The Government of India’s concern about protecting the privacy of its citizens is touching. We would have surely stood up and clinked our glasses were it not for the fact that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s draft report ‘asking’ broadcasters to observe caution while telecasting programmes aims to protect a certain vulnerable section of India’s citizenry: potential victims of media sting operations. The government has also, in a manner typically Kafka-esque, stated that “mediapersons should identify themselves to their targets when undertaking a sting operation”. Yes, one can clearly see the efficacy of a Bangaru Laxman (against whom the CBI is set to file its first chargesheet in the Tehelka case) being told by disguised journalist, “I’m actually a reporter who will record you accepting bribes on camera. Please do cooperate.”
There seems to be a notion that when it comes to snooping on people for upholding a ‘greater cause’ — either national or for the benefit of society at large — the government should have the monopoly. However, a problem arises with this arrangement, when representatives of the political class end up being caught in unsavoury acts. What normally follows is a mad scramble to turn the ‘accused’ into a victim — with the ‘nasty TRP/circulation-seeking’ media going to any lengths. But clearly, there must have been some official consensus that sting operations — and, therefore, necessary invasions of privacy — do expose the doings of unwanted characters. Why else would Parliament, not a naive institution, force 11 MPs to resign for the cash-for-questions scandal that came to light courtesy hidden cameras?
The issue of protecting an individual’s privacy is, however, an issue that needs addressing. But the proposed Broadcasting Code and Guidelines is the wrong vehicle for this — giving the impression that the media alone are guilty of playing Peeping Tom. In a country where the State authorities are far too quick and willing to give in to demands by hyper-sensitive pressure groups to jettison notions of individual expression, the concept of privacy must first be defined and then protected. To tweak the law to single out the media and protect only a section from prying eyes is to make a gesture that is contrary to the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution, besides being breathtaking in its lack of subtlety or understanding.
{{/usCountry}}The issue of protecting an individual’s privacy is, however, an issue that needs addressing. But the proposed Broadcasting Code and Guidelines is the wrong vehicle for this — giving the impression that the media alone are guilty of playing Peeping Tom. In a country where the State authorities are far too quick and willing to give in to demands by hyper-sensitive pressure groups to jettison notions of individual expression, the concept of privacy must first be defined and then protected. To tweak the law to single out the media and protect only a section from prying eyes is to make a gesture that is contrary to the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution, besides being breathtaking in its lack of subtlety or understanding.
{{/usCountry}}