16

Business Ethics and the Media

N. Ram

THE EMERGING APPROACH TO ETHICAL PRACTICES

I am delighted to have a little role to play in the concluding session of this conference—the first international conference on business ethics, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR). I am very proud that this institution, associated with my old college¹, has in its own modest and silent way brought this off. From those who have attended, I have learnt that it has been lively and worthwhile. My problem was not re-evaluating what was happening here, my problem was how I fitted in. In addition, I was not quite convinced when they came to invite me to play a small role. Fr Christie assured me that the issue is related to the media and media ethics or journalistic ethics. Social responsibility of the media would be of some interest here. But before that, let me also add my lay voice to this, you have heard learned opinions on CSR and corporate governance. They speak from experience as well as from scholarship. Let me add my lay voice in support of this emerging approach. There have been a number of articles in Indian publications including the ones that I am connected with related to the need of this, the emergence of this thinking and approach of CSR.

THE WORTHY EXAMPLE OF THE HOUSE OF TATAS

We know some of the best practices in India, which are renowned at an international level too. We have examples that exceed far beyond not only our expectations but also our imagination. We must be modest enough to say that India lags behind in at least the innovative part of this emerging field. However, we have our own exemplars. The one that comes to mind is the one which is much written about and that is the house of Tatas. The article I have here discusses their pioneering role, and the details are worth recalling. Drawing from a book on this subject, it's the only business house that is deeply involved in CSR. It points out they are far ahead, far ahead of the law as it evolved repeatedly over the last century. A chapter in this book is on social sensitivities, and it catalogues the many firsts of Tata Steel as labour welfare measures, introducing the 8-hour working day in 1912 while the statutory enforcement took place only in 1948 through the Factories Act. Another first being cited in this volume, sourced from Tata Steel Corporate Social Responsibility Reports² state the administering of free medical aid in 1915, schooling facilities for children in 1917, leave with pay in 1920, maternity benefits in 1928, profit-sharing bonus in 1934, retirement gratuity in 1927, and social audit of the group in 1980. This is one business house that has been clearly ahead of the rest, ahead of the law, ahead of enlightened progressive thinking in many of these fields and kept well up with the best international trends and practices.

WE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER IN THIS AREA

In the new situation, some of our stars in the new economy, the IT companies both as corporations and individual foundations, drawing from the huge wealth created by them, have done exceedingly well. They are catching up with the international leaders in this respect although India ranks pretty low, apart from the romanticization of the good concept. If you look at the net contribution of our corporate sector to what they have identified as CSR, then I guess we will not rank very high internationally. We must be modest about it, and yet there are heartening trends in the prolific discussions. However, our corporations need to put their money where their mouth is. That's the first point that strikes you. We are heartened by the progress we see. There are many issues on which corporations need to exercise their social responsibility in better ways than they do today.

INDUSTRIES SHOULD SERVE A SOCIAL PURPOSE

One of the main areas I see as a journalist, an area of contention, an area of tension, of conflict is this business of farmland acquisition. For industry and in-frastructural development, we have just witnessed the violent and tragic events at Nandigram, similar trouble at Singur and trouble may not be that far away within Chennai with the Airport project. Many voices have risen in protest. This whole idea of the State exercising its eminent domain of its side on industry, on the side of corporations, multinationals as well as large national players has come into vogue. The question has rightly arisen in society, and in politics. The other day our railway minister, Laloo Prasad Yadav, raised it and came out with the view that the State should not get involved in acquisition of land at all. That is issue number one. The exercise is of eminent domain, the exercise is all over the world for the public good, is always a trade-off, there are winners and losers. At least a public purpose has justified the existence of eminent domain but now if you exercise that in favour of corporations, the private sector, private gain, then you are in a difficult terrain of course. You would say jobs are created, wealth will be created, there will be modernization, bottled-up demand for industry in those areas of one state, in this district, in a backward part of the district— all kinds of justifications can be cited in defense of the exercise of the eminent domain. However, at the end of the day, you are left with the question, ‘Why can’t corporations negotiate directly?’ There are those who argue that it is not good, it should not be done. There is restraint there also.

