Licensed to write?

BY admin

At the Press Club of India, New Delhi, a senior TV journalist regarded not only for his word but also ethical values, was heard blurting out in a moment of frustration about the number of fellow journalists involved in tainted matters or accused of some demeanour or the other: “There should be some control over these guys. They give us all a bad name. There should be some way to curb them, licence them...”

And that opened a Pandora’s Box. Fellow journalists at the club, veterans and youngsters, known and not known, swooped in on our journo, most scathingly opposing his remarks, some warily questioning, others silent but with an ask writ large on their faces, “What next?”

Indeed, what next? We’ve had the scams and tapes; tainting, smearing the blackest of insults on the face of journalism, without actually honing on to a tangible solution to curb them. The scourge of ‘yellow’ and ‘black’ journalism remains as dominating as it was before the scams and taints were brought out in the open. Mandsaur MP and Rahul Gandhi’s close aide Meenakshi Natrajan’s private bill in Parliament for media regulation, thought it was withdrawn, did not do much beyond raising a hue and cry.

A Supreme Court order in September quashing a month old Allahabad High Court order gagging print and electronic media from reporting the controversy related to alleged movement of Army units towards Delhi on January 16 also holds significance here.

It is significant that the Supreme Court Bench found merit in senior advocate PP Rao’s argument against the HC order. Rao said: “It is a permanent ban on reporting. This could not be done by the HC considering the recent Constitution bench judgment of the Supreme Court, which ruled that only a temporary deferment of reporting can be ordered only when the reporting appeared to prejudice fair trial.”

Nevertheless, the media can’t deny that it is undergoing an upheaval like no other seen earlier, both in terms of its reach extended by and to the Web and the extensions it has, in terms of the sheer number of players, and growing still.

Such facets of journalism are in the midst of a raging debate, particularly in the British and the Canadian Press. A Federation Professionelle des Journalists du Quebec report commissioned by the Government of Canada proposes a law creating a status of “professional” journalist, in “the context of new technologies and in the face of a widespread media crisis shaking all of the industrialized countries”.

A post by TashaZ in the Global 360, multimedia stories from students at the Toronto-based Ryerson School of Journalism, says: “What French- Canadian journalists are proposing is an accreditation for journalists in Quebec. This licence, or accreditation, would distinguish practising journalists from bloggers. It would uphold journalists to ethical standards.”

By this very fact, a licence or accreditation is already in place in India. As per the powers bestowed upon the Press Information Bureau (PIB) by the Government of India, guidelines have been formulated as The Central Newsmedia Accreditation Guidelines, 1999 that not only cover the gamut of news media -- newspapers, dailies, weeklies, fortnightlies, wire services , non-wire service news agencies, news feature agencies, electronic media agencies and organizations, the online media, websites and new sites (a news site/portal means a website which has at least one-third of its visible content related to news and current affairs originally reported by its own correspondents) containing news and comments on public news – but also working journalists.

Be that as it may, it’s pertinent to note that an accreditation is only ‘required’ while covering Parliament procceedings, the North Block or the South Block, or any other high-security events such Clinton’s or Obama’s visit. A ‘PIB card’ is often not required if a journalist has a letter or some communication sanctioning him to be at such places or events from his or her editor.

It is also pertinent to note that most of the scandals that have come to light in the media, till date, involve journalists who are accredited and known as the very best.

So what’s to be done? How to root out the ‘wrongs’ from the ‘right’ in Indian journalism? How to ensure that this profession – the life and sustenance of which rests on the very trust people share with it – remains a true watchdog over other governance, executive and the administrative?

In my opinion, it’s not about licensing journalists – like members of other professions, like medical, engineering or chartered accountancy – but more to do with how stringently the norms are applied on the ground.

As per the laid-down accreditation eligibility, one has to have a minimum of five years’ professional experience as a full-time working journalist/cameraman in news organization(s). His gross salary also should be “at least equivalent to the total emoluments of the lowest grade as notified by the government for the journalists in the light of the recommendation of the Wage Board... Latest revision of pay scales will be taken into account. For accreditation on behalf of news organizations, the journalist should be working full-time for the organization and persons working on honorarium/retainership/part-time basis will not be treated as working journalist for the purpose of accreditation”.

I know of so many journalists who have spent decades in the profession, but are not accredited. This is an issue particularly among those behind the desk. Also, with the change in scenario, where journalists move from newspapers, magazines or TV news channels they work with, faster than ever before, the desire for accreditation in their busy schedules has also waned. Further, journalists say that there is a long list of journalists’ names with the PIB, awaiting accreditation. So why bother to be accredited?

Evidently, in this kind of an arrangement – or the lack of it -- stringent application of norms goes out of the window.

Another point imperative for us to consider is that bloggers are distinctly different from journalists. For, journalism does not only have to worry about the scams and the taints, but also malpractice committed in the name of journalism. Here, the Web is increasingly becoming a platform for the wannabes to post what they want, against whom they want, without adhering to the basic tenets of journalism.

All journalists can become bloggers, but it cannot be vice versa. For, the most important thing to be a journalist is to have the skillsets to be able to pursue and present facts as they are, and as objectively as concerned. Even in their opinion pieces, journalists do not let go of objectivity.

Being able to be objective is an art, learning in experience, an ability to take a third-person view even if one is touched by an incident or news or feels most passionately about it. Objectivity is something the journalist learns while practising his profession – a faculty not readily available with bloggers.

We must make a difference between blogger and journalist, lest, as Aaron Holesgrove says, we are “cheated out of objective journalism”. This is not to say that bloggers are not objective – some are – but they are not bound by design. For, let’s face it, blogs do have an extent of irreverence and wilful lack of propriety not really seen in journalism in its truest sense.

Maybe ‘licence to write’ would be good, maybe not. It’s just that when you have a licence or an accreditation to be a doctor, you are sure you know more about the human body than just pulse checking. Likewise, if you have a flair for writing, you can be a writer/journalist, one with a licence instils faith among stakeholders that he or she will produce qualitative and fair work.

Feedback: abatra@exchange4media.com

Tags : e4m