‘Free press imperative in fight against terrorism’

Time magazine’s Alex Perry feels as compared to its western counterparts, the India is relatively open on security and defence. 

Urvashi D Rawal

WHILE the global reach of terrorism and its growing ferocity in recent times has made media’s role more challenging, journalists say it is all the more important that leaders around the world not muzzle the press or add ‘’spin’’ to or ’’sex-up’’ information.

Reporting on sensitive issues like national security and militancy is always a tussle between the media and government, even in the so-called ‘’free world’’, newspersons say as the media has to ensure objectivity in its reportage without espousing the cause of either the state or the militants. Correspondents of both the national and foreign media said that it was primarily the government’s responsibility to ensure the free flow of information so they did not appear to be pursuing an agenda, especially on sensitive national security matters, where establishments are often accused of “spin doctoring’’.

“The media has to battle for information... and no government worth its salt is free with information,’’ eminent journalist Mahendra Ved of Times of India said. However, he pointed out that a confident government would take the media into confidence on such vital issues and the media would act responsibly and report objectively. And while they agreed that some “filters’’ might be needed while divulging information of a sensitive nature, they all opposed draconian laws, which throttled the freedom of the press.

“Today though the world faces threat from various terrorist groups, POTA and similar laws elsewhere could be very dangerous. Politicians can use such laws to harass innocent people. There is need for special laws to combat terrorism, but they should not impinge upon the rights of the common man,’’ Time magazine’s South Asia correspondent Alex Perry said.

NDTV Defence Correspondent Ajai Shukla, however, felt that such laws were not necessarily impediments to the free flow of information. “It is not the acts in themselves... but the way they are implemented that subverts the aim behind their enactment. The security forces need to be armed with sufficient legal backing but they do not need to use these powers to interfere in the working of the force.’’ On the government’s willingness to divulge information on defence-related matters, Mr. Shukla said the Indian government frequently contradicted itself and took recourse to selective release of figures that suited it arguments. “Patriotism is defined by the government in a way that suits it. It is not the job of the media to decide what to report and what not to, except in times of war and, on such occasions, the Indian press has proved to be utterly patriotic,’’ Mr. Shukla pointed out. Mr. Perry said as compared to its western counterparts, the Indian government was relatively open in disseminating information on security and defence. “Our (foreign media’s) access to Indian government and military is far better than in the US and Britain where the governments allow less access to sensitive information,’’ he pointed out. He was critical of the US media for allowing itself to be controlled by the White House. “Indian media     is vibrant, has good, aggressive journalists and is more balanced and fair in its coverage than its counterparts in Asia.’’

Endorsing his views, Nick Meo, a free lancer from UK who writes for several British papers, said the Indian press enjoyed more freedom than its counterparts in South and South East Asia. He advocated that on security issues Indian journalists should not only highlight the government’s version but also portray the view of the militant groups. “They should maintain objectivity and investigate the root causes of militancy, which will enable to mitigate the sufferings of the affected population,’ opined Nick Meo.

| Headlines  |  Editorial   | From Other Publications  |
|  Travel Column   |   News Briefs  |
| OT Main Page | Nena  Home Page |