|
The
Disputes Redressal Authority will have an eminent jurist as the
chairperson and six other members nominated by the NBA board by
a majority decision, with three editors from broadcasters, and
three other experts from various fields.
The
Authority would be set up under a proposed "News Broadcasting
Standards (Disputes Redressal) Regulations."
The
Authority keeps for itself the right to censure, warn, propose
to the government punitive actions, including cancellation of
licenses, or impose fines up to Rs 100,000 on any broadcaster,
as it may deem fit by a majority decision, if a complaint is upheld
by it.
However,
the Association has made one key exception in those falling under
the Authority: in defining a "broadcaster", it keeps
out of the purview of the word any person or organisation who
/ which is not a member of the NBA, or a channel that runs news
as a part of its overall programming and is not a 24 / 7 news
channel.
People
can complain to the Authority, provided they put in Rs 1,000 as
fee per complaint, and also stand a chance of being imposed a
cost of Rs 10,000, in his favour or against him, the latter normally
done by a judicial or quasi judicial body if a complaint is found
to be of malafide intention.
However,
the Authority will be above any complaint, as an important clause
under the proposed regulation says: "No suit or other legal
proceeding shall lie against the Authority, the Chairperson or
any Member/s thereof or any person acting under the direction
of the Authority in respect of anything which is done or intended
to done in good faith under these Regulations."
The
basic Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards has more or less
echoed the issues that the government's Code, now lying with the
Delhi High Court, has raised: no overt violence, no crime against
women or children, nothing that fuels communal passions or hurts
national security concerns, etc.
However,
there is nothing on one of the government's key concerns: repeated
use of short footage over and over again in the same news clip,
which most news broadcasters feel is needed to capture eyeballs.
Like
the government's code, the NBA code too stresses on accuracy,
not speed, protection of privacy, equality (though like the government
code it says it is impossible to give absolutely equal time to
all parties) and other essential hallmarks of quality journalism.
One
the issue of accuracy, NBA strongly says: "Accuracy is at
the heart of the news television business. Viewers of 24-hour
news channels expect speed, but it is the responsibility of TV
news channels to keep accuracy, and balance, as precedence over
speed."
On
the issue of stings, the NBA code says: "As a guiding principle,
sting and under cover operations should be a last resort of news
channels in an attempt to give the viewer comprehensive coverage
of any news story.
"News
channels will not allow sex and sleaze as a means to carry out
sting operations, the use of narcotics and psychotropic substances
or any act of violence, intimidation, or discrimination as a justifiable
means in the recording of any sting operation."
These
issues are a part of the licensing rules of the Ministry of Information
& Broadcasting, and these were really not the bone of contention
between the NBA and the government.
The
real issue has been who will run the redrressal mechanism and
control the media, on which issue the NBA says that it will be
a self-regulatory system with a jury of peers, as is the case
in most countries where television news journalism had matured
much before it arrived in India.
The
NBA's logic is clear, as it sets that out in the preamble: "A
media that is meant to expose the lapses in government and in
public life cannot obviously be regulated by government - it would
lack credibility."
The
NBA says: "There are undoubtedly limitations in any model
of self governance in which compliance is entirely voluntary.
However this does not suggest that such models are ineffective."
It
adds: "A censure emanating from a jury of its peers would
indisputably affect the credibility of a channel. Besides, such
a process is not without its legal ramifications."
So
far as the redressal mechanism is concerned, which was the hot
debate, NBA says that the Authority will be set up through an
electoral process from within itself, and the chairperson will
be an eminent jurist.
The
six members with the chairperson would meet at least once in two
months.
The
NBA's proposed regulation says that written complaints would be
heard and disposed off within six months.
|