NEWS POLICY FOR BROADCAST MEDIA:

Both Radio and Television play a vital role in the formation of the public opinion. So, the
Government of India seriously realized that there should be clear-cut news policy for
broadcast media. Following is the news policy for Broadcast media issued by the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting to AIR & DD on May 4, 1982 and placed before the Lok
Sabha on July 13, 1982.

1. There should be a clear-cut distinction between news and views. News should be
factual, accurate and objective. There should be no editorialization of news.
2. News should be selected on the basis of news value.
3. Though the selection of news should be done on the basis of news value, yet its
presentation should be according to the medium and the audience.
4. Apart from factuality and accuracy in the news, attempts should be made to give the
background of the news also.
5. There should be the highest stage of responsibility in broadcast news. AIR and
Doordarshan should not broadcast any news on the basis of its publication in
newspapers and magazines. They should develop their own sources for the
verification of events.
6. In a developing country like India, AIR and Doordarshan should highlight
development news, its relevance, its achievements and problems. Other than that they
(AIR & DD) should also motivate the people to participate in development activities.
For that they should not only depend on news agencies, but put out well-grounded
stories on their own.
7. Due to the limitations of time, news in AIR and Doordarshan cannot be like that of
newspapers.
8. The news relating to the implementation of the Government programmes should get
due coverage.
9. The main objective of the current affairs programmes should be to enlighten the
people on various aspects of political, economic, social and cultural developments.
The treatment of the subject should be comprehensive projecting different
viewpoints. It should aim at providing adequate background for a proper
understanding and interpretation of events and issues.
10. Internal evaluation of news and current affairs programmes after their broadcast
should be the regular exercise on daily basis.

11. The style of language of broadcast medium should be ear pleasing and not eye-
pleasing like print media.
12. In case of politically controversial news, AIR and Doordarshan should try to maintain
a balance while presenting the viewpoints of all the sides. If a variety of viewpoints
cannot be projected in the same bulletin, the balance should be achieved within a
reasonable period of time.
13. Regarding international news, news of developing countries, especially from that of
our neighbors should get priority.
14. AIR and Doordarshan should aim at creating an informed public opinion on
international events and developments. In preparing news, national interest must be
kept in mind.
15. The provision of regular evaluation of the language of bulletins is a must. There has to
be a much greater emphasis on specialization and training of the news/personnel
 within AIR and Doordarshan. A stylebook in each language should be prepared
without delay.
16. The professional capacity of the people who run the news and current affairs
programmes is vital and important, because they have immensely great role in the
implementation of these policies and norms. Again, the choice of personnel is most
important. A professional must have had training in news work. He should be able to
choose the items well and to rewrite the stories to suit the medium. Professional training and
appreciation of the role of the media in a democratic society will give him the confidence to
take the right decisions.

BROADCASTING CODE GOVERNING ALL INDIA RADIO AND DOORDARSHAN:

Recognizing the immense power of Radio and Television for both good and evil and
the solemn responsibilities are placed upon all broadcasters.
1. To ensure the objective presentation of news and fair and unbiased comment;
2. To promote the advancement of education and culture;
3. To raise and maintain high standards of decency and decorum in all programmes;
4. To provide programmes for the young which, by variety and content, will inculcate
the principles of good citizenship;
5. To promote communal harmony, religious tolerance and international understanding;
6. To treat controversial public issues in an impartial and dispassionate manner;
7. To respect human rights and dignity.
8. This code was adopted by the fourth Asian Broadcaster Conference convened at
Kuala Lumpur in 1962 and to which all India Radio was a party.
 `Editor Guild Code of Ethics

Why a Code in the first place?

Journalists resist any kind of “code” for their profession as it is something repugnant to the
freedom of expression.

But a good code imposes no fetters. It may only flag some pitfalls discovered by those who
have gone before, so that those who follow may anticipate and avoid them. That way useful
guidelines will emerge and freedom will grow without running into aberrations. It may not be
a mere coincidence that journalism has progressed most in those countries which also have
evolved such codes diligently. That is why this Code has been named Code of Practice, and
not Code of Conduct.