THE MISMATCH BETWEEN SCARCE LAND AND DECLINE IN AGRICULTURAL GROWTH

At least if you leave it to the market then there is some kind of defense. What is the defense? What is the justification for the state in a situation where on one hand there is tremendous pressure of population on the land and on the other land is becoming, in a sense, less and less important to the economy on the other? Agriculture is indeed increasingly becoming less important to the economy. Agriculture is in crisis. It has been neglected. Infrastructural development and agriculture have been neglected. Nevertheless, the problem is that even though its share in the economy is declining, the proportion of the population or human beings dependent on agriculture is still extraordinarily high. In states like Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu it is to a greater extent than, say, in Gujarat but largely this is a true observation. Therefore, you have this paradox, this contradiction between the declining role of agriculture in our gross domestic product (GDP), in the national economy as a whole, coexisting with or conflicting with the huge dependence on the land. In this context, in the name of bottled-up demand for industry, in the name of modernization, in the name of increasing wealth, if you continue to do it in a reckless way regardless of the consequences, especially if you are not transparent, then I think this is a prescription for trouble.

ORGANIZATIONS LIKE FICCI SHOULD TAKE A STAND ON THESE VITAL ISSUES

The corporate sector, including organizations like FICCI, is obliged to take a stand on it. The problem is that it is too tempting to ignore these issues, and the corporations are responsible for this at any rate. But the pressure on the state governments to provide these concessions such as land, a large parcel of land, a large block of land—there are good reasons why they demand it—titles are to be clean, or I simply won't get it. Somebody may sit or squat on my land and disrupt the project. There are so many justifications but at the end of the day, why don't you do it? Why don't you take a clear stand on it? The whole issue as we have seen earlier at Nandigram could happen elsewhere in the world, in India as well.

THE FLAWED SYSTEM OF COMPENSATION AND THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The second problem we are dealing with is pretty much in the area of CSR is the question of flawed system of compensation. Even if you say you are paying market prices, by the time it reaches him, it is never satisfactory for the farmer, the owner of the farmland. Here comes a huge social problem, a huge political problem, above all it turns out to be an ethical issue. This is an area where I think too much silence has been observed on the part of the corporate sector in India and they have failed to exercise CSR both as individual companies and as—since you speak through them—the powerful bodies.³ Why there is not enough discussion on this topic that stares at everyone's face right now? You can have different opinions on it. You can argue from both sides of the issue, but the conspiracy of silence should not be the answer. I can reiterate this as a very important social and political question here in India within the next few years. However, to come to a clear policy on this issue, the government must do it. Corporate bodies must take a clear policy on, for example, this issue of child labour. What a tremendous pressure has been applied on Indian manufacturers, as in Sivakasi, from the buyers, whom I commend for their efforts. Earlier, there was some resistance from Indian policy makers on this, but if you say I won't buy any product made by child labour, that has a huge effect, it has not only a moral influence, it's a very good moral business. On a recent visit to Sivakasi, everyone reported a trend of decline in child labour in matchmaking and fireworks industry, though I am not sure of the figures. This industry had the dubious distinction of being the biggest industry promoting child labour. Though it has reached only a satisfactory level, people have clearly taken a stand. It is not just profit these days, but marrying ethical principles to this, achieving progressive social standards and making it work, putting pressure on very unwilling people. Manufacturers eventually will do appreciate it. I am quite optimistic about what can be done on this front.

Coming to the subject, I was invited to speak on, The Media or Journalistic Ethics.

THE MEDIA UNDER PRESSURE IN THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

The media in India, by which I mean just the news media, includes the press that is over 200 years old, television, which came much later, radio and now the new media particularly over the Internet. If you look at it—I do not wish to go into excessive details—what strikes us is the dramatic contrast between the situation of the news media in India and China, and some other countries in the developing world on the one hand, and the news media or matured media markets in developed countries and some fairly developed countries like South Korea on the other. In all these developed places, the whole media has come under tremendous pressure. The newspaper circulation is declining, readership is declining, they are cutting back on news operations though some of them are still profitable. Some of them are exceedingly good and have a certain future but when you look at the industry, the main finding is that they are losing readers; younger people and groups are not reading newspapers anymore. It is a long-term, serious, inexorable decline and it looks like it is irreversible. If you look at the audience of the broadcast television, then it is a picture of gloom. The audience is shrinking; not that television is going to go away, but narrowcast technologies, Internet protocol television and all that, TiVO in the US, this is becoming a real threat to the conception of broadcasters of the old days. Audiences are shrinking—there will still be World Cup Football, Olympics or the World Cup Cricket but generally speaking—you can count on only a fraction of the audiences that you used to enjoy earlier. In the US and other developed countries, it does not mean end, there is tremendous pressure on the bottom line. Above all, it leads to very negative outcomes, cutting back of news staff and news operations, winding up the foreign bureaus. They are now making very cold-hearted decisions, whether you like them or not. They are answerable when they go public especially. The values are beginning to make a concern. This is, in a sense, coming to a conflict with the good old core values of journalism. It says you must cover this regardless of pressures; that kind of approach is changing now. This is a broad picture, broad-brush treatment. It can be contradicted by many examples. The broad picture is incontestable.

