Role of Media in Democracy and Good Governance
Mr. Shankar, however, said the relationship between the government and media in India, has often moved from being just adversarial to flirting. Media of India consist of several different types of Indian communications media: television, cinema, newspapers, magazines, and Internet-based Web sites. Many of the media are controlled by large, for-profit corporations which reap . Between –, the Indian government embarked upon the creation of three. The role of media is to make the society aware of their democratic rights The Indian government's stance on the role media has been hotly debated, News Broadcasters Association (NBA) is a government body that has.
The individual has the right of expressing himself so long as he does not harm other individuals. The good society is one in which the greatest number of persons enjoy the greatest possible amount of happiness. Applying these general principles of liberty to freedom of expression, Mill states that if we silence an opinion, we may silence the truth. The individual freedom of expression is therefore essential to the well-being of society.The impact of social media in political debate - Mark Shephard - TEDxGlasgow
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and one, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. This occurred during the regime of Johann Friedrich Struenseewhose second act was to abolish the old censorship laws. However, due to the great amount of mostly anonymous pamphlets published that was critical and often slanderous towards Struensee's own regime, he reinstated some restrictions regarding the freedom of press a year later, October 7, Censorship in Italy After the Italian unification inthe Albertine Statute of was adopted as the constitution of the Kingdom of Italy.
The Statute granted the freedom of the press with some restrictions in case of abuses and in religious matters, as stated in Article However, Bibles, catechisms, liturgical and prayer books shall not be printed without the prior permission of the Bishop. After the abolition of the monarchy in and the abrogation of the Statute inthe Constitution of the Republic of Italy guarantees the freedom of the press, as stated in Article 21, Paragraphs 2 and 3: Seizure may be permitted only by judicial order stating the reason and only for offences expressly determined by the law on the press or in case of violation of the obligation to identify the persons responsible for such offences.
The Constitution allows the warrantless confiscation of periodicals in cases of absolute urgency, when the Judiciary cannot timely intervene, on the condition that a judicial validation must be obtained within 24 hours. Article 21 also gives restrictions against those publications considered offensive by public moralityas stated in Paragraph 6: Publications, performances, and other exhibits offensive to public morality shall be prohibited.
- Media of India
- Information & Broadcasting
- Role of Media in Democracy and Good Governance
Measures of preventive and repressive measure against such violations shall be established by law. Hitler largely suppressed freedom of the press through Joseph Goebbels ' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Anyone involved in the film industry - from directors to the lowliest assistant - had to sign an oath of loyalty to the Nazi Partydue to opinion-changing power Goebbels perceived movies to have.
Goebbels himself maintained some personal control over every single film made in Nazi Europe. Journalists who crossed the Propaganda Ministry were routinely imprisoned. The moment the pitch gets too quick or sticky-bouncing and turning-the wickets begin to fall in a heap. Power intimidates the media. The gap widens between principle and practice.
The individual and the minority fall between the gaps. Civilisations lose their lustre and the legs of dharma that keep them standing begin to buckle. There are metaphors from other sports that can be used to describe the present relationship between media and government-not as it is grandly imagined but as it is grubbily played out.
Media and government - Cover Story News - Issue Date: Dec 21,
Indira Gandhi mobbed by photographers and reporters outside Parliament Perhaps it is badminton. The two parties are on opposite sides and there is a net between them and they both serve and volley with great aggression and the shuttle flies furiously to the sounds of panting and abuse and at the end one wins and the other loses.
But it's all just a game. A little later a drink is had together, jokes swapped, hands pumped-till the next game with all its accompanying grunts and imprecations. Perhaps it is hockey, with both parties playing on the same side. There is a lot of dazzling stickwork, short and long passes, trapping and thwacking, shouldering and wrongsiding, weak corners and missed goals. Later much blame goes around and harsh words fill the air.
But essentially you are both on the same team and know your interests cohere and next time the whistle sounds you have to again run in fine coordination.
