tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post677664548082200838..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Sardesai and Noorani on regulating media sting operationsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-32150228246368671692007-12-11T14:50:00.000+05:302007-12-11T14:50:00.000+05:30Being a journalist and now a journalism lecturer, ...Being a journalist and now a journalism lecturer, I personally feel that media today is very clearly misusing the rights it enjoys.sting operations might be beneficial for the society but time and again its proved that media is stepping on the wrong stone.several sting operations are found out to be fake. The constitution of India nowhere clearly protects the Right to Privacy. Its high time media ties itself with chains of Code of ethics and Social Responsibility. Self regulation is something that just wont happen in our society,i feel. Checking and Cross Cheking information must be done and certain precautionary measures as done by US law will definitely offer a helping hand in reducing the fake operations. At the least, it does protect the reputation of an individual to a certain degree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-46662230754766184612007-09-16T08:11:00.000+05:302007-09-16T08:11:00.000+05:30My feeling is that self-regulation is unlikely to ...My feeling is that self-regulation is unlikely to happen without some degree of governmental pressure. The media market is intensely competitive and not yet stabilized which makes the idea of resorting to unsavory methods more tempting especially for the newer and upcoming channels. Since the final judge by default is a public that rarely remonstrates and success defined by the publicity advantage that accrues, it is likely that left to themselves, the lowest common denominator in terms of behavioral ethics will continue to prevail.<BR/><BR/>I wonder whether there is not a way to overcome the grounds behind this wariness of governmental regulation. I think that the general manner in which governments proceed on these issues is what gives cause for this sentiment. Such bills (like the Broadcasting Bill for example) often tend to simply lay down relatively broad principles for the regulatory framework (wording such as ‘protection of public order, friendly relations with foreign states, communal harmony’, etc.) and leave it to the committee/board/panel/group duly appointed (for which procedures are usually properly elaborated in the bill) to decide on the specifics. One does not really know until after the bill is passed and the committee constituted, what regulations will ensue, how much clarity they exhibit and how acceptable they will be. Even then, their application is likely to be on a case-specific basis using balancing tests. The media simply does not trust a government body with that kind of power for a simple reason: they are seen to be willing to do the government’s bidding because they get to decide the test, how it applies in a given case, they are under no clear obligation to follow precedent and importantly, balancing tests, without bright red lines, can be made to come out either way with even an expectation of following precedent sidestepped by establishing a tenuous distinction through clever sophistry, and the journalist/media-house facing the fire essentially ends up getting to know the limits of permissibility in every case only <EM>after the fact</EM> when they are already in the dock. One way to overcome this would be for the government to give up the idea of comprehensive regulation and instead, adopt an incremental approach. Instead of trying to acquire for itself the authority to define public interest, it can make a more modest start by seeking to limit itself, in writing a bill, to some narrow and well-defined instances where the public interest is <EM>not</EM> served or in other words, privacy or other ethical concerns outweigh the public interest. Of course media houses and individuals may find ways around it, indeed are likely to do so, but newer provisions can then be added with experience to address inadequacies after due debate upon each of them.Dilip Raohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294894305584371011noreply@blogger.com