Print and electronic media capture news as it breaks, but they also are recorders of change.
It will be odd if they were to show reluctance to record the changes that take place in their
own field. Journalists must take note of changes and profit from precedents, and in doing so
they must sift the more relevant and useful from the less relevant because no code can be
universal or everlasting. All occupations must benefit from experience for avoiding wrong
practices which might have crept in, because such undesirable practices become settled
habits. Since journalism is a profession where its product is put together on a minute or
hourly basis, mistakes are best seen from a distance from the rush of events. A Code is an
index of what is seen in this way to be desirable or otherwise. It makes the recurrence of
past mistakes less likely and expands the scope for error-free innovation in the future.

That is why the Code adopted by the Editors Guild of India has drawn liberally from an
existing one prepared by Britain’s Society of Editors, while at the same time the members of
the Guild have been equally liberal in modifying the British Code in the light of India’s own
experience.

Much of the Code is addressed to media workers in the field and on the desk. This is where
the rush of work makes the habit of correct judgement a more useful aid to both speed and
safety. But it is also addressed to Editors, upon whom rests the responsibility of inculcating
these habits in their colleagues in circumstances which have special angularities in India.

Among all countries which cherish freedom of the press, India has the maximum overlap
between two entities which are often, though not always correctly, regarded as adversaries:
the government of the day and the media.

The overlap is extensive, sometimes troublesome, for such media whose owners and
managers have interests which live in ambivalent proximity to the political powers of the day.
The interaction between the government and the owners/managers does not always make
life easy for editors of such media. Therefore, in addition to formulating a Code of Practice,
an organisation like Editors Guild should help to promote such institutions as can shield the
Editor from the inclement effects of the interaction between the political power-holders and
the owners/managers. Faithful observance of the Code of Practice, monitored by the Guild
and similar organisations, will certainly improve the climate.

The credentials of the media

The fact that the media is guided by a self-imposed Code strengthens its credentials for
demanding protection of their right to receive and impart information.

Media organisations and journalists would be strengthened further if the media eschewed
more scrupulously any actions which would even remotely suggest that, in exercising the
right to receive and impart information, they were beholden to special interests and groups
for perks and favours, and were thereby allowing their judgement to be swayed.

Particularly relevant in this respect are such favours as invitations for foreign visits and
travel, whether from governments, industrial and commercial organisations, or other centres
of power and patronage.

It might be difficult to forego them entirely, because in that case the less affluent among the
media might not be able to provide even unbiased coverage of many events. But three kinds
of precaution should be taken;

First, the better-off media should set an example in providing self-supporting coverage.
Second, where there is a choice between accepting offers of such facilities or denying
suitable coverage to the reader/viewer, the media concerned should acknowledge that such
facilities have been offered and accepted. Third, the offer should be made directly to the
Editor, leaving it to him to decide whom to depute for the coverage to keep it free from
extraneous considerations.

The Editor’s domain

As the ultimate custodian of the personality of the paper/ channel he edits, the Editor rightly
gets all the blame and credit. But four aspects of his role stand out the most. The hardest to
define but nevertheless essential is that the publication must maintain and promote high
standards of good taste. The publication/electronic channel may also aim at entertaining its
customers, in addition to informing them. The more the mainstream media shift towards the
kind of “entertainment” which was once the stock in trade of “glossies”, the less they will be
able to claim privileges in the name of the freedom of the press.

The other three aspects of the role of the Editor are easier to explain.

Maintaining the credibility of the publication/electronic channel: Whatever its professed

beliefs, stance, or role, the publication/electronic channel can maintain them only to the
extent it sustains its credibility for presenting facts honestly , and commenting on them fairly,
without any bias. Intentional misstatement of facts and biased comment are not the only
enemies of credibility. Sensationalism is another, because it distorts the perspective and
meaning of what is reported. The publication/electronic channel may gain attention and
popularity one day, but practised over a period of time, sensationalism undermines the
public’s confidence in the editorial judgement of the publication/ electronic channel.
Accuracy: Respect for accuracy is a better prop of popularity than sensationalism. It also
serves better the people’s right to know. That right implies that the people must be given the
facts first, unmixed with comment and value judgement. There must be a place for the latter
as well, but separately from the narration of facts, preferably in the space/time clearly set
aside for comment, but at least separated from the facts in news item/bulletin even if it has to
be within the same space/time.

Reliable facts should take precedence over conjecture and implied comments in the
presentation of news. That only enhances the Editor’s capacity and his obligation to resist
suppression of facts, along with his peers and organisations like the Editors Guild. One part
of this obligation is to resist laws requiring disclosures of sources except where a clearly
higher cause intervenes.

