Events & Issues

New Delhi, 2 January 2012

Internet Age

MEDIA’S SOCIAL OBLIGATION?

Dr S. Saraswathi

(Former, Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

It is an age of information and it travels like air and water by its sheer speed and pervasiveness. Whether it is the live telecast of proceedings of both the Houses of Parliament, Anna Hazare’s agitation in Mumbai and Delhi, debates with political parties’ spokespersons, citizens’ comments on social networking sites etc, the media has become an aggressive tool for building public opinion in the country.

Indeed, information is power in the technological revolution we are experiencing. With ever expanding scope for acquisition and dissemination of data and interpretations, news and reports of events and issues, and presentation and replay of entertainments and sports, and their instant communication simultaneously to every nook and corner of the world to be received by one click, the media has become an indispensable part of daily life of all everywhere in the world.  It is the power of the media and its reach to every individual wherever he/she is present that places on it tremendous social responsibility.

No wonder, as the impact of the information and communication revolution grows stronger and stronger, the contents and expression of the messages transmitted come for closer and closer scrutiny and criticisms from the receivers. In democracies that guarantee several personal freedoms such as freedom of speech and also cherish the concept of social responsibility of the media, the task of reconciling the two sides is a problem.

Considered as the fourth pillar in democracies, the media is as important as the legislature, executive, and the judiciary. To impose governmental control over it is not a simple question of administration.  Can the media be made accountable to any of the other three pillars?  The answer seems to be an emphatic “no” as it is neither possible nor desirable as it contradicts the very notion of a pillar supporting the democratic structure along with three other pillars. It has to have freedom and autonomy with democratically defined boundaries.

Media has immense power to mould public opinion and perceptions, and attitudes both directly and indirectly. It can promote friendship and also hatred between communities. Contents and performance of every public mass media apparatus is constantly watched, rated, and nursed with competitive vigour by diverse sections of the population.

In the United States, freedom of the press was achieved specifically by the first amendment of the Constitution whereas in India, it is derived from the Right to Freedom guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights. Freedom carries with it certain responsibilities. Regulation of the media, if attempted afresh as some reports indicate, should be so designed as to enforce and re-emphasise social responsibility without curtailing its freedom. The task has to contend against the forces of technology and globalization of interests both of which have a tendency to resist any undue restrictions on freedom.

Moreover, law and public opinion of standards of morality in different countries are not uniform. Hence, the contents of a programme may be perceived differently in different countries.

There can be no dispute over the contention that the media in all forms including internet has a social responsibility to shape a modern, progressive, inclusive, informed, vibrant, and dynamic society. It must follow the law of the land, act as catalyst for social-economic growth, and positively strive for peace, harmony, human rights, and justice. At the heart of social responsibility is public interest. Even the media houses owned and/or run by particular political parties or commercial enterprises or religious and other organizations are not exempt from social obligations that are common to all.

In this atmosphere, social networking has emerged which enables millions of people all over the world to communicate to any number of people, and share information.  Social media uses web-based and mobile technologies for interactive dialogue beyond social communication. It is widely used by organized and unorganized groups for communication and dialogue. It provides an on-line platform to users who can share ideas, plan activities, and communicate minute by minute developments.

This amazing communication technique has immense use for the good of the world. It can also be an evil instrument and a dangerous one too. It can expose to the world personal matters about anybody including celebrities in any field, disseminate incendiary materials to promote enmity and hatred between people and obscene write-ups and pictures that may hurt the feelings of some people.

Social media has drawn public attention in India including sections that are not using internet when the Government urged some networking companies to withdraw some material it considered as offensive and derogatory. A report in a national daily has mentioned that India has asked for removal of 358 items circulated through social network.  Of these about three-fourths were said to be in the nature of criticism of the government or some political leader. Internet intermediaries in India are required to censor contents of materials considered “harmful” or “disparaging”.        

This was followed by a Delhi court asking some 22-odd social networking sites to remove “anti-religious” or “anti-social” content from their websites. The companies, located abroad and beyond the reach of Indian laws, may have their own arguments against removing any material merely because these are controversial, but will have to consider the court order. 

The issue itself has raised a debate over several questions – freedom of the media, social responsibility, public sentiments, religious susceptibilities, decency and morality, demands and ratings, entertainment and so on.      

What prompted the government to take a dig at the social media is irrelevant though one may be curious to know.  Social networking can be as useful to publicise government schemes and programmes as to propagate ideas and activities of various social forces.  As long as the contents do not contain any seditious material the well-established concept of media freedom will assert itself.

Hutchin’s guidelines to promote a socially responsible media given in 1947 in the United States have become outdated in the present world literally knit together by instant communication. It cannot be denied that news value changes as society changes. People’s interests are widening and changing day by day. 

It is difficult to enforce restrictions on media, particularly emanating from abroad.  Nor is it desirable to stifle media to compel them to cater to the needs and wishes of the establishment. Is there need to set up an independent agency to deal with complaints about social network rather than the Government taking up the task directly? Or is it time, that the media as a whole do some soul searching? An introspection of its social responsibility may throw up some solutions. ---INFA        

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)