Arnab Goswami

Arnab came, spoke and enthralled the audience at Christ University. Among other things Arnab replied to a question on 'Trial by Media'. This is rather contentious and there is a divided reaction to this among the media professionals. What is trial by media? It refers to the usurping of the powers of the judiciary by the press to do a parallel trial and reach a conclusion about the guilt or otherwise of the accused.
Most television channels have been conducting trial by media. In some instances, the travesty of justice is sought to be corrected by media campaign in high profile cases. Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Matoo cases are just two examples where media took upon itself to bring the culprits to book and in the process aid justice. In some of the other cases; Shiney Ahuja in particular, the media conducted trial before the judicial process took off and convicted the accused. Many felt that Shiney didn't get a free and fair trial due to the media intervention.
Arnab had an interesting take on this issue- as long as the case has not taken off formally in a court of law the media can report, analyse and pass judgements on the case. This stand may not be universal nor acceptable to all. It also may not conform to the legal provisions governing contempt of court law. Freedom of the press and the right of a man/woman charged with a crime to a free and fair trial are at loggerheads here. Media has a responsibility to see that justice is done as many cases involving powerful people needs monitoring as there is scope for manipulation. At the same time this cannot be an excuse to deny the accused a chance at proving his innocence.

Cartoon Capers

Cartoons give a funny yet striking view of life around us. Humour is an important component of existence. It is our ability to laugh at ourselves that defines who we are. Right from independence we have had graphic communicators in the form of Vijayan. Keshav, Laxman, Abu and others who painted our society in satire and parodied the wrongs. One cannot imagine a newspaper without its front page political cartoon. It adds a different dimension to the news (facts) and views (opinions).
Many cartoonists have been in trouble in the past. But there haven't been any major source of apprehension about this freedom to express. Today, things have taken on ugly turn. Cartoonists, one after another are facing arrests. They have been charged with serious crimes for using the medium to make important political statements. The latest causality is Aseem Trivedi, who caricatured the corruption that is eating into the very entails our system. He was charged with sedition for denigrating the national symbols. People who have looted the country are going scot-free and those protesting against that are being jailed.
Freedom is always fragile. Interested groups are willing to go to any lengths to stop being exposed. Freedom of expression is sacred, not the symbols we are told to revere. It is extremely heartening to see so many reasonable people protesting Aseem's arrest. If we give up our right to defend our rights, we may as well lose them.

critical issues

this semester very few students took part in the online discussion. maybe media laws as a subject is not very interesting. the next semester the same students will have critical media issues. it is a continuation of the dilemma that media practitioners find themselves in and the possible way out of the situations. the topics that will be discussed in class as part of this paper will be decided once the semester starts.
the possible topics for discussion could be- paid news- is there a way out, handling communally sensitive issues- the Ayodhya decision, interpretation of news- what happens to objectivity, fourth estate question- taking on the government of the day, public figures having no private lives and intensive public relations effecting news credibility.
i would love to hear from the class if there are any other topical issues or the ones listed need a different direction. online is an extension of the class and very important to cut down on the waste and repetition in classroom.
go ahead and reply.

why do we need laws?

every day when i pass through the two-wheeler parking lot i see the security personnel guiding the students to park their vehicles in an organized manner. just imagine if even one parks the bike in a crooked manner, it will lead to hardships for many. 

this is precisely the case with laws. we would have loved to park where we liked and hate someone telling us where to park. but that is not in the interest of all. so, laws are necessary to bring about some order in society. there is a cost involved in everything. when we are mandated to follow the laws it means giving up some aspects of our personal freedom. but the benefits to the society as a whole are many and that is the reason why we all crib about too many laws but can't imagine a society without them. 

please feel free to comment.

naresh rao

end of censorship

censorship is valid in India. many publications have faced the music- books, plays, movies, blogs and television programmes. as India changes and we become more sensitive to the concerns of different sections of society, all forms of expression will come under increased scrutiny.
one will find it almost impossible to air views on social and cultural issues. the thin line between what is right and wrong will start overlapping under the pressure of interest groups. take 'lajja' for example. if an author wants to put light on the atrocities indulged in by a particular section in society it could be construed as being anti-religion and banned. same is the case with 'final solution' which would be seen as painting the majority community with the communal brush and thus appropriate for ban.
what seems to be the problem is the lack of acceptance of criticism by the individuals in society. every act, every belief and every individual should come under spotlight. it is only through a process of questioning and change will the individual, society and nation progress. what is accepted as right and ultimate has to pass the test of time and if found wanting must be replaced by new ideas and beliefs. this is one lesson we can see from the history of human civilization.

Pressing problem

Emraan Hashmi is in the news- for a change, not for his mouth smacking reason. his allegation that a housing society has refused to give a noc as he was a muslim has set off a debate. it is common knowledge in our country, where from governments to schools and colleges there is a preference for individuals from one community over others, this malice would be reflected in another important aspect of our society- housing communities. the ghetto mentality based on safety in numbers is seen everywhere among all, poor and rich alike.
The Emraan case is spiraling out of control. now there is a fir against both Emraan and Mahesh Bhatt for trying to incite communal passions and thus divide society. some celebrities are already taking sides and based on their personal experiences supporting or criticising Emraan. The larger issue of discrimination on the basis of community affiliation is a serious one that should not be brushed under the carpet. government can do so much, it is up to us to solve the problem. a solution is not simple- a law to punish the guilty for violating the constitution right to reside anywhere in the country and right to equality is only the beginning. each housing society should reflect the diversity that is present in India and not become ghettos for exclusive living.

Indo-US bonhomie

the row over the signing of the deal between India and US on weapon sales with a clause allowing US to inspect the weapons and bases where they will be stored is being covered by the media extensively. the opposition in the parliament has criticized the government for compromising the sovereignty of the country in a hurry to get close to US. has the media been neutral or sided with those opposed to this deal? unlike the previous civil nuclear deal, where the English media supported the stance of the government, there is a bit of skepticism this time around. the issue is whether india has given up too much for too little in return?
the fact that india needs hi-tech weapons for a conventional edge in the sub-continent is obvious. india's most trusted supplier Russia provides most of our present requirements. the fact that we get their latest weapons at reasonable rates and that too at more or less our terms is an important consideration. but of late, india is feeling the strain of depending on one supplier for all its requirements. it is time to spread the net wider and have access to the best weapons money can buy. it is time to be pragmatic and accept the reality that we live in a unipolar world and the best defense technology comes from US.