Across the board, journalists and editors have opposed the oneday ban on NDTV India and News Time Assam, declaring it authoritarian overreach by the government.This is the first time a news channel has been barred for reasons of national security.
This expression of solidarity follows the strong statements last week from the Editors Guild of India, the Broadcast Editors Association and the News Broadcasters Association.
On November 2, the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry had directed NDTV India and News Time Assam to shut down their broadcast for a day from November 9. The charge against NDTV was that its coverage of the Pathankot terror attack revealed information about the ammunition stockpiled in the airbase, details of the planes like MiGs, fighter planes, rocket launchers, mortars, helicopters, fuel tanks and other details, which could have been used by the terrorists or their handlers to cause massive harm.
In response, NDTV issued a statement expressing shock at being singled out.“Every channel and news paper had similar coverage.In fact NDTV's coverage was particularly balanced. After the dark days of the Emergency when the press was fettered, it is extraordinary that NDTV is being proceeded against in this manner.NDTV is examining all options in this matter.“
The government's move has been criticised by editors from print, TV and digital media. Editorials pointed out that NDTV had not divulged operational details that were not already known. They questioned this blanket ban, this attack on free expression by a sweeping invocation of national security .
“It's inherently wrong and dangerous for a government committee to have the power to take a TV channel off air,“ said Business Standard chairman and business director T N Ninan.
“We need to take a relook at Sec 20 of the Cable Act.The power to regulate and penalise a TV network should rest with an independent body , not the government,“ said Mukund Padmanabhan, The Hindu editor.
India Today consulting editor Rajdeep Sardesai called it a case of government overreach and arbitrariness. “In this case, both the complainant and the adjudicator are the government,“ he said.
The government had used Rule 6(1)(p) of the Ca ble TV Network Regulation Act, which prohibits any programme that contains live coverage of any anti-terrorist operation by security forces. The programme code was amended in June last year to add the controversial new section.
Madhu Trehan, editor of Newslaundry, said that the government's new move to ban other channels to appear that they are not targeting NDTV alone, gives the media even more reason to protest. “They could have levied a heavy fine and warning. But taking anyone off the air shows that they have gotten carried away with their power,“ she said.
Demanding a withdrawal of the ban, the Editors Guild called it “a direct violation of the freedom of the media and therefore the citizens of India, and amounts to harsh censorship imposed by the government reminiscent of the Emergency“. It added that “this first-of-its-kind order to impose a blackout has seen the central government entrust itself with the power to intervene in the functioning of the media and take arbitrary punitive action as and when it does not agree with the coverage.“
“The time has come to not just question the relevance of the programme code for broadcasters, but also to uproot this provision of banning altogether.We must ensure that reasonable restrictions are strictly within the confines of Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression),“ said Malayala Manorama resident editor and former secretary-general of the Editors Guild, Sachidananda Murthy.
The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) said that the government should have seen the violation from the “prism of freedom of the media, which is guaranteed in the Constitution and not gone strictly by the regulations under the Cable Act. It would have been appropriate, if the I&B ministry had referred the alleged violations by NDTV India to the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), the independent self-regulatory body of the NBA.“
Peer review and regulation is the right approach, said Sardesai. “I am not saying that it is perfect, but if the government was concerned about violations, they could have handed the case to the news broadcasters' redressal forum,“ he said. Editors also expressed concern at the government's heavy-handed approach on the media. “We are told that this government will never repeat the Emergency . Yes, they won't repeat it, but they will reinvent it,“ said Trehan.
In a demonstration of support, the Press Club of India, along with editors guild and other press bodies, has planned a protest march on November 7.
The government, meanwhile, continued to defend its decision. Union minister for information & broadcasting Venkaiah Naidu tweeted on Sunday: “Journalists are also citizens, should remember freedom of expression is best utilised only when the value of such freedom is fully appreciated. Information with confirmation is great ammunition and credibility is very important. When this freedom is not exercised judiciously, our existing laws provide for necessary interventions. News should be news, views should be separate.“
“Media should avoid sensationalism as well as obscenity, vulgarity, violence should be reduced while terrorism, extremism and anti-social activities should not be highlighted in media as if they are heroic acts,“ added Naidu.
Times View
The media is supposed to be one of the pillars of a democracy. It obviously cannot play that role if the government of the day can simply shut it down whenever it chooses to. Hence, the recent orders by an inter-ministerial committee asking NDTV India and an Assam-based channel to be kept off air for a day each need to be strongly condemned and fought by all who believe in democracy.The government will argue that the bans are only temporary, indeed token, and that the channels concerned have brought these upon themselves by stepping out of line, allegedly endangering national security in one case and violating the privacy of a minor in the other. This is a specious argument. The issue is not how long the bans are for or even whether or not norms have been violated.The crux of the issue is that it is not for a government to decide what the penalty will be. And shutting down even for a day should not be the penalty anyway. Once we accept that governments can punish media outlets by shutting them down, even if only temporarily, how do we ensure that they won't use this power to silence critics? Any regulator of media has to be totally independent of the government. And violations of the sort being alleged should at best invite stiff fines, not shutdowns. There has been much talk of never allowing another Emergency; let's not embark on a path that could lead to the muzzling of a free press.
Latest News से जुड़े हर ताज़ा अपडेट पाने के लिए Khabar Of Delhi के फ़ेसबुक पेज को लाइक करें,“
