Manish Tewari is an articulate lawyer, often used by the ruling Congress-led government to do the dirty job of defending the indefensible. He’s also India’s Information and Broadcasting Minister.
So, when he proposed that journalists must pass an “examination” and obtain a licence to practice their craft, people sat up and took notice.
His comments come after those made in March this year by Markanday Katju, chairman of the Press Council of India, and his setting up a committee to invite suggestions on qualifications for journalists.
Predictably, the response from the community of journalists was not favourable. N. Ravi, chief of the Editors Guild of India, said: “In this age of citizen journalists, bloggers and social media and Internet users, it would be ridiculous to introduce any restriction on who should practice journalism even if it were possible to enforce it.”
Ravi, former editor of The Hindu newspaper, added that such qualifications and licences were tools used by totalitarian states.
Undoubtedly, when everyone is becoming a “journalist” or communicator, such controls aren’t going to be worth the website on which they will be published.
It’s not my case that the media needs to be defended. Actually, it cannot be defended. But that’s an issue for another day, another blog.
If the quality of journalism is the issue, then Mr. Tewari’s proposal doesn’t address the root of the problem.
It’s not just about the quality of journalists, Mr. Minister; it’s about the quality of owners.
It’s about the fact that single companies own newspapers, television channels, as well as FM radio stations.
It’s about the fact that money, profit, more money and more profit is the only motivating factor behind the operations of these “media” companies.
In India’s newsrooms, barring a couple of exceptions, issues occupied the backseat a while ago. Yes, the sensational rape case, or the political scam, will still receive saturation coverage.
But these will disappear after the moment, to be replaced by another.
If you ask why the focus should not remain on the issue, you will be told this is what the public wants to read.
And what if an editor actually wants the public to read what she feels is important?
Can she push it to the front page? It’s difficult especially if it’s about corporate India.
You can fulminate against the Prime Minister, ministers or even officials. But try taking on a company that has ads to place and the owner or the marketing head will be quick to kill the story.
Again, with exceptions applied, the editor’s institution is long dead. It just hasn’t had a ceremonial funeral.
Years ago, the smart-talking MBA began setting the news agenda in the continuing drive to be the “number one” to attract more advertising.
So, if a young journalist were to pass an exam and obtain a licence, where would she practice? And, what kind of journalism would the licensee produce?
Would it be public-spirited journalism or owner-driven journalism?
I leave the decision to you, the public.