Monday, December 13, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
The low cost of high celebrity
The low cost of high celebrity
P. SAINATH
You can organise a Salman Khan meeting for Rs. 4,300 going by Ashok Chavan's poll expenditure account.
Deprived of chief ministership, Mr. Ashok Chavan has other problems to contend with near at hand. Soon after the October 2009 assembly elections in Maharashtra, Mr. Chavan was embroiled in the ‘paid news' scandal (The Hindu,November 30, 2009). That was about dozens of full pages of ‘news' eulogising the Chief Minister which appeared in major dailies during the poll campaign. Hearings are still on in the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a notice issued to him on the subject. The last one was held as recently as October 29. Had these multiple pages featuring Mr. Chavan been marked as advertisements, they would have cost crores of rupees and been way above the election expenditure limit of Rs. 10 lakh. Mr. Chavan's poll expenditure account states he spent less than Rs. 7 lakh on his entire campaign and a mere Rs. 5,379 on newspaper advertisements. But there have been developments since then, which throw new light on last year's election costs.
Rally expenses
Only last month, Maharashtra handed the Congress at the Centre another embarrassment. The television channel Star Majha aired clips of a conversation between MPCC President Manikrao Thakre and a former State minister. This got recorded after a press conference had concluded and the speakers did not realise that the channel's mike was still on. The channel reported that every minister in the state had been asked to raise Rs. 10 lakh each for Mrs. Sonia Gandhi's rally in Wardha on October 15 this year. Mr. Ashok Chavan himself, so the conversation went, had apparently raised Rs. 2 crore for the rally. The spending of crores of rupees on a public meeting held close to Mahatma Gandhi's ashram in Sewagram — a symbol of simple living — drew a lot of flak.
The claimed expenditure on the rally, though, is curious. The Sewagram event, going by the recorded conversation of the Congress leaders, cost between Rs. 3 and Rs. 5 crores. In comparison, the 2009 election rallies cost next to nothing. Mr. Chavan's election expenditure account of 2009 — and those of his fellow MLAs from Nanded district — tell us that Mrs. Gandhi's election rally in Chavan's home base on October 6 last year cost a mere Rs. 7.44 lakh. That is, less than 2.5 per cent of what this year's Sewagram rally cost. Even that relatively small sum was shared by six Congress candidates.
No less curious, an election meeting in Mr. Chavan's Bhokar constituency in Nanded around the same time, with Bollywood icon Salman Khan as its star attraction, cost almost nothing. According to Mr. Chavan's election expenditure account, Mr. Khan's first meeting in the then Chief Minister's constituency, cost Rs. 4,440. The second even less, Rs. 4,300. In each case, over a third of this expense, Rs. 1,500, was spent on just the “loud speaker” or public address system. Three days after these entries were made in Mr. Chavan's account, a further item was added: “rent of the meeting place” — Rs. 500.
Nanded (and Bhokar in particular) seem to defy rising prices elsewhere. Thepandal top cost just Rs. 200. The setting up of the stage itself, in the first meeting, took no more than Rs. 1,000. And the cloth covering the stage was rented for only Rs. 40. Sofas for the meeting were hired for a mere Rs. 200.
The total cost of all of Salman Khan's meetings and “roadshow” in three constituencies together came to less than Rs. 20,000. This means, all Mr. Khan's events there cost less than three per cent of what Mrs. Gandhi's election rally the same week did. And less than 0.05 per cent of what this October's Sewagram rally cost. That is, if we go by the accounts of three Congress candidates Mr. Ashok Chavan, Mr. D.P. Sawant and Mr. Om Prakash Pokharna.The Hindu has a copy of each of their election accounts. Mr. Khan's meetings and roadshow in the district were also well publicised in newspaper frontpage reports and in advertisements in Nanded. However, some of these ads taken out in the district dailies do not figure in the election accounts of these candidates. The accounts, however, do helpfully mention that Mr. Khan charged no fee or honorarium.
