I'm Shocked When I See Some Of The Media;They Have Duty To Raise People's Issues : Justice KM Joseph
Former Supreme Court Justice K.M. Joseph (on May 30) observed that if the government has control over the business fate of media companies, the latter will fall in line and surrender their freedom and duty. He referred to an important Supreme Court decision in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Union of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161. Therein, it was held...
Former Supreme Court Justice K.M. Joseph (on May 30) observed that if the government has control over the business fate of media companies, the latter will fall in line and surrender their freedom and duty. He referred to an important Supreme Court decision in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Union of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161. Therein, it was held that the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained.
“Why this is important is because, to know itself is a fundamental right. If you don't know, how will you take part in democracy? You can't take part unless the stream of information coming from media houses is pure i.e., it's unbiased and not done with an agenda to help anyone not to destroy another political party.”
Justice Joseph expressed an alarm that if the media was not acting unbiased and ceased to question the government, then it will have a gross impact on the working of the Constitution because it impacts the electoral system itself.
“Who will question the people governing us if the media does not take up? People say that it is not the role of the media to take up the role of the opposition. I also say that it is not the role of the media to be the opposition. But there is an area where it becomes an interplay in the sense that there are issues which matter to the common man, which the media has to take up as part of its duty to raise. Independent of the opposition, it has the duty to raise.”
He also said that if the media had continuously and collectively covered the ethnic conflicts in Manipur with the same intensity as they did for the recent Porsche car accident case in Pune, outcome would have been much better.
“For eg, if in one voice, if the media had gone non-stop for Manipur, like they did for the recent incident accident that occurred in Pune, perhaps much better things would've happened.”
Justice Joseph was speaking at a National Conference on “Constitution in a Changing India”. This is a three-day conference and today marked the second day of the same. Justice Joseph was invited as a Chief Guest at the conference. Click here to read the previous report.
He linked the right to Freedom of Speech and Expression to the presence of media. Underscoring the importance of visual media and its accessibility in every home, he quoted eminent journalist Palagummi Sainath. Sainath said that Media has become a trillion-dollar industry.
Taking a cue from this, Justice Joseph said that this business consideration has become paramount, and it overshadows journalistic duty.
"Unless and until the stream of information which comes out from the media houses is pure, which means that it is unbiased, that you don't do something with an agenda to help anyone or to destroy another, a political party I intend,...unfortunately, very large sections of the media are doing just that."
“It is the business consideration which has become supreme. They subordinate their journalistic duty to the urge to earn more and more money. TRP….When business houses control media houses, there is a tendency that they will toe a line which will be dictated to them by their editors and ultimately tracing the line of control to the management. The management will have other businesses. The Government of the day is powerful. If the Government has a stranglehold over them in terms of controlling their business fate in regard to their other businesses, the media will fall in line. They will surrender their freedom. They will surrender their duty.”
Talking about the role of an anchor, he expressed his shock at how anchors mute speakers who wish to express their points, violating both the speakers' and the public's rights. The speaker may be voicing concerns on behalf of the public. Reasoning this, he said that the anchor has an agenda and often asks questions influenced by political bias.
“I'm shocked when I watch some of these media but I still watch it with the hope that one day they'll reform. I want a healthy and resilient media. Sometimes, what they (anchor) do is that they mute some of the speakers who wants to arise his point. You are violating the speaker's and the public's right because the point he wishes to put may be he will be speaking for the public, you mute him….The reason is that anchor is having an agenda because he is asking questions on behalf of somebody else. He is having a political bias, therefore, he will follow it up…For some others, it is all ears.”
Lastly, he said that all this has a huge impact on the audience, and although there is a broadcasting authority that occasionally punishes media houses, more stringent measures are needed.
“It is going down to the audience and has a huge impact. There is a broadcasting authority, they occasional do punish the media houses but there should be more to it.”