But it is also a part of the Editor’s obligation to ensure that firstly, he lends his full weight to
the functioning of peer organisations by actively participating in them; secondly, he
publishes/broadcasts fairly and fully any proceedings of organisations which relate to any
inquiry into his own or his publication/channel’s conduct; thirdly, he publishes correction of
incorrect reports and apologises whenever an apology is called for; and fourthly, no member
of his staff allows personal interests or any favours done to him to colour his work for the
publication/channel.

More than that, it is also the Editor’s obligation to inculcate respect for all such obligations in
the minds of the staff of the publication/channel. Much of the work of the staff has to be done
at a time when the Editor is not readily accessible for consultation, and they have to fall back
on their own judgement. Therefore, their own standards must harmonise with those of the
Editor and must be as finely honed as his. One way of promoting this harmony is by the
Editors making it a standard practice to discuss with the staff, the rights and wrongs of his
own and their decisions in specific cases.

These considerations, important at all times, get all the more so at times of internal or
international conflict, particularly in a country like India which is situated in a sensitive
neighbourhood and is the arena of many conflicting interests, domestic and external, of
competing ideas about the rights of society and the individual, and the rights relating to
gender, class, caste, religion and community.

The staff’s domain

Particularly important in this respect is the role of the News Editor, Chief Sub Editor, ( and
their counterparts in electronic media), along with their colleagues on the Desk, a role which
has unfortunately tended to fade, more so when the field staff is glorified by the personal
byline in the print media and the face on the screen in the electronic media. But the
importance of the role of the News Editor and Chief Sub Editor has only increased on
account of these factors. All matter for publication/telecast passes through the hands of
those who man the Desk. On the one hand, they are less exposed to the rush of events and
pressures in the field, and contact with interested persuaders, and on the other, they have,
or should have, time and resources to check data with references. Therefore, unless their
own judgement fails them, given the time they have for thought, they can better insure the
publication/channel against errors. They are the safety net that catches mistakes which may
slip through the hurried hands of the field staff.
1. Verify facts and weed out inaccuracies from field reports with the help of an adequate
reference library which the publication/channel must maintain.

Conjecture should not be allowed to masquerade as fact.

2. Segregate facts from direct or implied comments therein and put the facts in the
space/time meant for facts. Confine comment to the space/time meant for comment, or
identify it as comment even if it has to be accommodated alongside the facts.

3. Measure the right to publish against the relevant “public interest” before according
supremacy to the former.

4. Weed out unsubstantiated allegations or innuendoes which are not essential to the story,
or retain them only after measuring their defamatory potential.

5. Give fair opportunity to the aggrieved party to reply or contradict, within reasonable limits.

6. Where apology is called for, offer it readily, frankly, and with dignity.

7. Should proceedings for defamation follow, cover them fairly, and with due regard for law.

8. Avoid undue publicity to the personal affairs of personalities if public interest is not clearly
at stake. But if it is, pursue the matter with diligence and without fear, but always with due
regard to decency and good taste. Avoid harassing and intimidating sources.

9. Avoid exaggerating the story for the sake of heightening interest in it. Pushed beyond a
point, exaggeration distorts facts. In the long run, objectivity sells better than
sensationalism.

10. Allegations against actions of public servants in the performance of their duties should be
doubly checked, because rules of service often deny them the right to reply, with official
material to back them. But where exposure is well founded, it should be bold, but not
boastful or premature.

11. Suppression of facts under pressure is dereliction of duty.

12. Statements and facts received on non-attributable basis should not be attributed.

13. But anonymity should not be allowed to become a cloak for the source to dish out
falsehood or calumny, while the right to protect the source should be exercised to the full
limit of the law. Journalists should caution one another against sources which mislead
under the garb of anonymity.

14. Scenes of personal grief are a delicate matter to handle. They should never be shown
blatantly in the name of “human interest.” Human rights are as important, and privacy of
personal feelings counts among them.
15. The journalist’s right to information can be used as a powerful instrument for personal
gain. It should never be.

16. In writing about religious controversies, all creeds and communities must be shown equal
respect. All parties to such and other controversies deserve equally fair reporting.