They also account, jointly, for a transportation cost of close to Rs. 1 lakh for the star. That is, for meetings that cost less than Rs. 20,000 totally. This sum was divided equally amongst those three candidates. Mr. Ashok Chavan's poll account, for instance, records a travel expenditure of Rs. 33,000 in connection with Mr. Khan's October 10 meeting. The two other Congress candidates Mr. Sawant and Mr. Pokharna also record almost identical amounts for the same reason. An RTI filed by Nanded journalist Anand S. Kulkarni of Nanded drew the information that Mr. Khan flew into Nanded for the campaign in a private aircraft on October 10, 2009. Which likely accounts for the cost. There were no regular flights of commercial airlines operating that day at Nanded's small airport.
Difference in campaigns
There was a further significant difference between Mrs. Gandhi's campaign and that of Mr. Khan. Mrs. Gandhi is the No. 1 campaigner of the Congress and the expenses on her meetings could be legitimately borne by her party. A national party can submit up to 40 names to the Election Commission (a State-level party, 20 names) of people who will be star campaigners for it. That is, a list of top leaders who would campaign for the party during the particular election. Most of the expenses of these leaders would be borne by the party and not added to the accounts of the individual candidates whose constituencies they visit. Mr. Salman Khan's name does not figure in the list of 40 campaigners submitted by the Congress. A copy of the official list is with The Hindu. However, a senior officer involved in the conduct of those elections told The Hindu: “It sometimes happens that celebrities are shown as ‘accompanying' one of the star campaigners on the list. So then their expenses would not be fully recorded. Indeed, a few non-entities are placed on the star list just to enable this.”
These amazingly low costs have received scant attention. And pose a challenge to an Election Commission keen on cleaning up the game. However, the advertisements that are not accounted for, are part of the complaint and hearings underway at the Election Commission of India. The ECI's own instructions of March 2007 to chief electoral officers on such advertisements demand a full accounting. The next ECI hearing in the ‘paid news' case is on November 12. Mr. Chavan's troubles may continue.
Is the ‘Era of Ashok’ a new era for ‘news’?
Is the ‘Era of Ashok’ a new era for ‘news’?
P. SAINATH
The frontpage of the Ashok Parv (Era of Ashok) supplement, which must have cost a fortune. Photo: Vivek Bendre
Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan spent a mere Rs. 5,379 on newspaper advertisements during the recent State Assembly election, by his own claim. And he spent another Rs.6,000 on cable television ads. These figures are clearly at odds with the unprecedented media coverage the Chief Minister got during the election campaign. The Hindu has gathered 47 full newspaper pages, many of them in colour, focused exclusively on Mr. Chavan, his leadership, his party and government. These appeared in large newspapers, including one ranking amongst India’s highest circulation dailies. However, they were not marked as advertisements.
By his own account, candidate Chavan spent less than Rs. 7 lakh on his election campaign overall during the Assembly polls. The spending limit imposed on contestants is Rs. 10 lakh. Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 stipulates that candidates must submit their campaign expenses accounts to the district election officer within 30 days of the declaration of results. Apart from a signed statement and summary, the candidate must submit the accounts in the format of “Register for Maintenance of Day to Day Accounts of Election Expenditures by Contesting Candidates.”
The Chief Minister won the Bhokar Assembly seat of Maharashtra’s Nanded district against an independent candidate by a margin of over one lakh votes.
The Hindu has a copy of Mr. Chavan’s account. Two RTI applications were filed by the newspaper’s correspondents in Delhi and Mumbai. Two more were filed by Mr. Shivaji Gaikwad of the Kisan Sabha in Bhokar (Mr. Chavan’s constituency) and by Mr. Gangadhar Gaikwad of the DYFI in Nanded. The Nanded district election officer responded most promptly and Mr. Gangadhar Gaikwad received the statement on Thursday. This is a significant step. Unlike the affidavits declaring their assets, the expenditure sheets of candidates do not mandatorily appear on the ECI’s website.
Perhaps they should. Mr. Chavan received astonishing media coverage during the campaign. The newspapers carrying those many full pages on him nowhere marked them as advertising. In other words, this material ran as ‘news.’ Had it been advertising, it would have cost crores of rupees.
Mr. Chavan states that he placed six newspaper advertisements with that Rs. 5,379. All these were in a minor Marathi daily, Satyaprabha, in Nanded district. However, the flood of full pages on Mr. Chavan and his party, hailing this as the “Era of Ashok,” and the “Era of Development,” ran in Marathi newspapers like Lokmat. If advertising, this would have cost lakhs of rupees. Lokmat is the fourth largest daily in the country and the top-circulated one in Maharashtra (NRS 2006).