This is happening and in the centre of it is emergence of the Internet, in fact, the emerging centrality of the Internet. If there is any interest, we shall discuss it later. I do not wish to throw more light on this. We have limited time in this session.

THE MEDIA IS IN THE GROWTH MODE IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

But in dramatic contrast, I say, is the situation of all these media in the less developed markets. From the low base, we are still in growth mode, whether it is the Indian-language press or even the English-language press in India, which has more reach when it comes to eligible audiences. It is still in growth mode. You are saying 10 or 15 per cent a year in terms of circulation growth. Readership is increasing. Revenues are increasing. Profits are growing in the newspaper sector and especially in the Indian-language press. In terms of absolute reach, they are judgmental. I just saw the figures of the World Newspaper Association a few days ago, in the last two or three years, the same thing has been reported, China and India are in top of the league. Seventy-five per cent of the 100 top circulated dailies in the world are circulated in Asia. The gap is going to increase and not decrease in the coming period.

THE EVER-EXPANDING REACH OF THE MEDIA AND ITS LIMITATIONS

If you look at the audience for the television, satellite TV conveyed by Cable, you will see that it is growing extremely rapidly. The number of channels, the number of promotional offers, is growing tremendously and is incredibly large. About 450 or 500 million people in India are being reached by television, a lot of them by satellite TV, DTH is coming. Radio, which had suffered a decline in the last decade, is beginning to pick up with FM. But they are not allowed to air news and current affairs in India, which needs to be changed. If you look at the Internet, it is growing at a rapid rate. The use or the number of Internet users is an extraordinarily low base. It is still only 40 million in India. You can imagine the space for growth, when we have broadband and it grows with the growth of the economy. In this context, I think we can get many things right. Mistakes made elsewhere can be avoided or we can respond better to them because we have time and we are still in growth mode. This is the first thing that strikes you when you talk about media power. Therefore, the other side of the coin, you become powerful through obligation to society is much greater, much more intense, and you are often involved in conflicts. Fears, attacks come at you all the time.

We have a reader's editor⁴ and everyday we see how stressful a job is when you interact with your audience. Earlier, you just gave it to them; you occasionally made forays into just finding out what they wanted and so on. But the kind of interaction there is today, because of our online presence as well as the rest of it, is truly a new experience. So, the power of the news media in India is the real thing, there are limitations to this power. But it, the whole business of social responsibility whether you like it or not, has come to a centre stage. The audience is forcing you to respond to this demand that you be more accountable, that you become more transparent. You are giving advice to the corporations and the government sector, you criticize them for a number of things, but why are you so non-transparent? Is it impossible for us to find out what happens in the newsroom? How do you make decisions? Out of the letters to the editor that you receive everyday, how many do you publish? Do you tailor publications to your prejudices, your preferences? Is there an ombudsman? Is there anyone we can appeal to? This becomes a daily demand and even for the press, for television, it becomes much bigger as the reach is greater. When you are well connected, you have responses in real time. Before we publish an editorial, there is time zone difference, there are people writing letters to the editor, commenting on the issues better than you can report them in an editorial. Although I do not wish to romanticize this citizen journalism beyond a point, it has its problems.

THE NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL CODE

So this is it, now whether you like it or not, you have to become more accountable, not just internally, but externally. You have to work out guidelines. You are required to comply with them. Journalism is one of the few professions where there is no professional code imposed on the professionals. Lawyers are supposed to have it, though it is not enforced or implemented. Doctors are supposed to have it. There are professional bodies that regulate it, they can stop your practice if need arises. Virtually anything that calls itself a profession has it. But in journalism, you cannot and rightly have so, because we do not want policing from the outside but that does not remove the need for internal structures which we lack in most parts of the world, particularly India.

