The relationship between the government and the press is a fairly simple one in single-party states. The press and the other media are the instruments of the ruling party, which is also the government. They tell the citizens what the government directs. In countries with a democratic system, the concept of the press reporting directly to the people, performing an independent public function, is apt to come into conflict with formal political institutions. In democratic countries or pluralist societies such as India, the relationship between individual newspapers, parties, and politicians is far more complex.
Government-Press Relationship in Different Political Systems
The relationship in India between the democratic government and the media, particularly the newspapers, has yet another dimension. Although newspapers have only a limited reach, the impact of the press is far more than the circulation statistics suggest. Because of the powerful influence the press exercises on the minds of the people, all democratic governments are deeply interested in getting into newspaper columns.
Single-Party States:
For the proper development of mass media in India, the correct relationship between the government and the press is of crucial importance. The real question, however, is, should the government should have any policy at all on press media except that it does everything to strengthen press freedom and to provide the necessary facilities for the coverage of governmental activities.
Democratic Systems:
In India, the relations of the press with the three branches of the government have been rather nebulous. During the freedom struggle, the press functioned as the advance guard of the nationalist forces. When the nation became sovereign, a sense of mutual trust and regard continued between the legislature and the press. Rajagopalachari’s Press Bill came as a shock to journalists. However, confrontation between the press and the government was avoided mainly because of the enlightened and liberal outlook of Jawaharlal Nehru and his colleagues.
India’s Context:
In the wake of the Emergency in June 1975, the freedom of the press was restricted. In March 1977, the censorship practiced during the Emergency was abolished: the Publication of Objectionable Matter Act was repealed; to ensure a faithful publication of parliamentary proceedings, the Feroze Gandhi Act was re-enacted; Samachar was dismantled; the Press Council was revived with powers to consider complaints even against the Central and the State governments; the Press Commission was appointed to go into all aspects of the press, and a new advertising policy was laid down. The freedom to publish the proceedings of parliament and State legislatures is now guaranteed under the Forty-fourth Constitutional (Amendment) Act.
Governmental Interference in the Press
Despite this, governmental interference is alleged in the working of newspapers and news agencies. It is pointed out in some quarters that the PIB is a hindrance to the press in having free access to official sources of information. The press should have the freedom to get information directly from the concerned government personnel and not through government information wings. The Government of India’s policy to control the sources of information through the PIB is considered violative of the freedom of the press.
Allegations of Interference:
The DAVP and the State directorates of public relations, it is argued, should not have the right to fix government advertisement rates. Each department may be left free to negotiate with the advertising media regarding quantum, rates for advertisements, etc. The monopoly of the State Trading Corporation regarding the import of newsprint and newspaper printing machinery also comes in the way of freedom of the press, according to some leaders of the newspaper industry.
Forms of Interference:
It is alleged that the government media men try to influence the newspapers regarding the publication of articles, news stories, etc.; they interfere in the working of the news agencies by asking them to withdraw a particular story that may not be palatable to a particular department; they exert pressure on editors regarding the transfer of inconvenient correspondents; in some cases, proprietors are threatened if newspaper organizations try to resist the pressure of the government.
Impact of Interference:
The press freedom in India has recently led to a big outburst of journals dedicated only to mud-slinging and titillation. The yellow clouds that mushroom over the Indian press are a matter of concern to the government and society. This aspect also affects the relations between the government and the press.
Role of the Press Information Bureau (PIB)
Let us examine in concrete terms whether the existing government institutions in India dealing with the press media interfere with the freedom of the press. Is the PIB necessary? Similar questions can be asked for information and public relations departments of State governments.
Functions of the PIB:
The PIB is a two-way pipeline for the dissemination of information to the media and through them to the public, as well as for providing the government with feedback on what the newspapers are saying about governmental policies. To the extent the newspapers reflect public opinion, the PIB’s feedback service can also be regarded as a mirror of public opinion. In this respect, the PIB is different from other media units and has to assume additional responsibilities and has to be treated with greater confidence.
There are principally two kinds of users of PIB material: (a) the accredited correspondents in New Delhi and the newspapers and the news agencies they represent, and (b) the large number of small and medium newspapers published in different languages from different centers. As far as the latter is concerned, the PIB’s effort is limited to providing them with day-to-day press releases and background material put out from time to time in different languages as promptly as possible. In addition, whenever the correspondents and the editors of these publications visit Delhi, the PIB arranges briefings and meetings for them with ministers and senior personnel. The PIB also organizes conducted tours of journalists from the regions to developmental projects.