The huge mismatch between the account’s stated Rs. 5,379 and the dozens of full pages of ‘news’ in The Hindu’s possession will surely re-stoke the debate over what has now come to be called ‘paid news.’
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Paid news for dummies
Paid news for dummies
SEVANTI NINAN
| A primer to help you understand the finer nuances of media financing… |
Bottom line: the age of innocence is over. Learn to live with it.
Photo: P.V. Sivakumar 
Hard times? Too many media companies, too few ads...
I s it a sign of the times that there is a media-ethics related discussion in the capital city every week? Having been to three in as many weeks, one now feels equipped to come up with a handy primer to help you understand all the delicate new nuances of media financing. In all the brouhaha over paid news, a lot of different categories are getting lumped together. So to begin with folks, let's sort them out.
Paid news is what everybody is talking about. This is coverage that is paid for, but not labelled as advertising. Meaning, it kind of looks like a normal newspaper story, except that everybody at some time or the other carries the same story in roughly the same language. There is political and general paid news. In the political genre, this not-so-smart practice had a major outing in the Lok Sabha elections of 2009, though it started much earlier. It became full blown with the Maharashtra elections last year, as this newspaper has told you, several times over. What does it cost, at its maximum? According to the leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj, citing her personal experience in Madhya Pradesh last year, figuring in a positive light in all the papers that matter is ensured for a rough total of Rs. one crore. Another venerable MP from her party in a private conversation cited exactly the same figure for another state, Jharkhand. Does it win you an election? Not necessarily because your opponent is being offered and probably accepting, exactly the same deal.
General paid news is when you see a distinctly non newsy individual or event getting a splash on the front page of the city supplement of your morning paper or on a channel like Zoom. This began a long time ago, and nobody bats an eyelid any more when the practice persists. The Bennett Coleman media group began the practice through a company called MediaNet, some years ago. Initially it indicated which items were paid for. Now it does not.
Advertising clout
Then there is advertising, which is the life blood of the media industry, and which enters the realm of media ethics when it is used as a pressuring tool. Write nicely about us, and we will give you advertising. If your pesky reporters write not-so-nice things, we will withdraw ads. This particular aspect of using money to influence news is rather old but becomes potent when there is lots of media chasing fewer ads, particularly in a recession year. It also impacts entire segments of reporting. As Outlook editor-in-chief Vinod Mehta said at one of the discussions mentioned above, corporate life in India goes unexamined with the same kind of zeal and enthusiasm with which we take on political honchos. Why? Because they are the big advertisers.
The third category is public relations, which is described in lots of civilised ways by those who practise it. “We don't do spin-doctoring. There is a new generation of highly under pressure, under-researched individuals becoming journalists. We have to hand-hold clients through this.” Meaning through interviews with them. “PR is looking for the right chinks through which the client wants to push his or her message through. Chose the right story, right vehicle, right time — seven in the evening.” “PR is something through which different kinds of voiceless, can get a voice. It is about providing opportunities to people.” All this from my friend Dilip Cherian who describes himself as an image guru. Put like this, it means there is nothing cheap like paid news involved in this brand of persuasion-for-a-fee.
But the fact remains that PR is also instrumental in getting not-always-newsworthy people and events coverage, and if you are wondering where money comes in, here is where it does . Public Relations professional Anshu Khanna says that when you find a page three item not naming an individual or an event, but writing about it without names, you should know that the paper or magazine is signalling that the needful has not been done. Or when the opening of an artist's show or a book launch is covered like an ordinary party with no focus on the paintings or on the book.
Then there is underwritten news, which is simply a matter of picking up the tab for coverage on location. Pick up Harpers or Vogue, or Marie Claire and look at the wonderful locations shoots for jewellery or clothes. If there are lavish layouts running into several pages, rest assured that the magazine has not been splurging out of its coffers for the love of its readers. But nowhere does it say ‘advert' or anything like that. The brand being showcased pays for everything: the shoot costs, and giving the writer and photographer a very comfortable trip to the location. Plus, in some cases, for the story's publication, at a per page rate. So you have glossies where it is impossible to tell where the ads end and where the text begins. The latest entrant in this genre is a fashion glossy called Flamante, which the Times of India group has just launched.