I have made this point along with some colleagues in many discussions in this country often in public and on television. But there has been very little response yet because we have this complaint all the time: intrusion into grief. How do you treat it? Showing graphic images of violence, or pictures. Of course, I noted with interest that those who preach to us showed some horrible images of Saddam Hussein being hanged. Top papers including The Guardian and Times depicted the same. When it comes to things that interest their readers, they may take a different stand. Largely, there is a consensus that you should avoid this. In India, it is still unregulated; you can call it lawless as far as these things are concerned. What is the answer to it? Apart from devising mechanisms for internal accountability and social responsibility, that is what the institution of the readers’ editor is all about. You need codes of conduct; codes of practice; in the UK, the press editors of major newspapers and publications have together worked out what is known as the code of practice. The Press Complaints Commission is supposed to implement it; of course, the tabloids are beyond the play and obey no law, and no code of practice. They are insured against all kinds of defamation: that is a different kind of media practice.

ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE MEDIA

For the serious papers, there is a code of practice. There is a mechanism that makes you answerable, at least they blow the whistle on a breach of ethics, on appalling deviations from good taste, departures from sensible behaviour and so on. This is lacking in India, whether it be press, broadcast media or even Internet media. This needs to be remedied. Why are we saying this? Because the press claims that or the serious sections of the media claim that they play roles and functions: the first being credibility of information. It is very hard to define but you recognize it when you see it, not the state-controlled media but the serious sections of the press. We do not deserve to exist unless we win this badge of credibility, believability, readers’ trust as otherwise you have no business to be there. You could probably make more money in other sectors. The second role or function is called critical function, sometimes adversarial or you may call it watchdog role, which is an investigative role. Sometimes you are accused of destabilizing existing structures, the status quo, but this critical adversarial investigative role is a very important, valuable function that the press has been handling over the long term. Modern history of India, over a hundred years, had many events reported in the press everyday, whether it is in relation to a food crisis or hunger, farmer suicides, starvation deaths, old days’ featured mass famine, child labour, or some of the atrocities that are committed here. The media has an important role in this regard, in blowing the whistle on these atrocities, on these manifestations of injustice and inequity. The third role—if you perform the other two well—is the educational functional role. Seek not just to inform, but also to educate. The task or social role of public education, on science, on economics, on good business practices, on CSR, on those who do well and those who do hardly anything at all, those who talk big and do not do much. The public needs to be educated specifically on these matters. We do a bit of it too but it is not enough at all. The potential is huge. Fourth, if you play the first three functions positively, is the agenda-building role. This is where media can be partners with Loyola Institute of Business Administration (LIBA). This international conference that we come together to is taking place because we believe that this agenda is worthwhile. Neither you nor I can make an agenda, that claim is too immodest to make. However, we can influence the agenda together and build one together. There could be many partners and that is where the media can play the role of agenda-builders. We could probably join hands with other institutions that are here. We can play this very worthwhile role. The press and the news media need to be educated on the details and nuances of these things where we can work a lot. This, I think, is an exciting prospect particularly in the Indian situation where we are in the growth mode. We can reach more people than ever before.

INDEPENDENCE OF THE MEDIA IS VITAL FOR ITS GROWTH

Finally, how does this concept of social responsibility sit with the freedom of the press, freedom of the media, the independence of the media that we so fiercely defend and advocate. Conventional wisdom in the West, especially in the US, used to posit a laissez faire conception of a libertarian press with unbridled rights that no government or external agency could be allowed to touch. Social responsibility concept historically rose in reaction to this posture. When they said we could not accept this form of social responsibility, trust us; we have to be free, our freedom should be such that no agency outside our press or media have the right to even advice us on what our social responsibility is. The reaction is what it essentially used to be. So, the social responsibility concept as far as the media or press is concerned arose in the US precisely in reaction to this posture and the first schematic or systematic theory of a socially responsible press was presented in 1947 in the report of the Commission on Freedom of the press by Robert M. Hutchins in the Hutchins Commission. In a wonderful draft of its time, it laid five standards for performance of free and responsible press. These are interesting. I do not want to go into the details. Nevertheless, these are: (i) to provide a truthful and comprehensive view of the day's happenings; (ii) context that gives them meaning; (iii) to serve as a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism; (iv) to offer a representative picture—this is going to be important; and (v) to relate specifically to social responsibility that is often missed in practice. Representative picture, as mentioned above, would be all the constituent groups, not excluding the poor and the deprived, those who cannot make any sense of your Internet, of your PCs and so on.