Criticism of the PIB:
The basic question to be answered is whether the PIB, as it is now constituted, acts as an institutional impediment to the flow of information from the government to the print media. It can, no doubt, be improved and made more effective to ensure a better flow of information, but will its abolition yield the desired results?
The idea of the PIB is to ensure that the ministries and the departments of the government have professionally trained and full-time information officers so that they can
(1) advise the government on the manner and the content of dissemination of government information;
(2) provide press representatives with information sought from the government;
(3) clarify doubts and also enable the accredited correspondents to have access to senior personnel who can brief them;
(4) provide the government with feedback on the reporting and comments by the press so that
(a) any criticism or misreporting on account of an inadequate supply of information can be remedied by giving out that information either generally or to particular correspondents and
(b) the government knows the public reaction for governmental policies, programs, and performance. Any set-up that replaces the PIB will have to perform all these functions.
One of the ideas often suggested is that the ministries and departments could have their own public relations officers without the PIB acting as a coordinating agency. It is alleged that the PIB is an instrument of news management and so it should be disbanded. News management in ordinary times, on the face of it, is impossible. On the other hand, a PRO attached to a ministry/department will be in a better position to withhold information or color it because the individual ministries will then be accountable for the actions of the PROs. Under the present arrangement, the slightest lapse by the PIB officer is brought to the notice of the Principal Information Officer and the Ministry of I & B. It is directly linked to the concept of freedom of the press, which is the responsibility of the I & B Ministry to uphold.
Arguments in Favor of the PIB:
More importantly, the small and medium newspapers that have only one correspondent at the headquarters and those that cannot afford to have correspondents at the headquarters will be disadvantaged functionally if the PIB is not there. The PROs can keep them at their mercy and acquire a clout that the PIB officers do not have. A close examination of the difference in the functioning of the PROs attached to industrial undertakings, both private and public, and the PIB officers reinforces this point.
While from the academic point of view, a centralized arrangement may be distasteful, in practice, it is of immense advantage to correspondents engaged in the work of collecting information and projecting it in their way.
It is also not correct that the PIB officers attached to different ministries/departments prevent correspondents and others with contacts from meeting ministers and senior personnel on their own. In fact, in many cases, correspondents meet especially the ministers by themselves, sometimes even without the knowledge of the PIB officers. Similarly, in the case of secretaries, while some may go by the advice of the PIB officer, others readily meet correspondents provided they know them and they have the time to meet the correspondents. As far as the PIB officer is concerned, it is his constant endeavor to ensure in-depth briefings (sometimes off the record) by senior officials for PIB that is, therefore, not an impediment to correspondents in this aspect.
In the absence of the PIB, should various departments of the government of India be left free to organize their press publicity? Should the press have free access to government personnel at all levels? Is it feasible for government officials of different categories to disseminate information to the press correspondents? Will it not mean ‘free for all’ and result in information chaos? In a situation of this kind, can there be any coordination of information even within a department?
Also Read: Fundamentals of TV Reporting: Reporting Skills, ENG and EFP, Ethics for TV Reporting
Other Government Media Organizations
It is also a moot point whether it is advantageous to canalize government advertisements through a centralized agency such as the DAVP. Should the government departments be left free to release advertisements of their own without any uniformity in rules?
Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP):
The public sector undertakings where one hundred percent government money is involved are free to decide their advertisement media, the quantum, the rates for advertisements, etc. Has this freedom been utilized for the public good? Should this freedom be extended to government departments? Any decision to dispense with the DAVP or similar organizations at the State level should await examination by an expert and impartial body. Again, it is doubtful whether a step such as this would be in the interest of medium and small newspapers, particularly those published in regional languages.
Newsprint and Printing Machinery:
Newsprint and newspaper printing machinery are largely imported items. Big newspapers may have the capability and expertise to import, but other papers may find it difficult. Also, the present happy foreign exchange position may not remain forever. The question has to be viewed on a long-term basis. Some form of regulation by the government may be necessary. If scarce newsprint is distributed among the newspapers by the government on some rational formulae, can this be considered an act of interference with the freedom of the press?