Similarly, some lifestyle TV channels may be particular about paying for trips to spas and holiday destinations that their reporters cover, but the Indian ones are not. And as for covering soft news events at locations abroad, news channels like NDTV 24x7 are quite clear that the organisers must pick up the tab for the entire crew.
Changed times
So what are the honchos in charge saying about all this? “We live in hard times,” said Vinod Mehta, adding that paid advertorial in Outlook was called Spotlight, and he played very little role in what went in there. At a meeting on election-related paid news organised by four media bodies including the Editors Guild, the wisdom was that the best you can hope for is disclosure. We will take money for coverage, but we will indicate that it is paid coverage. We have to do it, said Rajdeep Sardesai, the current president of the Editors Guild. “We are listed quarter by quarter. We have to show profits.” “Editors find it difficult to stand up to proprietors who want to charge for election coverage,” said Mrinal Pande, former editor of Hindustan.
“You cannot run a media company without money,” said Pankaj Pachauri of NDTV. “But there are editors who stand up to media marketers. I have 150 advertisers. You spread your risk.”
Bottom line: the age of innocence is over. Learn to live with it.
Friday, April 23, 2010
It is shameful to misguide people
It is shameful to misguide people
Well-known PR firms, professional designers, and ad agencies served the richer parties and candidates. They made up 'news' items in the standard fonts and sizes of the desired newspapers and even 'customised' the items to make them seem exclusive in different publications. P Sainath reports.
This happened mostly during the last days before voting as desperate candidates poured in money to buy "news." As one senior journalist explained it: "On television, the number of bulletins shot up. In print, the number of pages. The demand had to be met. Often the extra package stuff came in at the last minute and had to be accommodated. Why turn them away?"
In Marathi, Hindi, English, and Urdu newspapers across the State, you can find many fascinating things during the election period that were not turned away. Sometimes the same puff item appeared as 'news' in one newspaper and as an advertisement in another. "It is shameful to misguide people," reads the headline of an item paid for by Umakant (Babloo) Deotale, an independent candidate from Nagpur South West. This appears inLokmat (Oct. 6) with a tiny 'ADVT' (advertisement) at the bottom. It appears the same day inThe Hitavada (Nagpur's leading English language daily) with no mention at all of its being an advertisement. Mr. Deotale got one thing right: it is shameful to misguide people.
In newspapers across the state, sometimes the same puff item appeared as 'news' in one newspaper and as an advertisement in another
Both these devices enabled the government, big parties, and rich candidates to spend huge sums of money that would not figure in poll expenditure accounts. Yet another device, widely used during the actual campaign, is absent in almost all candidate expenditure accounts: the massive use of SMS and voice mail messages. Also, the setting up of campaign-related websites. The amounts involved were significant. Their reflection in candidate accounts is nil.
"News" reports after August 30 and September 18 were fascinating in many ways. For one thing, there is not a single critical or negative line in any of them. Across hundreds of pages, the "news" consists solely of how wonderful particular candidates were, their achievements, and the progress of their campaigns. Nothing about the issues. Their rivals, people of fewer resources, did not exist in these newspaper pages except, perhaps, as fall guys.
Further, if you struck the right deal, the same "news" could appear in print, on television, and online. This was "package journalism" at its most advanced, that was truly multi-media. The shift to this kind of "news" was so large that real advertising at election time - when it should have been highest - actually fell in some influential newspapers.
Sadly, a few senior journalists had their bylines on some of the paid stuff. Some of them had the rank of chief reporter or even chief of bureau. A few may have done so willingly. But there were those who told me: "In the days when this was about petty corruption of individual journalists, we had a choice. To be or not to be corrupt. Now when this is an organised industry run by our employers, what choice do we have?"
Several newspapers published in Maharashtra between October 1 and 10, 2009 make fun reading. Sometimes, you find a page of mysteriously fixed item sizes, say 125-150 words plus a double column photo. The "fixed size" items are curious. News seldom unfolds in such rigid terms. (Advertisements do.) Elsewhere, you can see multiple fonts and drop case styles in the same page of a single newspaper. This was so because everything - layouts, fonts, and printouts came from the candidate seeking a slot. Even the bad pictures sullying the pages of organised papers came from candidates. There was no way a daily with two or three photographers could cope with the frenzy and demand of the first ten days of October.
