This house believes that the actions of today’s media are totally not acceptable.
Moderator’s Statement
All the entries we received had one thing in common; they accepted the changed role of media, for better or for worse. Media, needless to say, are very powerful as whatever little we know comes from them. They mould the minds of the masses and as such their use or abuse can have powerful consequences. Media, in past, had helped in building consciousness – be it in our struggle for independence or in the nation building exercise after it. Somewhere down the line a mad rush for publicity began; ethics were forgotten and news began to be made. The job changed from sensitization to ’sensationalisation’. Examples of media perversions are many and are disturbingly becoming regular.
The house debates the role of media. Is there anything wrong with the profit-driven media? After all its money we all crave. So whatever happened to the “guardian role” ?
We, here, have two debaters presenting their sides on the proposition floated.
We thank the participants and the visitors for making the debate engaging and constructive.
Aniket Singh
For the motion
Closing Statements
With 62,483 newspapers of all kinds–79.4 million television sets (2001)–21% of the population covered by FM radio, it makes me wonder whether this expansion and power of media has done public any good? Is our democracy more mature now? Is media a part of the solution as perceived for decades, or have they become a part of the problem?
Decibel levels and not the weight of the issue, local arguments and not evidence, slogans and not rational logic are now dominating our political and social scene. The ugly phenomenon of “paid news” has become a blot on the democratic fabric. Mark Twain once said, “Often a hen which only laid an egg cackles as if she has laid an asteroid.” If we confuse the egg for an asteroid because of the cackling, it does not speak highly of our judgment and discerning ability. The time has come to seriously rethink the country’s Mass Media Policy. Whether the country needs ‘Pure unbiased News’ or value added ‘Masala News’? The learned stalwarts of Indian mass media must exercise prudence and restraint, to show only the truth, the unadulterated, unbiased news and non-sensationalization of events or incidences whether big or small. Let’s talk about our achievements in science, arts, culture, acts of bravery, our heroes, sports, business tycoons and their achievements, awards, education and opportunities, social realities, challenges and solutions, our geniuses–our happening moments. The list is endless.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we Indians are among the truly privileged people enjoying all liberties including freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution. The pleasure of being able to write or say what you please, subject to laws of libel and reasonable restrictions imposed to protect the larger public interest, is indeed a rare blessing not found even in world’s most populous nation—China. But sometimes we take our blessings for granted, and do not adequately appreciate the importance of using this freedom correctly and ethically, and fail to recognize that misuse of the same has long term far reaching damages to the entire social fabric.
Karanjit Singh
Against the motion
Closing Statements
They say don’t judge a book by its cover.
This statement now has no relevance with this debate just like all the write ups of my worthy opponent, which have nothing to do with it either. Let me do a thematic analysis proving to you how on each & every count, my worthy opponent loses this debate
On the question of the media & alternatives, Indian media provides different choices through a differentiated portfolio. These cater to different tastes. So even if majority of the people like sombre channels like DD, they are being satiated by the media effectively. Therefore media only provides the alternatives & it is up to the individual to take the decision.
On rationality, unless until proven otherwise, all the denizens barring my learned opponent are taken to be rational. This is in consonance with the constitutional mandate which respects individuals to take their own choices for themselves. Thus the success of sensational channels is a function of popular support & India TV has the highest TRPs, other channels are adopting this trend, which proves that this strategy is being liked by people. Media is thus acceptable to the rational people of India.
Categorically, he has confessed to today’s media being much more affective in communicating the information. That implies better informed citizens which is beneficial for democracy.
On materialism, he is circumventing the debate to mean taking money on the ground to present the story in a certain way that is not materialism that is corruption. Please understand, if a shopkeeper gives schemes & discounts to sell his goods & earn a high profit, that is materialism; but if he sells defected goods or charges over MRP that is cheating & not materialism, so no one can nor should justify that. My honourable opponent claims media is not a commercial industry, it is a social one. Does this mean that we nationalise all media like in China, suppress their liberties & then he claims he does not want to gag them, this is a clear contradiction. As long as media is doing its job & meeting the needs of the denizens, there is nothing wrong in being profitable, after all they also need to sustain themselves.
My opponent admits unequivocally that we are the ones who believe a man with a microphone blindly. He therefore puts the blame on the individual & not the media as there is no obligation to accept them. He only says that there is unnecessary coverage by his assessment. But he fails to reconcile the fact that if the majority of the people want it, then media would certainly have to focus more on that coverage. If indeed people found the coverage unnecessary, they could always move on.
On the bias of the biased opponent, it is clear that attention is given equally to delinquency in India like Indians being attacked abroad. It is evident that people cater to their target market & media reflects the opinions of the society & not of a vacuum from where my learned adversary draws all his thought. Dissemination of information is indeed a guardian role as media has been providing such vital information, exposing corruption, scams, and nexus & keeping a check on other public organs. There is no other judicial or social dictum to which they are privy to.
It is quite ironical that my worthy opponent has used & misused both the right to free speech & the Saarang debating blog or the internet media through his ludicrous speeches over the last several days & still has been disparaging these 2 platforms vociferously & irrationally. He failed to answer so many questions posted to him on markets, free choices, social will etc. In fact the debate was a test of ideas & arguments and not how well you could quote other people, which defeat the logic of arguing normatively because there could be several people who might quote the opposite way. Disparagingly, he only focused on a few self concluding examples & ignored many others and then called me myopic.
Finally, my opponent defying all norms of sanity says that this debate is about media’s role & not what the people think. In one of his comments, he then adds that the media should focus on national issues. He most astoundingly neglects the fact that what the people of India think & want to know about are indeed national issues. It is eventually the people who determine what are the issues that are important to them & in what manner they want these issues to be presented to them, so then how come, what the people think is not important.
Ladies & gentlemen, on the idea of conventional debating, on choices & individuals, on media serving the needs of people, on a wide array of avenues satiating different interest groups, on informed individuals and on the principle of a normative choice, I sincerely believe that the actions of the media are indeed acceptable & the debate clearly rests with this side of the house.