MEDIA & PRESS LAWS

Press Laws are the laws concerning the licensing of books and the liberty of expression in all products of the printing-press, especially newspapers. The liberty of the press has always been regarded by political writers as of supreme importance.

Before the invention of printing, the Church assumed the right to control the expression of all opinion distasteful to her. When the printing press was invented, German printers established themselves at various important centres of Western Europe, where already numbers of copyists were employed in multiplying manuscripts. In 1473 Louis XI granted letters patent giving the right of printing and selling books to Uldaric Quring Ulrich Gering, who three years earlier had set up a press in the Sorbonne the theological faculty of the university at Paris, and before long Paris had more than fifty presses at work. The Church and universities soon found the output of books beyond their control. In 1496 Pope Alexander VI began to be restrictive, and in 1501 he issued a bull against unlicensed printing, which introduced the principle of censorship. Between 1524 and 1548 the Imperial Diet in Germany drew up various stringent regulations; and in France, prohibited by edict, under penalty of death, the printing of books, This was too severe, however, and shortly afterwards the Sorbonne was given the right of deciding, a system which lasted to the Revolution.

Press, Law, Society & Democracy 

Legislation in the shape of laws and acts, etc, is a convenient way of controlling the mass media. Many countries have tried this method since a long time now. Other means of suppressing media freedom are oppressive measures like raids, seizures, arrests, fines, etc. only few countries like the USA have ensured freedom of media in a direct manner. Most countries, like in India, have some indirect measures. Almost all countries have provisions that impose restrictions in a reasonable manner. In India, much legislation has been enacted in this direction. Most governments feel that they have the right to enact such Acts and Laws with a view towards restricting the freedom of expression in the interest if the state, with regard to friendly relations with foreign states, with regard to public order, with regard to decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement of an offence

2.1. Constitutional Safeguards to Freedom of Press

 The struggle from the very beginning was to win legitimacy for the right of free expression. But when the printing press offered opportunities to increase the reach and durability of the message, governments immediately saw a great threat to their power. They began placing restrictions on the ownership of printing units, and insisting on pre-censorship, etc. By the 18th century, the battles for the freedom of the press were won in America, Britain and in most of Europe. Generally, whatever restrictions were placed on the press were said to be in the interest of citizens like protection against defamation, slander or libel or the interes ts of the society like banning of obscene literature or material that would produce social conflicts or the interests of the state like prohibiting treasonable writing or disclosure of official secrets of damage to relations with a friendly country, etc. These restrictions were not regarded as assaults on the freedom of the press anywhere, though with regard to sedition and official secrets, a debate is continuing for greater freedom of the press.

Meaning of Freedom 

In our country the concept of freedom of the press evolved over the years as a result of the struggle, first under the British rule against restrictive press laws and after independence against such laws as the Press Objectionable Matter Act, 1951. Both in the United States and India, constitutional provisions do not define freedom of the press. In general press freedom means freedom unless specifically prohibited by law, to gather, print and publish information and to set up technologies in pursuit of such objectives, to claim and gain access to information. This freedom extends to press photographers too. In practice, freedom of the press means freedom of the owner of a newspaper. Journalists enjoy that much freedom as is given to them, by the owner of their newspaper/magazine. Generally, freedom always means freedom from government. But, it is recognized that there are other agencies too that threaten this freedom, for example, militants, language chauvinists and regional pressure groups. Big advertisers sometimes also threaten freedom of the press, as they are an important source of newspaper income. This freedom is also threatened by the newspaper proprietor’s other businesses.

