A fifth column within the fourth estate

SC is concerned over communally coloured media

The concern expressed by the Supreme Court over the proliferation of fake and communally coloured news in a section of the media, particularly web portals and social media platforms, highlights a problem that demands attention, and a solution if the democratic State and its guiding ideals are to survive. The bench, headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, made its observations while hearing some petitions that sought action against some news channels for their sensational coverage of the Tablighi Jamaat meeting in Delhi last year. The meeting was dubbed as a ‘Covid super spreader’ and the blame went beyond the Jamaat to the Muslim community as a whole and was used to polarise society. It even fed into the fears about the pandemic. Apart from social media, some TV channels also fanned the fire by resorting to hateful and prejudiced communal propaganda over the Tablighi “danger”.

The court observed that there was no control over the web portals and no accountability for the platforms. Both individuals and institutions are at the receiving end. “They can publish anything, and anybody can start a TV channel”. The government told the court that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which have controversially tried to control the media, would offer a solution. But this is a solution worse than the problem, and thus undesirable. The government has till now not taken any step to check communalisation of the media, and of the national discourse. Its policies and actions and words of ministers and ruling party members have contributed to the growth of the trend in the country. Since the government itself is involved in the situation, it cannot claim to be a neutral umpire and arbitrator in solving the problem of communalisation of the media and society. It should also be noted that most of the social media forums and other platforms that resort to communal propaganda are those that support the government and the ruling party.

The problem is complex because freedom of expression, protection of the values of democracy and the use of advanced technologies are all involved in it. The solution cannot be the simple expedient of the government assuming unusual powers to control the media. Free media is integral to democracy, and the expansion and enlargement of the media should ideally strengthen democracy. But a growing section of it is actually weakening it, functioning less like the “fourth estate” that is the watchdog of democracy and more like a “fifth column”, undermining the media landscape and thus democracy itself from within. This contradiction, which is part of a bigger contradiction of the tools of democracy being used against itself, has to be confronted in all its complexity.