A magazine I love the most and subscribe to is the Economist. It is a weekly magazine, based in the US. However it consists of interesting and intriguing news articles that cover a wide range of issues from around the world. The writers of Economist have a unique of way of telling stories. The magazine has a wide network of writers from various parts of the globe. They strive to create informative articles and sensitive content regarding the most important and current issues of social, economic and political importance. Their information is supremely insightful and they also have strong opinions on finance, science and technology. I enjoy reading the magazine wherever I am. Be it at home, college or even while travelling. The news articles are always relevant and moving to say the least. Hence I eagerly look forward to each copy and I cannot wait to get my hands on the next one as soon as I am done reading one issue. The Economist never delivers out dated information or half researched stories. And this is what i love the most about it. One can see that each news article has been worked on meticulously and with utmost care. The facts are always correct and they never resort to reporting false information. It is clear that their stories are legitimate. Moreover, it contains information which I enjoy imbibing. However, It is not an easy-read. Initially I was skeptical about subscribing to it as it is an intimidating magazine to read and understand. Therefore, it isn’t the best magazine to read at leisure. Some amount of thought needs to go into reading and understanding the articles. The best part is that I learn a lot of English through subscribing to and reading the Economist diligently. As far as I am concerned it makes more sense for me to read magazines such as the Economist, given the sad state of affairs in the present scenario of the world, but at times everyone needs a small dose of entertainment. I never fail to learn something new and important. It is a good magazine in the sense that it is intellectually challenging.
PAGE 3
Q1. Is Page 3 news needed? Is possible to distinguish it from “actual” news?
A1. Page 3 news is any news regarding India’s partying culture, usually the upper class or high society. Such news is given on the 3rd page of India’s daily newspaper supplements. The content is usually about cocktail parties, gossip of the glitterati. Page 3 has colourful photo coverage of celebrities including fashion designers, bollywood actors, socialites, etc. For some Page 3 news is a must-read every morning and for others it is just plain rubbish! Many readers are of the opinion that we must have more meaningful content than just news about local celebrities partying. However, i feel people need Page 3 news and a large population actually reads it. It is socially relevant. People look at Page 3 news and aspire to be a part of it. People want to be seen and become famous. If it is there in the first place, that is because a large part of society wants it. Page 3 is an important page for celebrities, designers, film makers and so on as it helps in reaching out to the masses and even make better contacts, which might lead to greater opportunities. One the other hand, it might dramatize the lifestyle of the high society but i feel there is a purpose for it and that it is needed.
It is possible to distinguish Page 3 news from “actual” news. It is called Page 3 news only because this content is published only on the third page of the newspaper supplements with vibrant pictures. Apart from this, it is common sense to be able to make out the difference between “actual” news and entertainment.
Q2. What is your opinion about politicians owning TV channels and Newspapers?
A2. I feel politicians should not be allowed to own TV channels or Newspapers. It just defeats the purpose of getting the public aware about the true state of affairs in our country. By the virtue of a politician owning a TV channel or a Newspaper, it is obvious that there will be a lot of political influence on what is showed and written. Journalists will be restricted in many ways. They will not be able to voice their opinions and let the public know about what is happening. Instead, the public will be fooled into believing the false stories as journalists will be pressurized to portray only a good image of the owner; Politician. Some examples –
a) Jaya TV is owned by Jayalalithaa, the AIADMK chief.
b) DMK chief Karunanidhi’s nephew Kalanithi Maran controls Sun TV.
c) Rajendra Dadra, the Minister of School Education of Maharashtra and his brother Vijay Dadra, a Rajya Sabha member, both of Congress, control Lokmat which is the largest selling Marathi newspaper in Maharashtra.
I feel Indian journalism is under immense political control which is deteriorating the quality and trust worthiness of the news published in our country. Hence, politicians should not be allowed to own TV channels or newspapers.
Q3. Does the role of the “editor” foray into that of being a “marketing executive” Is it even possible for them to be exclusive in the present scenario?
A3. The role of the “editor” does not foray into that of being a “marketing executive.” The editor has the daily responsibility of deciding which news stories are printed in the paper. Long before the paper is published, he/she assigns reporters to cover the news, checks for accuracy and fairness in the newspapers. It is not their job to do the work of a marketing executive. Where as Marketing executives work closely with other employees such as advertising, market research, production, sales and distribution staff. They are responsible for: analysing and investigating price, demand and competition. devising and presenting ideas and strategies. Even though they must work together for the newspaper to grow, an editor must not assume the role of a marketing executive. This is because the editor may have vested interests and with the given power, he may misuse his position for personal gains.