THE NEED FOR SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE AND ETHICAL JOURNALISM IN INDIA

This forms a huge proportion of the population not just in India but also in several developing countries. This also includes clarifying the goals and virtues of the society. These are some of the standards of performance that are cited. Although the recommendations of this Commission were attacked fiercely at the time, they were presented, and over the long term the influence of this kind of thinking has been quite profound and social responsibility doctrine for the news media has not just been influential, it is making demands with changing times. One of the best formulations of this is offered by Professor Eugene Goodwin, a journalism teacher and scholar who says that we should have a separate set of principles based on journalism that serves the public by aggressively seeking and reporting the closest possible truth about events and conditions of concern to people; a journalism that deals and connects with information in an honest manner, and treats the people involved with compassion; a journalism that conscientiously interprets and explains the news so that it makes sense to the people. And in keeping with the history of Indian civilization, which has respected—references made earlier by Father Christie— cherished and conserved, diversity and pluralism, respected and cherished values of modern day enlightenment, democracy, secularism and justice. We, some of us who have thought about it, would like to propose, the following set of principles as a template for socially responsible and ethical journalism in India. This follows the international discussion. However, we must make suitable modifications to suit specific Indian conditions.

The Media Is Obliged to Tell the Truth

First is the principle of telling the truth. It essentially means that the media must aim for factuality, accuracy, verification anticipating the likelihood of error, providing context, providing background, reasonable interpretation and truthful analysis. We need not enter into scholarly or philosophical debates over what is truth. With the techniques and understanding in journalism, it is eminently possible to aspire to these standards. It also means probing and investigating in a tough and dedicated manner, to uncover facts of significance that are either concealed or inaccessible for other reasons. Today, the right to information (RTI) Act,⁵ which is surprisingly powerful, and thought there are attempts to deny or neutralize its scope, its value continues to show. In the hands of citizens, of journalists, and in the Hindu group we have extracted some valuable information, for example, how many cases of kidney donations—this is a euphemism for kidney commerce—the Authorization Committee set up under the law in Chennai approved earlier? They would not give the figure at all. However, by means of RTI Act, you learn that it exceeded over 1,600 the last year, and you know that nearly 99 per cent of them involved illegal transactions and the Authorization Committee members, who were eminent people, were helpless or went along with it, allowing the law to be made an ass. Kidney commerce is not accepted in the medical profession nor is it legal. However, buying and selling of kidneys is practised. Therefore, you do have the RTI Act in place and you have some good commissioners who aggressively implement this entitlement of citizens today. With this, we can certainly empower ourselves in our first role in a big way.

Freedom of the Press Is to Be Ensured at All costs

Second is the principle of freedom and independence of the press. Freedom of the press is a fundamental right not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution of India. Most of you know this, lawyers certainly do. This is derived from Article 19 of the Indian Constitution but thanks to our Supreme Court, our higher judiciary, freedom of the press has been put on a pedestal through judicial interpretation. We are quite satisfied with it, though we have complaints about certain unreasonable restrictions, but I won't go into that here. However, compared with most developing countries, India is in an enviable situation so far as the freedom of the press is concerned. I quickly add that the same freedom is not available to television, where it is an incomplete freedom. Now, satellite TV is unregulated. We need a regulatory mechanism. It is not there, but the positive freedom that the press has in India is not so in the case of the broadcasting media. Freedom is not the only thing. You cannot have freedom unless independence is allowed to flourish. Experience of many countries teaches us that media that is not free and independent cannot be accountable to society. It cannot discharge its social obligations. Helplessness in the face of manipulation and establishment propaganda and the absence of credibility and believability are debilitating for the media as they would be for all corporate bodies worth speaking about. This was proved of the media during the short-lived emergency period of 1975–77 and the longer term experience continues to demonstrate in the form of state-controlled radio and television, Doordarshan and All India Radio, for all the good things they are. They do not have the credibility or the believability that other sections have. This is a self-limiting factor.

Media and the Principle of Justice

Third is the principle of justice. In a sense, this is the most important conception of justice and here we have an expert on this topic, a scholar who has written on this, John Alexander who has interacted with Professor Amartya Sen, along with John Rawls’ conception of justice, as well as more radical and revolutionary conceptions of justice. As far as the media are concerned, what we would like to say to them or to our colleagues is conceptions of justice vary widely. From the classical liberal to the Rousseauan, the radical and revolutionary, there cannot be any professional prescription of conception of justice that the journalist or media organization must follow. One level of justice is obviously fairness, judged by widely accepted standards of reasonableness. A fairness doctrine can be laid down. In a quiet and precise enforceable way, code of practice indeed can be codified in terms of the professional ethics. However, justice is much more than fairness, in the sense, the one progressive approach, a very inspiring approach to justice is the theoretical concept of entitlement to human capabilities and functioning developed by Professor Amartya Sen, our Nobel Prize winning economist. I am pleased to say that in the journalism school I am associated with, the Asian College of Journalism, we have a course called ‘Covering Deprivation’ and it is all about justice. To quote from the prospectus of this college, ‘Socio-Economic and other forms of deprivation might be a large part of Indian contemporary reality especially in the countryside but covering deprivation in an informed and sustained way has not been a strong area of performance for mainstream media.’ Deprivation refers to the failure of individuals in a society to achieve basic human functioning.

