Changing Nature of the Press.

Changing Nature of the Press 

*********************************

I am not a journalist by profession and hence whatever you find written below is not born out of any experience in that field. However It's born out of the same fundamental rights to expression that by insinuation the press of India also happens to exercise.

The raison d'etre of the press is solely due to the persons’ or citizens’ right to be informed. The right to be informed is inherent in the right to express. Any civil society can't survive sans fulfillment of this fundamental right. Hence it's the basic responsibility of the State to guarantee this right. 

Even the most authoritarian state will not accept in the public domain that it doesn't value freedom of expression. 

Had it been so, we would not have seen newspapers published from those countries ruled by even dictatorial dispensations. The press exists there too;though in a subservient way.

                                  ***

The instant piece of writing is in response to the theme “Changing Nature of the Press” set for discussion and deliberations on occasion of the National Press Day in commemoration of the establishment of the Press Council of India on the Date 16.11.1966.

When we talk about the term changing nature of the press; we mostly refer to journalism and for that matter it is worth observing that since then journalism has undergone a sea change.

With reference to India, what are those changes?

1. Journalism in the starting days was not a ‘profession’ by any way. It was a revered ‘mission’ born out of the sentiment of devotion to serve the nation by making it free from the yoke of British Control. Those engaged in such a mission were self-conscious and self-directed individuals who considered themselves socially responsible for awakening Indian masses from the slumber of societal evils,inactions and lack of self-respect. Needless to say that these people were mostly freedom fighters or those helping the latter by their own ways. They secretly established a makeshift press that brought out newspapers financed by contribution or meager financial help from compassionate ones done stealthily.

            Thus the press till independence, by and large, remained opposed to the British authorities for understandable reasons. The interests of the State as well as the press militated with each other.

2. The time changed and so did the character of the press. With independence the State solicited the cooperation of the press towards spreading information down the line in respect of its policies and programmes of development initiatives that the State took for its people. 

So the militating character of the press was sought to change by the State after independence. A separate department was created called by the name of the Information and Public Relations Department (IPRD) to cater to the need and expectations of the press towards co-opting it in the journey of development. It was done so by way of giving these newspapers government advertisements and aids which served as a major source of finance supporting their survival. In return the government expected them to be not inimically critical as it was during pre independence days. 

3. But the press defied the line drawn by such an understanding between the two in the Nehruvian era.

     The press became thoroughly anti-establishmentarian in nature during emergency days. There was an attempt to gag it during those days. Many newspapers were coerced to such an extent that closure became their only option. As a token of protest there were still some who published the paper by keeping its editorial completely “blank”.

4. With the air unleashed by the wave of globalization, liberalization and privatization that intoxicated the entire economic atmosphere of the country, the press too could not remain unaffected. The money being poured from different pressure groups saw the emergence of media houses and companies that began to acquire the individually owned press to run it as business entities. 

Now press at its best to become the tool in the hands of these media houses.  

The journalists of any stature however big or small was on the payroll of these big media houses/companies.

Thus the press in general and journalism in particular which took its birth as ‘mission’ subsequently became a ‘profession’ and later completely transformed itself into a “business enterprise”. Now media became a field of investment and earn profit therefrom.

 The journey that began with survival ended up being a number of business empires. The press council of India having little control of them remained by and large an institution acting if any in silence by virtue of necessity.

The journalists of these media houses are more like an OSD(Officer on Special Duty) of these media houses. Their role is to ‘dress’ the news like salads according to the taste and requirements of the government or of the companies on whose payroll they are.

 So this phase of transformation of press and journalism is better called by the slang ‘Dhandha (धंधा)” when we find that mostly such news in the paper is on the premium which are either blatantly supportive of the government in power or mindlessly critical of the ruling dispensation. 

They are far removed from impartial analysis or social responsibility due to party affiliation or business compulsions.

Very few would disagree with the fact that under the circumstances described above the importance and reliability of the journalism as profession has suffered like any others'. 

Today it is quite distant from the genuine concern of the masses. 

  5. The emergence of electronic media has further eroded its importance in the life of the common people. 

We are more prone to switch on to the TV news than to turn the pages of a newspaper. The reason for this is simple; both the informative and entertaining role of the print media have been completely eclipsed by its electronic counterparts. ‘News’ if it is not presented in terms of entertainment then it's treated as a drivel. So masses too seem to favour electronic media because the latter has made news as a source of sensational entertainment that sells like a hot cake in the "news market".

Thus news sans content of sensation and smack of entertainment is nothing for even to the people who claim themselves "informed members of the society"

6. One of the biggest challenge not only to the press but also the electronic media is from now the Social Media.

This has forced all print and electronic media to go digital on the internet in a bid to compete or survive.

The latest stuffers on the list is a number of news channels. The press having already received the injury from the electronic media is now no more a force to reckon with in terms of the speed and reach in the people. Its informing and public opinion shaping capacities are under the threat that is real. 

It has prostrated before the supply of information/disinformation/misinformation/mal information by social media.         

  The reason is its laissez faire nature of functions.

With the emergence of social media the ‘press’ can now be more or less equated to the “post office” in terms of its importance and functions. Both have become more or less similar in their modes of functioning; to say the least.

Now every individual is a journalist whence for any matter whatsoever s/he can 'go live' in the public on the social media platform to say the way h/she likes. He or she now doesn't have to depend upon a professional journalist to tell his/her account of woe or plight or even achievement.

 Needless to say the authenticity & objectivity of the news is never minded for these to be sacrificed before the altar of ‘jet set speed’ that every individual is now passionately fond of.

But that is not the part of discussion, I  suppose.

R.R. Prabhakar.

16.11.2024.