Q4. You saw examples of individuals fighting against the system. Do you think there is a possibility of them succeeding in their endeavours? comment.
A4. We specifically saw a journalist from Dainik Jagran newspaper who was given fixed targets for arranging money through paid news and advertisements, otherwise he was told that he would be replaced by someone else. He was ordered to arrange the money through any means, even if he had to strike a deal by black mailing clients. Being an honest man, he figured that the owner of this newspaper was a fraud and that none of the shareholders were getting the money, he left the newspaper. However, he still continues to collect evidence and has even written to the government regarding such illegal activities but has seen no action taken against Dainik Jagran yet. Hence, given the sad state of affairs in this country, especially when it comes to governance and politics I feel there is no possibility of success in such endeavours. Although, losing hope isn’t an option. One must fight till the end.
Q5. What is your take on curbing the role of corporate houses in media? How can they be regulated?
A5. The Indian media has never been so controlled by corporate houses as it is now. Corporate houses curb the freedom of journalists and establish a monopoly. With increase in politicians and corporate houses investing in media, the Fourth estate of one of the largest democracies is no more free or fair. Corporate houses should not invest in media as this leads to the citizens not being able to find the truth. News cannot be trusted when there is corporate control. Corporate houses influence and manipulate what the audience reads. Given my stance that corporate houses should not be allowed to invest in media houses, the question of regulation does not arise at all. Media must be self regulated.
An example from the documentary is that of Mukesh Ambani investing in CNN-IBN. News given out by CNN-IBN will obviously be favourable only to Ambani. This means that India’s biggest corporate house is also India’s biggest media house. This is nothing short of scary. It is the death of Indian Media. Business interests will take over journalistic objectives, defeating the purpose of it being a news channel.
Q6. How can the role of corporate houses be regulated? (irrespective of your previous answer.)
A6. There must be an organisation set up for controlling the role of corporate houses in Indian media. This is because media must serve the public and not the corporate houses. On one hand, corporate houses investing in media is a good thing as the media industry would then flourish. However, due to conflict of interest, there must be a regulatory body which makes sure that the role of the corporate houses ends at owning shares and has very little say when it comes to the editing.
Q7. Is media to be blamed for delayed reporting of relevant news?
A7. The media cannot be blamed for delayed reporting of relevant news, in this case regarding the IPL. This is because the media itself was not aware about Lalit Modi’s scam at the time. It was only later, when the issue surfaced when the media could react and take a stance.
Q8. What are the flaws you observed in the documentary?
A9. I did not observe any flaws in the documentary. This does not mean there weren’t any flaws. I wasn’t able to point out any.
sources –
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/06/15/lalit-modi-sushma-swaraj_n_7583868.html
http://www.cjfe.org/indias_free_press_problem
http://hillpost.in/2013/08/top-7-indian-channels-that-are-owned-by-politicians/95166/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/Page-3-is-socially-relevant/articleshow/3328650.cms
Freedom of the Press
“The press is the only tocsin of a nation. When it is completely silenced… all means of a general effort are taken away.” –Thomas Jefferson.
According to Part III of the Constitution of India – Article 19(1), one of the fundamental rights as a citizen of India is Freedom of Speech and Expression. The article of Freedom of Speech and Expression is so wide in scope that Freedom of the Press is included in it. Moreover, it includes the right of free propagation and free circulation without any previous restraint on publication.
However, the freedom of speech and expression does not give right to every possible use of language. Otherwise there would be disorder and anarchy. Hence, Article 19(2) of the Constitution imposes reasonable restrictions on this fundamental right in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency of morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense. Whenever, emergency is declared in a country, these rights remain suspended. All our governments have preferred press freedom to be linked with social and fundamental responsibilities and the obligation to report objectively. Therefore, Freedom of the Press is not absolute in nature.
A good example of the press misusing this fundamental right is that of Barkha dutt in the Kargil War. She had taken a satellite phone along with her while reporting about the war, in turn giving away the Indian Army’s location. This caused problems in terms of national security.
To conclude, Freedom of the Press implies that there is freedom of communication & expression through vehicles including various electronic media and
published materials. It implies the absence of interference from an
overreaching state unless warranted – due to the aforementioned “reasonable restrictions.”
“Freedom of the Press is the mother of all other freedoms.”
Some other news articles on Freedom of the Press –
- Trump thinks “newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news.”
2. Meira Kumar thinks Freedom of the Press is under immense threat!
3. Due to government influence, freedom of the press is under threat. News journalists find interesting and innovative ways to provide the citizens of Venezuela with real news.
prudhvimitra.wordpress.com 