Among these are the ability to live a long and healthy life, free from avoidable disease and hunger, the opportunity to be educated, and access to resources needed for a socially acceptable standard of living, some forms of deprivation may apply to all members or specific groups and classes. I think this encapsulates in a quite useful way what journalists should be concerned with when they encounter Indian realities especially not only in the countryside but also increasingly in the metros and the large cities. It is a reasonable expectation of socially aware and responsible journalism that should learn to cover competently and interestingly not just the facts of deprivation, but its causes, socio-economic or political and now increasingly environmental circumstances associated with this. So, I believe if a new interest is triggered among young journalists, as well as people like you in other fields, covering the subject on a regular sustained basis and in developing specialized media capabilities, or intellectual capabilities or professional and analytical capabilities in an area where the mainstream media perform poorly. If this happens, the justice component of the media and its performance can be significantly improved. Other examples such as the need for better reporting, and analysis of caste and other forms of social inequality and oppression, sex ratio and other indicators of social justice can also be considered.

Media and the Principle of Humaneness

Fourth is the principle of humaneness. To ask for this consistently from the media is not to aim too high. There is a real story that happened in the USA 20 years ago, and it ticked off a huge debate on the ethics of media, on the moral role media should play. This happened when a young man, a jobber, in Middle America was depressed and unemployed, set himself on fire in a public place. A TV cameraman was at hand, the cameraman did his job—he continued to shoot the scene. The camera kept rolling for several seconds before a bystander who was not a journalist intervened to put out the flames. This is an extreme case. It illustrates very well the ethic of what decency, what humaneness, what sort of humanity we demand of journalists and citizens. Journalists are not exempt from the ordinary requirements that humanity makes on human beings. But it took a long time for this realization to go through and be accepted as mainstream thinking within the media. It led to a huge debate on this. Today, it is necessary and even embarrassing that we have to emphasize part of our Panchsheel as humanity or humaneness but you cover anything, covering a famine, drought, starvation, deaths, massacres, distress; this becomes an exercise in truth telling and independence and in humanity. Serious journalism in India has had a very good track record, a creditable track record, in blowing the whistle on hunger as a crisis. But it still tends to treat chronic hunger and deprivation as a tame issue, as quoted by Professor Amartya Sen. All that can be said today is Indian news media seems to be taking a lesson, if you take NDTV and various sections of the press in writing, P. Sainath in our newspaper, as well as writings across Indian language papers, the best among them, you can probably say that we now take less low-key approach to persistent hunger, malnutrition and under-nutrition. The social responsibility needs to make a much bigger commitment. Regarding the principle of humaneness in journalism, one should make this commitment explicit, more immediate, more direct, wide-ranging and advanced.

MEDIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRIBUTING TO THE SOCIAL GOOD

The last is the principle of contributing to the social good. All of us want to do it. However, we cannot afford our efforts, and journalism in particular cannot afford, to become agitation and propaganda. Doing good all the time is not possible for the media. Sometimes we get letters from the readers as to why do we give the bad news, as if we were to blame. Give us good news, they say. If I continue to give you good news, when some of the countryside is burning, you will treat me in the same way you treat the state-controlled media. Though truth telling comes into that, we must do much more than that of the positive, for the social good and the number of issues need to be tackled. I propose that it is not too much to demand from the socially intelligent media, that it must discern or discover in a free and independent way what is right, what is just, what is democratic, what is human, and what is socially good. It needs to avoid the traps that abound in the professional arena.

I hope that some of these observations connect with the discussion and rest of the conference. I have no guarantee, I have no idea really, but I hope and believe that it will connect if you really think deeply about this. The media has become increasingly corporatized. They face much the same challenge as the rest of the corporate sector in India, but I have approached this from the standpoint of the social responsibility of the media and the ethical principles that good journalism and all media organizations need to follow if India is to be proud of its media performance in the future.