That still leaves the question of the sponsors whose jerseys you wear and on whose shoes you run. How do both media and government take care of the interests of the corporation?
The corporation whose narrow motives may govern a disproportionate number of the actions of media and government. So what do we have? Not just in India but all over the free world. We have the high language of democracy in which media is an uncompromising watchdog snapping at the excesses of power and money and battling for the public good.
We have the low conduct of the state, sleeping with money and recklessly bowling lies and threats at the people and the media. We have the cowardice of the media, roaring outrage on stage and purring compliance in the green room.
And we have the self-interest of the corporation, manipulating everything in the cause of money, and often owning sizeable chunks of both government and media.
And in a way it may be the corporation that today holds the key to the relationship between the two. It establishes its god-money-as the god of them all. Every singular god is a source of tyranny. But the tyranny of the corporation comes not as animus but in the form of sweet blandishment. It spreads with insidious speed and does not demand resistance. And it creates a curious culture of similarity between those ostensible opponents-the media and the state. For one, both politics and journalism with every passing day grow not broader and deeper but noisier and noisier.
Media and Govt have a 'broken relationship’, says Star India CEO - The Hindu
The most successful practitioners in both believe that a lack of substance can be camouflaged by the art of the shout. That as louder shout follows loud shout the audience loses its ability to process what is being said, to recall what was said last week, and what it once knew to be true.
The illuminations of quietude-of spiritual meditation and literature and nature and music, and the wisdoms they generate-are lost on both. What grows on both is the idea of amusement. In their bid to grab and hold the cheapest attention in the cheapest way they treat both governance and the reportage on governance as pure spectacle. To adapt from a line of Leo Tolstoy, "winning elections is easy but governing is difficult". And to adapt it for the media, "covering elections is easy but tracking governance is difficult".
In order to make it easy for themselves both endeavour to set up distractions. So entertainment takes the front of stage. Information and education skulk behind the curtains.
In both, the quick repartee becomes the norm. The slow analysis fades away. In both, the painstaking and the expensive-policy, reportage-are given short shrift.
Dangerously, both pursue brevity and the death of complexity. Both trade in simpler and simpler narratives and are happy to create affirming silos for their bands of committed followers. Both live and die by public approval even as they pursue selfish goals. And the claim to public interest-often dubious is common to both. A collaborator in the dodge The daily carnival on TV channels exemplifies this entire pathology. Every evening a show is set up.
The audience checks in seeking a balm for endless civic and public aggravations. A mock duel is played out. The politician the animal of superior cunning and ambition-is happy to lose it to the journalist.
He knows he is doing well as long as the little setbacks on the little screen slake the people's bloodlust and keep the spotlight off the major setbacks of real life and governance. The piquant fact is none of this strategy is new.
More than two millennia ago Aristophanes wrote "to win the people, always cook them some savoury that pleases them". The apotheosis of the daily spectacle-the little savoury is the event-which the current prime minister has elevated to a shamanic ritual.
In pursuit of the quick, the inexpensive and the engaging, the event is fast becoming the standard mode of government The media has become a collaborator in the dodge. Events have colour and hype, a focused narrative, and are cheap to cover.
A classic pattern of satisfaction is played out and everyone gains from it. Foreplay, play, climax and slumber: When Barack Obama criticises a "media culture that sensationalises the trivial and trivialises the profound", he forgets that politics does exactly the same.
His potential successor, Hillary Clinton, bears out the truth of this when she says, "If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle.
Freedom of the press
Media has become politics by other means and politics has become media by other means. The lines have blurred, but mercifully mostly in the backroom. Where they can be seen, they still set apart the domains of media and of government. The illusion is important.
Much of the world is held together by the civility of pretence and the refinements of justice and fair play that it demands. So who or what will sustain this critical illusion?
This idea of the media as a barking dog keeping the elephant of government on a path that is true and strait. What will ensure the elephant doesn't trample the dog or terrify it into silence? The media's fatal sin is vanity. Power's is arrogance and high-handedness. Who or what will moderate these in both?