#dnaEdit: Freedom & control

The Telecom Regulation Authority of India (TRAI)’s Recommendations on issues relating to media ownership sent to government on August 12 is sure to trigger fierce debate among the shareholders as well as stakeholders. The views, counterviews, the criticisms and differences need not be seen in a negative light. The media derives its right to disseminate news and views from the Article 19 which enshrines the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, along with the “reasonable restrictions” that go with it. The debate goes further and deeper when we have to talk about the ways of maintaining a fair level playing field so that plurality and diversity of views is ensured. The initial reaction to the TRAI report reflects the irritation of many over the issue of restrictions on cross-media ownership. But this is only one aspect of the question which is a bigger one of ensuring diversity of opinion: the bedrock of a democracy. But it would not do to dwell merely on  abstractions and generalisations. The devil — as the saying goes — lies in the details.

The report notes the view of the stakeholders who did not feel the need for special rules for media holdings and the parameters prescribed by the Competition Commission and in the Companies Act. The TRAI expressed its view that ownership of media entities is not the same as owning other products, and that it entails functions and responsibilities of its own kind. And the report went on to discuss the distinction between ownership and control, and that majority ownership is different from controlling news. It is an issue that can be debated. Anyone who wants to stay in the business of news, whether it is television or print, cannot survive without credibility. That is why, paid news and private treaties will not boost commercial interests of a media entity beyond a point. The consumer, that is the viewer/reader, will not be shortchanged. That is the crux of a market economy. It does not however mean an absence of ground rules in media.

The TRAI is treading the nebulous ground between media ownership and media content. There is a crucial link between the two but they are not the same. The general rules of content are defined by Article 19 of the Constitution and the “reasonable restrictions” of its sub-clauses. So, TRAI may have to focus on the issue of media ownership, which is indeed the intent of the report. It has to be decided then whether the anti-monopoly rules in existing laws can take care of the problem in the media sector as well. There needs to be an informed debate to clear up much of the confusion. The other major recommendation of the report is that there should be a separate regulatory media authority — for television and print. The counterview is that the media should self-regulate. But at a time when unproven and untested media entities are proliferating, both pushing the envelope as it were and also violating basic norms, there is need for a media standards body. The report suggests that the media regulatory body should comprise mostly of eminent persons from society and they should not be confined to media. There is no need to shy away from a standards body as long as the criteria are worked out in a transparent manner so that governments would not use it to impose indirect censorship through this mechanism.