November.

Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is an NCR-based journalist and author of The Demolition and the Verdict: Ayodhya and the Project to Reconfigure India, The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right and Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin.

This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

SC’s Words on TV ‘Hate Speech’ Strike Several Chords, But Will Govt and News Anchors Listen?

In clearly enunciating the relation between hate speech and profits, the honourable court has revealed the very heart of the systemic arrangements that now characterise the state and its predilections.

The honourable Supreme Court has struck a blow for the citizen beleaguered by the hate-driven instrumentalities dished out by tutored anchors on captive media debates (sic) night after shrieking night.

Mincing no words, the court has dubbed the “visual media” as “the chief medium of hate speech.”

The honourable Justices have gone on to draw that telling linkage of “hate speech” on these so-called debates with the controlling commercial mechanisms which propel the visual media: it has said that “hate speech drives TRPs, drives profits.”

The court has noted how charged anchors carry out hate speech by “ridiculing a community” and how targeted members are allowed only truncated “short answers” while the anchors go on lambasting them for ever.

And, most to the purpose, the Justices have wondered why “the government stands by like a mute witness while these things are going on.” Letting it be known that it contemplates putting in place “guidelines” of the kind that obtain in the Vishaka case bearing on “sexual harassment at the work place”– guidelines which “will hold the field” till the government comes up with a suitable law.

Fair-minded citizens who look to debates on visual media for considered and impartial analyses of events and policies will not but welcome this intervention by the top court in response to a clutch of petitions on the matter.

One of the most horrific experiences of recent years has been to be at the helpless receiving end (unless of course one simply switches off, since one or two channels that seemed to offer civilised alternatives also now seem to have been captured, partially or fully) of energetic young anchors who spew invective and distribute space among invitees along what seem blatantly programmed lines.

But, here is the meat of the matter: “Why does the government stand by like a mute witness while all these things are going on?”

It is not to be thought that the honourable Justices would here proffer the all-too-obvious answer: mute because programming on captive media are now an integral part and instrument of sections of society who patronise the government and who, in turn, receive what bounties it can bestow.

Be it in matters economic or social/cultural, “hate speech” driven prime time jamborees contribute massively to creating the aura and the miasma that the ruling right-wing wishes to perpetrate as propagandist tools to snuff out the hard realities of ordinary life, and its failure to redress them.

Also read: Backstory: The Toxic News Studio Enables Hate-Mongers Like Nupur Sharma

The right-wing that enjoys the colossal benefits of the shady electoral bond scheme of funding understands all too well that such funding is integrally linked to a form of majoritarian nationalism which can be sustained to great political effect by giving this concatenation a daily audience on the visual media.

The powers-that-be know that newspapers etc. are there as well, but who reads them. And sometimes, wretchedly, they do err on the side of probity and fairness too.

In, therefore, clearly enunciating the relation between hate speech and profits, the honourable court has sounded the very heart of the systemic arrangements that now characterise the state and its predilections.

It will now be of interest to see how the government of the day responds to the court’s proposed laying of guidelines and the call for a law to deter hate speech on the visual media.

In the meantime, it is to be much hoped that the young anchors who, after all, are no autonomous agents but deliverers of preconceived agendas, will, nonetheless, draw some caution from what the top court has said, and, at the least, learn somewhat to ameliorate the angry partisanship that they are charged to render.

Of course, doing so they can run the risk of losing their jobs, but, in so doing, gain the respect of the citizen.

Badri Raina taught at Delhi University.

SC Says Regulatory Mechanism Needed to Curb Hate Speech on TV, Social Media

“Where is our nation headed? If it is hate speech on which we are feeding on, where is our nation headed?” asked Justice K.M. Joseph.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed deep concerns at hate speech on television and social media going unregulated, saying it poisons the fabric of the country and cannot be allowed to go on.

Hearing a batch of eleven petitions seeking directions, Supreme Court Justice K.M. Joseph made several oral observations. “Where is our nation headed?” he asked, making the case for a firm regulatory mechanism against hate speech. He also slammed the Government of India, asking, “Why it is standing as a mute witness when all this is happening?”

The bench also comprised Justice Hrishikesh Roy. According to LiveLaw, the batch of petitions included challenges to the infamous “UPSC Jihad” show aired by Sudarshan News TV, speeches made by hard-right Hindutva leaders at the Haridwar Dharma Sansad, and regulating social media messages that communalised the spread of COVID-19 in India.

When Justice Joseph asked what the provisions of the law related to hate speech in India were, he was informed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, one of the petitioners, that “hate speech” and “rumour mongering” are not defined under any law.

Justice Joseph asked the Government of India regarding its response and why it was “remaining a mute witness”. He suggested that the government should come forward to put in place an institution which will be abided by all, according to LiveLaw.

Role of anchors important

Justice Joseph said during the hearing that hate speeches are either made on mainstream television channels or on social media. “Social media is largely unregulated….As far as mainstream television channel is concerned, we still hold sway, there the role of [the] anchor is very critical because the moment you see somebody going into hate speech, it’s the duty of the anchor to immediately see that he doesn’t allow that person to say anything further. Unfortunately, many a time somebody wants to say something he is muted, [the] person is not given proper time, he is not even treated courteously,” he said, according to LiveLaw.

Visual media has got a “devastating” effect and nobody cares what is written in newspapers as people are bereft of time to read, the court added.

“Visual media has got the power which has been recognised right from cases relating to censorship. The difference between visual media and print media is so clear. It (visual media) has got a devastating effect,” the bench observed.

“Hate speech is layered… Like killing someone, you can do it in multiple ways, slowly or otherwise. They keep us hooked based on certain convictions,” the court said, expanding on why hate speech interests viewers, according to NDTV.

He said while the freedom of the press is important, “you should also know where to draw the line”.

Justice Joseph added, according to LiveLaw, “We should have a proper legal framework. Unless we have a framework, people will continue and the most important point is, where is our nation headed? If it is hate speech on which we are feeding on, where is our nation headed?”

The judge also made the case for a regulatory mechanism for TV channels.

According to the news agency PTI, the bench posted the cases for disposal on November 23. The court also appointed senior advocate Sanjay Hegde as amicus curiae and asked him to collate the responses of the states on the batch of petitions.