Basis of Democracy

 From the beginning, freedom of the press was sought and obtained on the ground that it was a prerequisite to democracy. Without the medium of the press, people had no means of judging the performance or credentials of aspirants to power in a democracy. Even otherwise, people depend on the press on a daily basis for a variety of needs. It goes without saying that all other freedoms become irrelevant without freedom of the press because denial of this freedom means the strangling of democracy. The press, including individual journalists and media organizations, demand freedom because of the functions they discharge for the benefit of the society. Both society and the state need information on a day-to-day basis. Though governments have their own machinery to gather information, they rely on the media as barometers of public opinion. The public or the citizens depend on the media for fair and impartial information regarding the government’s activities. As watchdogs and neutral observers, the media are in an advantageous position to monitor and disseminate information relating to government activities. In today’s context, freedom of the press is only an extension of the citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression. It is the press, alone which can thwart the attempts of any government to deny this right to the citizen. The government takes daily hundreds of decisions, which affect the citizens directly. It is the press alone which analyses and interprets the consequences of these decisions for the citizens. In every country, its population is dependent on the press and other mass media for information, advice and guidance on a daily basis. Without freedom, they cannot discharge the functions that the society expects from them. Today, the press, the electronic media radio and television wherever they operate privately, has information-gathering networks spread all over the world. They are the eyes and ears of the people everywhere. In addition, they exist solely for the purpose of collecting and disseminating information unlike the government which has more important responsibilities like administration, security of the state, education, health, agriculture, economy, etc. The media, therefore, cannot collect and distribute information unless they enjoy freedom for themselves as institutions, as do individual journalists employed by them. The media accept certain restrictions on these freedoms if they impinge on the freedoms of other individuals, or if they are in the public interests.

Reasonable Restrictions

 In connection with the limitations on the freedom of the press, the very first thing we must remember is that the right of the freedom of the press is only an extension of the citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, all those laws imposing restrictions on this right of the citizen apply to the press too. It has no special privilege that the citizens do not enjoy in this area. Since a company generally brings out a newspaper, one may ask if the rights of the citizens could be extended to the company also. There is some fuzziness about judicial pronouncements on this matter and, therefore, the second press commission recommended that all Indian companies engaged in the business of communication and whose shareholders are citizens of India should be deemed to be Indian citizens for the purpose of the relevant clauses of Article 19. In all western societies and in India, the constitution as well as the general laws of the countries set the limits for the exercise of freedom of the press. Therefore, it goes without saying that with regard to freedom, the press is not on any higher footing than the ordinary citizen, because it is an extension of the individual’s rights. Since the press is also a business and an industry, all those laws, which apply to business and industry, also apply to newspaper organizations. The press cannot plead exemption from laws like the industrial Disputes Act, the Provident Fund Act, the Working Journalists Act and several other laws, which apply to corporate bodies.

2.2. ROLE OF JOURNALISM 

Journalism mainly involves practices of print journalism in general, and newspaper in particular, because newspaper journalism remains a good grounding career in television, radio, magazine and online journalism. The role of press is to be a watchdog and act as a catalytic agent to hasten the process of socially and economic change in the society. Journalism is the voice of the people about corruption, the government, and the use and misuse of power. It should be noted that Journalism too is part of the political process, craves for power, is made up of people with personal ambitions and aversions, preferences and prejudices. As perhaps the largest advertisers, the government supports and strengthens the press. Both the government and the press represent the ‘power elites’ and therefore reflect their interests. This is why the interests of the poor are rarely on the agenda of public discussions.

The press is so obsessed with politics that even a silly rumor hits the front page. What the Journalism profession urgently needs is creative, investigative and development reporting chiefly on non-political themes like unemployment, malnutrition, exploitation of the poor, miscarriage of justice, police atrocities, development schemes and the like. For example, in India, the Bofors pay-offs, the Harshad Mehta securities scam, the ‘hawala’ payments to top politicians etc are all incidents where follow-up investigations are lacking. Such ‘crisis’ reporting sells newspapers but does little to bring the guilty to book or to educate the public about the context of corruption. 

Credibility

         is indeed the very life-blood of the press, no matter which government is in power. Journalism is an awesome responsibility, which rests on the shoulders of journalists because in the final analysis they are the custodians of the freedom of press. If they prefer careerism to standing up for their rights, they are letting down their profession. Unfortunately, journalists are inclined to accept many favors from government and therefore, their news stories will ultimately favor that particular government. 

New paradigm features

  Journalism, have a role in society to link the individual to the world. The journalists need to give the audience a sense of what it is to be in the place they are reporting and connected to the world. 

 Our audience is diverse and complex. So there needs to be a consciousness of diversity: not just in terms of race and gender but also class, rural/urban and youth/aged.

  Journalism must emphasize context; interpretation; research; investigation; complete reporting and analysis.

  The journalists must foreground the storyteller the individual and the media organization. 

 They should respect the audiences and engage in dialogue.

  In our use of sources the journalists should move beyond “the authorities”. Audiences are also sources. They must remember to foreground and situate who the sources are. 

