Journalists Unions Express Concern Over Proposed Broadcasting Bill 2023
Newsclick Report
The National Alliance of Journalists (NAJ), the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ), and the Andhra Pradesh Working Journalists Federation (APWJF) have joined forces with the Network of Women in Media India (NWMI), the Editors Guild of India, and others to express their serious reservations about the proposed Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill 2023.
In a joint statement released today, the NAJ, DUJ, and APWJF expressed their concern that the proposed bill represents a significant step towards expanding undeclared censorship and increasing government control over various media platforms, including TV channels, films, Netflix, Prime Video, YouTube, radio, Instagram, and other social media platforms, as well as news websites and journalists.
Text of Full Statement
Gateway to Censorship ….
Caution and Concern on Proposed Broadcasting Bill 2023
The National Alliance of Journalists (NAJ), the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) and the Andhra Pradesh Working Journalists Federation (APWJF) join the Network of Women in Media India, (NWMI) and the Editors Guild of India and others, in expressing their grave reservations against the proposed Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill 2023.
In a joint statement the NAJ, DUJ and APWJF state, that this proposed bill is a further step to expanding a new era of undeclared censorship and increasing government control over all types of media from TV channels, to films, platforms like Netflix and Prime Video, You Tube, radio, even Instagram and other social media platforms as well as news websites and journalists. The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 comes on the heels of the Telecom Act of 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the IT Amendment Rules, 2023.
The Broadcasting Bill blurs the distinction between journalism and content creation. The definition of news and current affair has been deliberately left so broad that all sorts of online media can be controlled through it. It clubs together both broadcast and digital media, although broadcast media includes the big channels while digital news media channels are often small outfits run by one or two persons. Many clauses, particularly those relating to self-censorship, are completely impractical given the nature of small news media. Some dangerous clauses include the power to seize electronic devices including studio equipment. There are apprehensions that the Bill could muffle independent voices including those of YouTube journalists, news analysts and digital websites.
In our opinion such a bill could wait till the formation of a common body like a Media Commission of India comprising experts and stake holders who could look into all aspects of self regulation rather than inviting government control. Today there exists a wide spectrum media, ranging from print, broadcast, digital to TV and other media and it is not possible to regulate it through such measures. Instead, it is necessary to organize extensive consultations with all stakeholders, look into the common grievances’ and seek common solutions. Decisions made without democratic consultations could smack of authoritarianism.
We apprehend that the Broadcast Bill is being pushed in a hurry and could be yet another attempt to curb independent thinking, protest and dissent. It should be immediately rolled back. We also note that the Bill is ominously, inexplicably silent on concentration of media ownership in big corporate hands which is itself a big threat to freedom of expression and diversity of opinion.
(Courtesy: Newsclick.)
❈ ❈ ❈
RSF’s Célia Mercier: “Liberticidal Laws Have Tightened Government Control Over the Media Narrative in India”
Arif Ayaz Parrey
[In recent years, global concerns about the declining health of India’s republic have increased, as is evident from India’s fast downward slide in international rankings on many critical parameters of the health of democracies.
One of the most concerning of these deteriorating rankings has been India’s downward journey on the World Press Freedom Index, on which the country now ranks below countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The official response from India to these developments has also changed.
The country used to have a nuanced approach to such international rankings, contesting their claims but also making promises that things were not as bad as the rankings made it look, or that things would improve soon.
These days, however, Indian officials, both ministerial and bureaucratic, are much more belligerent and outrightly dismiss these rankings as Western propaganda while asserting that the West has no moral standing to judge India.
This is a significant change and it is reflected in the changing attitudes in a section of society as well.
There is much confusion about how such rankings and indexes are created and doubts about the inherent biases of the people who compile them.
The Leaflet spoke to Célia Mercier, head of the South Asia office at Reporters sans frontières (RSF or Reporters Without Borders) to throw some much-needed light on some of these issues.]
● ● ●
Arif Ayaz Parrey: The World Press Freedom Index has come under a fair bit of criticism in India. For example, last year external affairs minister S. Jaishanker said “somebody is getting something fundamentally wrong” and expressed surprise over Afghanistan being ranked higher than India. What is your response to such criticism?
Célia Mercier: In recent years, India has continued its progressive descent down the press freedom rankings. India’s position in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index has dropped another 11 places and the country is now ranked 161st out of 180 countries. Three indicators have deteriorated: the political context, the legal framework and the social background.
Afghanistan’s (ranked 152nd) rise of four places is due solely to other countries falling because its global score has decreased. Its safety score has improved because so many journalists have left the country (and are, therefore, not being subjected to violence or imprisonment) and many media outlets have closed. Its sociocultural score has fallen sharply.
An analysis of India’s position reveals that politically, there has been a tightening of control of the media narrative in India by the Union government in 2022.
This has been achieved through the increasing use of liberticidal laws to crack down on independent journalism, such as the disproportionate use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 (which explains the poor rating on the legal framework).
While the number of journalists killed or physically attacked in a given year has decreased, the number of abusive arrests and detention has exploded. Pressure on the mainstream media from corporate media owners has also increased considerably, forcing journalists to self-censor.
These developments partly explain the drop in the score for the social framework, with a growing intolerance towards the problems of certain religious, ethnic or caste minorities in mainstream media.
