(These remarks were delivered as a Keynote Address at UNESCO, India to observe World Press Freedom Day.)This is a topic which is very close to my heart: "Let Journalism Thrive -Television and Media Freedom."
In India, specifically, I will applaud the fact that we have come a long way. In 1992, when I entered television journalism, private or independent broadcasters were not allowed.The only agency which was considered 'safe' or competent to provide news on such a powerful medium was state broadcaster, Doordarshan, at that time often referred to as "His Master's Voice" i.e. whatever the government of the day wanted to tell you - so the Information and Broadcasting Minister probably got the most time on bulletins after the Prime Minister.
In fact the only news then a private production house like NDTV was allowed to touch was international news because then there was no danger of being "anti-national". Even then, we pushed the boundaries. I remember reporting from Kashmir in 1992 for The World This Week, as a debate on it was coming up in the United Nations. When I came back, my boss, Prannoy Roy, had to fight with Doordarshan news editors to insist there was absolutely nothing anti-national in the report, because that really was the fear. Letting independent broadcasters in would open a Pandora's Box, and the outcome could only be bad.
Yet, things progressed fast from there. From a news bulletin every night for half an hour which could never be done LIVE, to clearance for a 24-hour news channel, to the present where there are currently over 750 private satellite television stations in India plus around 30 Government channels. So,in India at least, television and journalistic freedom seems to be thriving.
However, let's look at this phenomenon more closely. Does proliferation mean freedom? Also, how is that freedom actually being used? Interestingly, India is ranked no. 136 in the world press freedom index out of 180 countries. To put that in context, we are just below Chad; Ukraine is at 129; and even Afghanistan is at 122, so it doesn't seem like there's much to celebrate here. I personally would find this ranking incorrect, but here's their reason: "India, the world's largest democracy, achieved another peaceful transfer of power through elections in 2014, yet its press freedom score declined to its lowest level in over a decade due to an increase in the use of defamation cases against journalists and a higher level of self-censorship caused by editorial interference from media owners in the lead-up to the elections."
This, I think is an extremely worrying trend - are we being diverted by the volume of television journalism to say all is well? Are we ignoring the challenge to the substance of what we are saying, are there no-go areas, self-imposed censorship NOT because of fear of life, but fear of livelihood? This is a very real threat. The only source television channels have to generate income is ad revenue, so if you don't like what a channel is saying, call the marketing head and threaten to cut advertising. This can range from governments to corporates. If revenues get squeezed, jobs get lost, and with less money available, organisations also cut back on field reporting. This, too, is a real challenge to the freedom of the press because if you don't travel far from the capital of India, the view you present is then one-sided, dominated by a certain perspective. So, sadly, yes, a farmer has to travel to Jantar Mantar to commit suicide to get his voice heard.
Freedom to tell a story is very different from freedom to choose the story you are telling. This is a battle being fought in many newsrooms around the country and unless there is a concerted fight back, the accusations of paid media will stick. Television cannot be cheerleaders for one side vs the other. The moment that happens, we actually lose the battle for credibility and whether it's self-imposed or from outside, the freedom to tell the truth is a right which once gone can never be recovered.
Moving to attacks on the media, physical threats have reduced but journalism is still a high-risk job in many parts of the country. The nature of threats differ. In the crudest form you have actual violence - now these are often groups loyal to a particular ideology, so broadcast something against, say, a particular regional party, and goons will land up to smash the office. There's also a state shutdown when a state government just takes a channel off air as happened recently in Telangana - the reason was 'mocking the assembly'; and of course, there are the so-called defenders of a faith who will land up to disrupt shows if a guest is not to their liking.
A more sophisticated form of violence is creating an atmosphere against the media - the use of words like "newstraders", "presstitutes". The asking for a public trial of media by senior politicians of all parties is a language of intimidation, which we must speak out against in the strongest possible terms. Ironically, opposition politicians love the media when they aren't in power; in government, they become exactly like their predecessors in keeping the media out.
Today,in the world's largest democracy, the press is as much an institution of fair and good governance as our legislature or judiciary.The relationship may seem naturally adversarial but we must believe that ultimately we are working together to better the society we live in. In a joint message, the UN Secretary-General, the Director-General of UNESCO and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that quality journalism "enables citizens to make informed decisions about their society's development" while also working "to expose injustice, corruption, and the abuse of power." That is hopefully the bedrock of good governance.
In conclusion, let me leave you with this quote by Albert Camus, journalist and philospher. "A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad."
(Sonia Singh is NDTV's Editorial Director)