Venky TV [2011-12-14 14:46]: > So, calling the Times of India a newspaper is what you have trouble > with? Not the content but the fact that it calls itself a newspaper, > which by your definition it is not?
Yes. A TV channel that dispenses only entertainment should not be calling itself a news channel and seeking to gain the benefits of a news channel (such as those under copyright law). Labels matter. It's not shite content that is the problem. It is shite content being sold under a false label. You could of course argue that this is a false dichotomy, and even a tautology: and that if enough people believe the false label to be the truth, then by virtue of that belief, it becomes the truth. So war is peace and news is entertainment could well be true. ==== The traditional liberal maxim that bad speech is best countered by good speech is borked, as global trends towards increased consolidation and conglomerate-isation of the media increasingly shows. But most other means of countering bad speech are even more badly borked. While we are always coming up with new exceptions to freedom of speech (like individual privacy of non-public figures, for instance, which wasn't an exception all that long back), we need to ensure that any, including self-regulatory professional codes, are narrow and measured. An unruly press, a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, is oxygen to a life of a democracy. Equally, cantankerous and ubiquitous self-critics within the press are a necessity to keep the press from becoming a 'special interest' that replaces wider citizen engagement (as opposed to being the facilitators of discourse for a putative public general interest). Sharp and persistent critics of the press are woefully absent in India. Sevanti Ninan, Krishna Prasad, and (formerly) Mihir Sharma are a few names that come to mind. But there is barely any institutional support for what they do. And where was the mass press outrage when Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and K. Sreenivas Reddy's report on the collusion of politicians with the press was suppressed in July 2010 by the Press Council of India? They would rather congratulate themselves on their ability to shape public opinion and their ability to resist the likes of Justice Katju. If we don't have vibrant and constant criticism of the press, then 'nationalist chest-thumping' becomes a stand-in for a nuanced foreign policy, and all policy formulation becomes a 'subdivision of public entertainment', and we must safeguard our press from descending into this—and perhaps it bears mentioning that censorial regulations could never achieve this, nor just praying that people vote for better newspapers and TV channels with their money/attention. The mass media not only provide people what they want, but also tell them what they should want. Just we should not underestimate human intelligence in seeing through such ploys, we should not underestimate the human ability to be swayed by such influence either. The need to ensure minimal self-regulation, and the need to have some minimal 'duties' of certain sorts becomes especially important online where 'intermediaries' perform the role of the state (especially of providing a 'town square' or a Jantar Mantar), but users do not have the rights of citizens, as intermediaries have any of the duties of the state in ensuring such rights for their users. Former British Prime Minister, Lord Derby said in an 1852 speech addressed at the Times' unsavoury language: "as in these days the English Press aspires to share the influence of statesmen, so also must it share in the responsibilities of statesmen". I do not share the view, though it seem very close to what I expressed earlier. States have duties towards diplomatic language, but also have a duty towards ensuring freedom of speech of their citizens. I don't believe intermediaries should have duties of the former sort. But they should have a duty of the latter kind. - Pranesh
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