Another problem that has become structural in India, and that arose sharply in 2022, is the widespread nature of cyberharassment against journalists and media outlets who do not toe the line of the government. Pro-Hindutva militants and the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) Information Technology (IT) Cell are very active in this matter.
AAP: Coming to the two components upon which the index is based, how does RSF go about collecting and tallying abuses against journalists? Who provides the information and how is it vetted? How does RSF ensure that countries from where data is difficult to collect are properly gauged by the index? What about the questionnaire? Can anyone just fill it up and share it with RSF? What is the vetting process?
CM: RSF Index is based on a sound methodology. The index is compiled from the answers to a questionnaire in 24 languages with 133 criteria that are sent to specialists all over the world.
As you know, it is based on both qualitative data (survey) and quantitative data. Our team then proceeds to perform a precise analysis of the answers provided in the questionnaire and takes into account these comments when writing the ‘country sheets’ and regional analyses, updated every year in parallel with the publication of the index
The data of the ranking and the information given in the country profiles are, therefore, complementary.
About our panelists; we rely on thousands of press freedom specialists around the world. These specialists (journalists, media advocates, lawyers, jurists, human rights defenders, academics and researchers on press freedom, etc.) help us analyse the situation of press freedom in 180 countries and territories by answering hundreds of questions on the survey carefully constructed by experts and RSF members.
Our list of respondents is updated and expanded each year with the support of all desks, sections and correspondents abroad. This meticulous work is particularly important in order to diversify our sources while ensuring that the respondent pool is consistent with RSF’s values.
In order to have a more diverse and relevant list of respondents, we pay attention to gender equality, age distribution, activities and geographic repartition. We are working hard to have a more diverse and representative list, as the more diverse our list, the more accurate our index will be.
On the question of how RSF identifies and tabulates violations, we rely on each of our regional offices and correspondents to identify violations committed against journalists, which are linked to their journalistic work, in each country and territory.
This meticulous daily work is available on the Barometer and in RSF publications. The types of violations taken into account are specified in our methodology.
AAP: How do you respond to the criticism that countries with highly contested spaces among media practitioners, researchers, academics and human rights defenders are the ones where more questionnaires with negative reviews will be filed as compared to countries where the civil society and media are part of an entrenched elite that agree that the country is relatively free?
CM: This question is very specific and depends a lot on each context. We have many structural questions in the survey that avoid this kind of bias. Our panel of researchers and advisers helps us to avoid bias while at the same time guaranteeing that the questions have universal and global relevance.
AAP: A little-illuminated area of journalistic freedom and ethics is the extremely uneven shadows that the media landscapes of different countries throw in other countries and on a global scale. For example, a tiny reference in a New York Times story to Newsclick has resulted in a crackdown on the media organisation and questioning of even freelance journalists who contributed to the platform frequently. Similarly, BBC’s India: The Modi Question created quite a storm in India.
No Indian news organisation can command a fraction of that influence in the US or the UK. In the context, and especially in light of RSF’s ‘Global communication and information space: a common good of humankind’, how has RSF sought to address and incorporate this unequal power distribution in its index?
To illustrate, has RSF ever addressed or does it plan to address the question: “Is the pluralism of opinions of people in the country reflected in the media?” in the international context for, say, news media in the US and the UK?
Another illustration, how does RSF ensure that the media in the US and the UK does not peddle the government’s narratives on international issues?
CM: Yes, here are some examples of the questions about this subject in the social-cultural context indicator of our survey:
Is the practice of journalism prohibited or prevented based on nationality, ethnicity, social background, religion, gender or sex, sexual orientation and language?
Does the news reflect a plurality of the public’s opinion in the country?
Do journalists practice self-censorship for fear of legal proceedings (fines or imprisonment), damage to their career or reputation, and physical attacks on the journalist or their loved ones in the workplace or at home?
Do socio-cultural or religious groups issue calls for censorship?
Overall, is the media free (without fear or negative consequences) to disclose information on political, economic, religious and military authorities; the police and justice system; organised crimes; and armed groups?
Other questions in other categories also deal with pluralism and independence. In the survey, for example, in the legal part, we ask: Does the law provide mechanisms to guarantee pluralism and editorial independence?
While our primary focus is on evaluating press freedom within individual countries, we acknowledge the interconnected nature of media influence on a global scale.
The World Press Freedom Index considers various factors affecting journalism, striving to highlight disparities in media environments.
AAP: What are your thoughts on the new legal straightjacket [in the form of the Telecommunications Bill of 2023, the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill of 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023] being created in India for how news and information are collected, transmitted and disseminated?
CM: Although it is necessary for any country to have updated rules and regulations concerning broadcasting, telecommunication and digital sectors, anything that goes in the direction of widespread State surveillance, breach of privacy without independent control and oversight, arbitrary internet shutdowns, government control of the media, censorship of the news and restrictions of freedom of expression is a worrying trend.
It points to an authoritarian drift that imperils press freedom.
(Arif Ayaz Parrey is Editor, The Leaflet. Courtesy: The Leaflet, an independent platform for cutting-edge, progressive, legal & political opinion, founded by Indira Jaising and Anand Grover.)