Public Sector Undertakings:
The government’s responsibility to ensure the free functioning of the press is clear. But no amount of constitutional and legal safeguards can guarantee the freedom of the press. In the ultimate analysis, it depends on the caliber, stature, and character of the media men themselves. Healthy conventions, codes of ethics, or guidelines can be evolved to mutual advantage. It is nobody’s case that all is well with the government media.
Confrontation vs. Cooperation
What should be the nature of this relationship? It cannot be that of an ‘adversary’ or an ‘unquestioning ally’ in all circumstances and all situations. The press in a democracy has to be a watchdog, a vigilant watchdog. To perform this function, the press has to have contact with the government’s sources of information.
Ideal Relationship:
If the relationship is necessary and in the public interest, where is the question of the ‘touch-me-not’ attitude on the part of the newspapers or the government media men? It is as much the duty of the government media men to suggest to the press certain articles, items, stories, etc. for possible use, of course without coercion, threat, or inducement, as it is the right of the editor to throw it in the dustbin. In this game, there is no question of violating the freedom of the press. There is no conflict.
A continuous dialogue is necessary between the government and the press at different levels to ensure a better appreciation of each other’s points of view. While the government should not be unnecessarily touchy about press criticism, the press also should not smell foul in all governmental actions. If there is any misunderstanding or difference of opinion, it should be resolved, but this is possible only if the government comes out with more and more timely information and establishes not only rapport but also its credentials with the press. The press, on the other hand, must eschew character assassination, yellow journalism, and cheap sensationalism.
Challenges:
Just as the government has a clear responsibility not to do anything, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the functioning and the freedom of the press, the press too has, in a democratic country, certain obligations. For instance, it is in its interest if the press does everything in its democratic way of life to try to play its role in the economic development of the country by disseminating technological and scientific information about agriculture and industry to the people. It can also make a significant contribution towards the eradication of social evils.
Role of the Press in National Development:
Any confrontation between the government and the press is not in the national interest. The role of the press in a nascent developing country such as India should be that of friend, critic, and guide, always keeping in view the larger public interest, accelerating the development of the country by the removal of economic and social backwardness, strengthening of democratic institutions, communal harmony, adult education, planned development of population, etc. These are non-political, non-controversial subjects but are vital to our national life.
Threats to the Freedom of the Press
The freedom of the press cannot be safeguarded by only constitutional provisions, nor is the threat to it only from the government. Constitutions are not self-enforcing. Legislatures, executives, and courts must be assiduous in safeguarding the principles a nation cherishes. So should the non-formal political institutions, such as the press. Freedom is not given; it is taken. Freedom of the press depends on the courage and the persistence with which the press asserts that freedom, not by the benevolence of the legislatures and the executives. The courts, too, may not always be able to side with the press.
External Threats:
Another aspect of the freedom of the press is that threats to freedom of expression do not arise only from the government. Any fanatical group of people who resent criticism are a threat to the press—be they followers of a particular religion, ideology, caste, or economic interest or be they plain rowdies.
The freedom of the press is also threatened by proprietors and editors. Not all newspaper publishers are in the publishing business only for profit. Many of them are avowedly a part of the power game—throwing their weight behind particular parties, policies, or politicians out of either conviction or convenience. There are very few parties and politicians that do not seek or welcome the support of newspapers.
Internal Threats:
To some, the freedom of the press is the freedom of the editor. This proposition is largely a myth. In several cases, the proprietors of the newspapers have a major say about the policy of the paper and in some cases also about the inclusion of material. The directives from the management to the editorial staff and others may be direct or indirect depending on their relationship.
The present idea of the press being an adversary of the government has a long history. The executive has always resented the claim of the press that it is a watchdog, reporting directly to the public. Proprietors and editors have often wished to share power and have been adversaries to some politicians in office rather than to the government as a whole.
Legal and Constitutional Safeguards:
The freedom of expression is also affected by dominant economic and financial interests. A great deal of honest expression of opinion is today inhibited by the fear that the owner and the circulation manager, not to speak of the advertisement executive, will not like it. Even those editors who courageously oppose the government and political authority turn timid when matters of religious and linguistic jingoism are involved. They are afraid of groups of political activists raiding their offices. The freedom of the press is, therefore, a complex phenomenon and not a simple proposition as many tend to think.
Visit YouTube- CDLU Education