Every media organization should introspect on what the Supreme Court has said about the press.

The Supreme Court has termed hate speech as a “big threat” while lamenting the lack of regulatory control over TV news content. If seen, the kind of content that the channels are serving in the TRP competition has also created big controversies in the society in recent times. But the difficulty for the government is that as soon as it issues suggestions or instructions to the media, it is accused of obstructing the freedom of the media. In such a situation, the court itself will have to take some steps for ‘free and balanced press’.

The big point that the apex court has made in this case is that if a TV news anchor becomes part of the problem of propagating hate speech, then why can’t he be removed from the broadcast? This is a question on which every media organization should think. If any news presenter becomes a weapon of political parties or runs their agenda, then it becomes the responsibility of that institution to stop such activities in the interest of the nation. The Court rightly observed, “In a program telecast live, the key to the fairness of the program rests with the anchor. If the anchor is not fair, he will not allow counter-votes by muting the speaker or asking questions from the other side. This Symbol of prejudice.” The court said, “How many times has action been taken against the anchor? Media people should realize that they are in positions of great power and have influence over the society. They cannot be part of the problem.” Justice Joseph said if action is taken against the news anchor or his management, all will fall in line.

Also prominent among the questions raised by the court is that unlike print media, there is no Press Council of India for news channels. If seen, the government should also pay attention to this. For digital media, the government has recently made a policy and brought it under strict regulation and action has also been taken against websites and YouTube channels that run fake news continuously, which is welcome. But the question arises that why the government is often seen avoiding action on TV news channels?

The court has also raised questions on the media trial. A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagaratna, which was hearing a batch of petitions seeking action to curb hate speech incidents across the country, has observed that a woman co-passenger was allegedly urinated on by a man in an Air India flight. “She was named. Media people should understand that the investigation is still going on against her and she should not be defamed. Everyone has dignity,” he said, pointing to the recent incident of being accused. Apart from this, many such incidents have also come to the fore when after an incident, the concerned parties are made to sit in the TV studio for debate, which affects the investigation and puts unnecessary pressure on the police and the administration.

However, the image of the media should be that of an unbiased institution. It is unfortunate that today the image of every media organization has become such that on hearing its name, people tell that it works as a mouthpiece of a party. It is up to the media to change this image. It is time for introspection because the responsibility of maintaining peace in the society is not only of the government but of every citizen. When media is called the fourth pillar of democracy, then it has to discharge its responsibility well.

– Gautam Morarka