 Ownership: symbolically the audience needs to feel they “own” the medium.

 Ownership: economic -this needs to be diverse and needs participation by all stakeholders in media.

 Control and structures within media organizations – there should be respect for storytellers and storytelling and these should be given status and compensation. 

Role of Journalism in society 

Journalism's role is to act as a mediator or translator between the public and policymaking elites. The journalist became the middleman. When elites spoke, journalists listened and recorded the information, distilled it, and passed it on to the public for their consumption. The reasoning behind this function is that the public is not in a position to deconstruct a growing and complex flurry of information present in modern society, and so an intermediary is needed to filter news for the masses. Lippman put it this way: The public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues. Furthermore, the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy. Therefore the public needed someone to interpret the decisions or concerns of the elite to make the information plain and simple. That was the role of journalists. Public affects the decision making of the elite with their vote. In the meantime, the elite i.e. politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, scientists, etc. would keep the business of power running. The journalist's role is to inform the public of what the elites were doing. It was also to act as a watchdog over the elites as the public had the final say with their votes. On the other hand, it is believed the public was not only capable of understanding the issues created or responded to by the elite; it was in the public forum that decisions should be made after discussion and debate. When issues were thoroughly vetted, then the best ideas would bubble to the surface. Thus, journalists not only have to inform the public, but should report on issues differently than simply passing on information. Journalists should take in the information, and then weigh the consequences of the policies being enacted by the elites on the public. Over time, this function of journalism has been implemented in various degrees, and is more commonly known as "community journalism." This concept of ‘Community Journalism’ is at the center of new developments in journalism. Journalists are able to engage citizens and the experts/elites in the proposition and generation of content. The shared knowledge of many is far superior to a single individual's knowledge and conversation, debate, and dialogue lie at the heart of a democracy.

2.3. The Power of Press 

The ‘power’ of the press to bring about social and political change or economical development is extremely limited.

 In capitalist societies, the press is primarily like any other business or industry. It exists to raise advertising revenue and circulation with the aim of making profits. ‘Public service’ and ‘public interest’ are not the main concerns. This is not to suggest that the press does not make attempts to exercise its ‘power’ in favor of on political or economic ideology over another or of one group or class or caste over another. These attempts, it must be acknowledged, are sometimes successful and at other times disastrous failures. At most times, however, the attempts are not paid much heed to, unless it affects some group’s interests on a radical manner. In the ultimate analysis, the ‘power’ of the press depends on its credibility among readers, as well as on how the news reported is understood and interpreted. Different groups ‘read’ the same news item in varied ways depending on their social background. How news is read is not entirely in the hands of journalists. Indeed, the press often succeeds only in reinforcing widely held beliefs and the status quo rather than bringing about change and development. There is no doubt that the press keeps us informed about selected events, issues and people. But the public too has a role in ‘setting the agenda’ of the press. The public has interests, beliefs and expectations that are catered by the press. While the press tells us what to think about, it has little power to change our ideas, beliefs and attitudes even when it attempts to do so. Only when there is a general consensus on an issue among all the elements of the press and the other media, and this consensus fits in with a community’s needs, is there is some likelihood of a change being affected. Even in this case, several other factors would have to come to play before and real change can be felt. The public attitude to the ‘internal emergency’ imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi in India is a case in point. One could argue, however, that it was not so much the press that brought about the downfall of the government as the people’s hostility to the crackdown on their fundamental rights. The press, after all, was easily silenced during the emergency. In the post-emergency period, the press only reflected the public’s seething anger against the regime. By and large, then the press rarely initiated a change, innovation and development. Because of its dependence on commercial interests and the dominant groups, it is of necessity conservative and status quoits. The widespread support that the antiMandal riots and the ‘liberalization’ policies of the government have received from the ‘national’ and the ‘regional’ press is a reflection of that independence. The current news values of Indian journalist are no different from the news values of their counterparts in the west. These are timeliness, immediacy, proximity, oddity, conflict, mystery, suspense, curiosity, and novelty. The new development journalists, however, challenge these elite and immediacy-oriented values and the man-bites-dog approach to news. They believe that the voice of the silent, suffering majority should be heard through the press. Not politics, business, finance, sports should be the staple of news but rather what is of value in terms of equality, social justice and peace.