Sometimes you got a more organised page or two - on which every single "news item" was on one political party only. No one else was found newsworthy on those pages. Page 3 ofPudhari (Oct. 6) worked for the Congress this way. Pages 3 and 4 of Sakaal's Ranadhumali("Tumult of the Battlefield") supplement (Oct. 10) found only MNS-related items relevant. Other major parties too, those with ample resources, got such treatment elsewhere. There were pages where only the NCP made "news" (Deshonnati Oct.11). Deshonnati'sSeptember 15 edition had four pages on Chief Minister Ashok Chavan. Nothing else appeared in those pages. There were similarly 12 pages of Mr. Chavan in the Hindi daily Nav Bharat between Sept. 30 and Oct. 13 (which brings our tally of Chavan-centric full pages to 89). On the other hand, as D-day approached, you got crowded pages, some with as many as 12 items and 15 photographs.
Since candidates or their political parties mostly delivered the "news" in the poll-period, most papers did not edit or change a thing. How do we explain otherwise why the items and their "bylines" violate the papers' own style or practice? At the very least, this raises troubling questions.
For instance, Sakaal normally credits reports from its own staffers as "Batmidar" (reporter). Or else as being from Sakaal Vruttaseva (News Service) or from the Sakaal News Network. Or it uses the reporter's name in the story. But what are obviously Congress handouts (masquerading as news) come signed as Pratinidhi (correspondent). So you found the newspaper carrying items marked Pratinidhi against its own run of professional play. One of these party plugs signed Pratinidhi (Sakaal, October 4) bears the headline "State's leadership will return to Congress!" Sakaal places "Batmidar" at the top of its stories, the Congress handouts place "Pratinidhi" at the bottom. The two make odd bedfellows in the issues of October 4 and 9. Was this news? Was it advertising? Was it a bird or a plane?
Well-known PR firms, professional designers, and ad agencies served the richer parties and candidates, making up their items in the standard fonts and sizes of the concerned newspapers. They also "customised" the "news" to make it seem exclusive in different publications.
A handful of candidates, many of them builders, made more "news" than others. Conversely, smaller parties and less well-endowed candidates tended to get blacked out of any coverage in several newspapers across the State. Some of them have written to me, telling their stories. One, Shakil Ahmed, a lawyer and independent candidate in Sion-Koliwada in Mumbai, said the very newspapers that had earlier given him space as a social activist "demanded money to write about me as a candidate. Since I refused to pay, nobody wrote about me." Mr. Ahmed is eager to depose before the Election Commission of India as well as the Press Council of India.
Journalists and activists from the districts sent us over a hundred issues of 21 different newspapers in the State. These ranged from high-circulation big names to small local dailies. All had their pages crowded with such "news." In television channels, the same items making the rounds sometimes arrived as news on one channel and as advertisements on another. One such item appeared on two channels with the voice of a reporter from a third. And with the boom mike of the third channel showing up on rival screens.
As polling day approached, some journalists were besieged by desperate candidates with limited resources who risked being drowned in the flood. They needed professionals, they pleaded, to write their "paid news" items and were willing to shell out the modest amounts they could afford. The last days of the campaign actually saw some of these tiny items -reflecting the candidate's financial status - find their way on to newspapers pages.
And these were elections, the news media told us, that had "no issues" at all. ⊕
P Sainath
25 Dec 2009
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Paid news undermining democracy: Press Council report
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Paid news undermining democracy: Press Council report
Paid news undermining democracy: Press Council report
P. Sainath
| It explicitly names newspapers and channels — including some of the biggest groups in the country — seen as having indulged in the “paid news” practice. |
The report traces the emergence of the paid news phenomenon over years and phases
Seeks a pro-active role from the Election Commission in initiating action against offenders
“The phenomenon of ‘paid news' goes beyond the corruption of individual journalists and media companies. It has become pervasive, structured and highly organised and in the process, is undermining democracy in India.” So finds the draft report of inquiry conducted into the phenomenon by the Press Council of India to be discussed by the full Council on April 26 in Delhi. The Hindu has obtained a copy of the report to be put up at that meeting.
