Media-Print-Electronic-Social

Are they not quite different ?

Social Media is under fire. Newly found freedom of expression of the people is alleged to be misused. There is a clamour for its control and regulation by the government. This article discusses the hitherto undisclosed facts about all media in the context of this hue and cry

Media – Print – Electronic – Social

Are they not quite different ?

Once upon a time there were only newspapers starting from weekly pamphlets to dailies which came to be known as print media. Then came radio, channels christened as electronic media consisting of news-gatherers-dispensers and readers-Viewers. Readers-viewers, call them public, was conceived as  passive users with no say in news reporting or expressing views except a very insignificant role in “letters to editor” and “opinion polls” subject to a strict moderation by the editor. Public had no other means of expressing their views on news or giving news from their live experiences.

This scenario got topsy-turvy with the advent of information technology and invention of social media network with its ever-increasing reach through face book, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and what not. Social Media gave free access to hitherto passive users of print and electronic media to spell out news as they perceived them and to express their views freely. It has spread like wildfire. First person to use it fully in India was Narendra Modi during the time when print and electronic media did not touch him even with a pair of tongs. He ignored the traditional media and took to social media in a big way and later All India Radio to circumvent the hostility of print and electronic media to communicate with the last man. Number of ’Likes’ became index of one’s popularity world over.

Brouhaha erupted about public misuse of this media and a clamour for its control and regulation by the government especially after an inadvertent statement by its Indian executive that any strict censoring of input by local politicians will affect its market in India which is its largest market.

Print media is self-regulated by the Press Council of India Code of Conduct. Electronic Media has yet to evolve an Electronic Media Code. Social Media Platforms are based outside India and are governed by their own internal regulations of editing contents.

It is no body’s case that print and electronic media are strictly controlled and no news, debates, articles or displays appear therein which do not meet with the decent standards of public discourse. The only difference between these hitherto popular sources of information and social media is that in social media users and publishers of news and views are intertwined. There is a never-before free access to public to this powerful media with an unprecedented global outreach. It has become the most powerful source of information all over the world. It is freedom of expression to the hilt.

Trial-By-Media is a popular jargon to describe how sensationalizing of celebrity cases by electronic and print media prejudice the public opinion and announce the guilty even before the trial has commenced, let alone the decision of a competent court. This is done in mad pursuit of TRPs and readership ratings. Every seasoned editor is aware of the cardinal principle of criminal justice that the accused is innocent till proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and it is not for the accused to prove that he is innocent. This famous principle known as Blackstone’s Ratio was enunciated by the English Jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work “Commentaries of the Laws of England” in which he contended that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffers. The principle was more forcefully propounded by a Jewish legal theorist Maimonides about 300 years ago. He said, “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death”. Trial by media – is it not misuse of our pet media? Media frenzy is so intense that later even if a competent court acquits the accused, the stain of guilt created by media does not get washed in the public eye. This has happened in the case of several innocent persons who were declared as guilty by media and were acquitted by the apex court.

Then why such a hulla-gulla over some occasional aberration of social media which is just an infant ? Rest of the media are quite mature and experienced for ages. They are fully aware of the illegitimacy of trial by media I am not holding a brief for any of them. Any material in any media which is against public policy must be edited and if necessary modified or removed altogether within the constraints of the right to freedom of expression given by the constitution. Fake news, outrageous hate campaign or rumour-mongering on social media must be put down ruthlessly.

When it comes to social media, the responsibility of not giving fake news, false information, rumours, hate messages or blindly accepting such nefarious inputs is squarely on the users of social media. Users must be conscientious while using the social media and should be aware that they are accountable to the unsuspecting public. Citizenry cannot just pass on the buck to the government, while itself behaving without any candour. Owners of the social media also cannot disown their social responsibility by considering social media as only a source of profit through indiscriminate advertisements.   

This said, however, any strong-arm curbs, not consistent with the constitution, on the newly earned freedom of expression of the public in social media will, I believe, meet with a wide spread by resistance from the public who have now got used to it and love it. This must be handled like “Glass with Care”