17. In reporting crime, particularly crimes of sex, and more so crimes involving children,
utmost care should be taken to see that the report itself does not become a punishment,
which may blast a life without warrant. The alleged criminal and the victim and the
witnesses must be identified with utmost care, with no implications of caste or religion.
Only on the strongest grounds of public interest, should any of these considerations be
diluted.

18. “Cheque-book journalism” and paying for information are equal to wages of sin. They
should be resorted to only in extremes of “public interest” and when no other means of
obtaining information are available. Even so, the payment must be disclosed in any
relevant legal manner, and it should never be offered to those involved in a related legal
matter. Do not mix financial journalism with playing the market.

19. Information should not be obtained through the use of clandestine listening and
photographing devices or by intercepting private telephone conversation. Or through
misrepresentation or subterfuge (popularly described as sting operations) except when
justified only in public interest, and when information cannot be obtained by any other
means.

20. Journalists must not accept favours for themselves or for any member of their families
from persons and institutions whose activities they are reporting or commenting upon.

21. Journalists should not seek or accept such favours as out-of-turn allotment of
accommodation, or land/ apartments at subsidised rates, or similar privileges.

22. Where cases involving professional actions of journalists are filed at far-off places away
from the professional location of the journalist concerned, the management should
provide legal protection so that the threat of such harassment is not used merely to scare
the media away from exposing unsavoury actions of powerful people. Otherwise such
cases against journalists can become a form of punishment without proof of guilt.

Responsibility of the Editors Guild

The Guild would reinforce the guidelines by initiating suitable steps to improve the credibility
and quality of publications and channels, whenever it receives instances from its members of
publication of misinformation, editorialised coverage of news, malicious use of anonymity by
sources, inadequate correction or apology.

The Guild would encourage its members and others to bring their complaints to the Guild,
rather than taking them to organisations which are less directly professional. The Guild
would develop a mechanism to encourage this process. The supportive and corrective role
of the Guild would expand if more and more active editors join the Guild, and also the Guild
expands its activities to all regions of India.

In the aftermath of Tehelka episode, Editors Guild of India has prepared a draft code of
practice for journalists in print and electronic media.

The draft code that has drawn liberally upon an existing code chalked out by Britain's Society
of Editors is aimed at ensuring that press freedom grows without running into aberrations. In
an obvious reference to Tehelka, the Guild Code dubs 'Cheque Book Journalism' and 'Paying
for information' as wages of sin that should be resorted to only in extreme limits of public
interest particularly when no other means of obtaining the necessary information are
available.

Even so, the payment must be disclosed in any relevant legal matter and it should not be
offered to those involved in a related legal matter. The code prohibits seeking information
through the use of clandestine audio and video devices or by intercepting private telephone
conversations.
The code dwells in detail about news reporting. It says that conjecture should not be allowed
to masquerade as fact and unsubstantiated allegations or innuendoes, unessential to the story
should be deleted and facts segregated from direct or implied comments and verified properly
to weed out inaccuracies from field reports.

The code lays down that the aggrieved party should be given fair opportunity to reply or
contradict within reasonable limits and where apology is called for it should be given readily,
frankly and with dignity. And in case of defamation, it should be covered fairly with due
regard for the law.

In the light of the growing trend of celebrity coverage, the Guild has observed that undue
publicity to personal affairs of personalities be avoided if public interest is not clearly at
stake. The code calls for avoiding both sensationalism and suppression of facts. It also
cautions that while protecting the source, anonymity should not be allowed to become a cloak
for the source to dish out falsehood.

In reporting crime, particularly crime of sex and most so crimes involving children, the Guild
code says that utmost care must be taken while identifying alleged criminal victim and
witness so that the reporting itself does not become a punishment. While writing about
religious controversies, the code lays down that all creeds and communities must be shown
equal respect with fair reporting. In the matters of reporting human tragedy, the code warns
that personal grief should never be shown blatantly in the name of human interest. To uphold
the high ethics of journalism, the Guild code notes that journalists should not use their right
to information for personal gains or accept favours for themselves or for their family
members.

The code assumes significance particularly in view of Home Minister L.K. Advani's recent
remarks in parliament advising media to exercise restraint particularly while reporting
terrorist incidents. While upholding the freedom of press without any outside interference to
it, the Guild according to its general secretary Alok Mehta has sent the copies of its draft code
of practice to editors with a view to ensure that journalists adopt self code of conduct.