The report is titled “Paid News: How corruption in the Indian media undermines Indian democracy.” It marshals a vast amount of material on the issue and is a compendium of media malpractice. It explicitly names newspapers and channels — including some of the biggest groups in the country — seen as having indulged in the “paid news” practice. The report could run into rough weather for that reason, with a few Council members reluctant about naming names. (Though it gives space and weightage to the denials of the media groups under the scanner.)
The “lack of consensus” over naming names also extends to the report's reflection of the views of journalists' unions which have called for strengthening the Working Journalists Act. The unions assert that the contract system of employment now in vogue undermines the independence of the journalist and the primacy of the editor. The Delhi Union of Journalists even informed the Council that “selected journalists had been targeted by managements of media companies for not acquiescing with such malpractices”.
Interestingly, many prominent politicians and public figures either deposed before the inquiry panel or made written submissions to it. Others also handed the panel their statements on the subject elsewhere. Across the spectrum, points out the report, even politicians normally loath to antagonise the media have complained bitterly about what many of them see as little more than extortion. A Sub-Committee of the Press Council, comprising Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and K. Srinivas Reddy, conducted the inquiry. Their report quotes opposition leader Sushma Swaraj's statement that the “paid news” menace had “started out as an aberration, went on to become a disease and is now an epidemic”.
The report speaks of the “deception or fraud” that paid news entails as having three levels. First: “the reader of the publication or the viewer of the television programme is deceived into believing that what is essentially an advertisement is in fact, independently produced news content.” Second: “By not officially declaring the expenditure incurred on planting “paid news” items, the candidate standing for election violates the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which are meant to be enforced by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.” And third: “by not accounting for the money received from candidates, the concerned media company or its representatives are violating the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961, among other laws.”
The report notes the “huge amount of circumstantial evidence that has been painstakingly gathered by a few well-meaning journalists, unions of journalists, other individuals and organisations together with the testimonies of the politicians and journalists who have deposed before the Press Council of India.” And says this “goes a very long way in establishing the fact that the pernicious practice of paid news has become widespread across media (both print and electronic, English and non-English languages) in different parts of the country. Interestingly, this phenomenon appears to be less pervasive in states (such as Kerala or Tamil Nadu) where the media is clearly divided along political lines.”
The report traces the emergence of the paid news phenomenon over years and phases including such forms of space selling as MediaNet and Private Treaties. “In pursuing its quest for profits,” it says, “it can be argued that certain media organizations have sacrificed good journalistic practices and ethical norms”. What began as individual or one one-off transgressions, it points out, became institutionalised over the years. “Private Treaties” involve deals where corporates pay media companies in shares for advertising, plus other, favourable treatment. The “Private Treaties” have also disturbed the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) which, as early as July 2009, wrote to the Chairman of the Press Council of India, Justice G.N. Ray, that such strategies “may give rise to conflict of interest and may, therefore, result in dilution of the independence of [the] press vis-à-vis the nature and content of the news/editorials relating to such companies”. SEBI “felt that such brand building strategies of media groups, without appropriate and adequate disclosures, may not be in the interest of investors and financial markets as the same would impede in them taking a fair and well-informed decision”.
The “Private Treaties” structure lost its sheen when the stock market crash of 2008 saw those shares acquired from corporates plummet in value. However, the media companies were still to be assessed for tax purposes at the old values prevailing at the time of such contracts. “Paid news” was one way out of this trouble. Since all the transactions were illegal and off the account books, it benefitted both media owners and politicians.
The report explores several ways to curb the menace of “paid news”. It seeks a far more pro-active role from the Election Commission for instance. It calls on the ECI to set up “a special cell to receive complaints about ‘paid news' in the run up to the polls. Where a prima facie case is established, it calls on the ECI to initiate action against offenders.
It asks that the ECI nominate independent journalists or public figures to help monitor the phenomenon during elections. It calls upon media organisations to desist from having their correspondents “double up as agents collecting advertisements for their organisations and receiving a commission on that revenue”, instead of regular salaries, retainers or stipends.
The report also calls for giving regulatory bodies like the Press Council more teeth. It further appeals to media organisations to adopt a number of principles that would curb “paid news”. However, it recognises that self-regulation and civil society oversight, while welcome and useful, can tackle the problem “only to an extent”. There would have to be effective use of existing laws to “apprehend those indulging in practices that are tantamount to committing a fraud on the public”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)