Early this week, on Tuesday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released its recommendations on issues related to media ownership. Drawing heavily from the consultation paper on cross-media ownership it released last year, TRAI has made a strong case for restricting dominance of big media groups across TV and print mediums.

The recommendation paper has an entire chapter dedicated to cross-media ownership that raises questions like: how does one measure plurality of opinions in the marketplace? Should this be in terms of the number of voices or in terms of influence that media entities enjoy in the marketplace of opinions and viewpoints? And so on.

TRAI has also tackled a host of other issues like paid media, corporate ownership, private treaties, advertorials, editorial independence and the practice of religious and political bodies running news media.

It must be pointed out that TRAI is merely a regulatory body and it can, at best, make suggestions. The last time it did so, the response from concerned stakeholders was lukewarm (to put it very mildly). This time too, managements across organisations have expressed reservations.

We asked five journalists working for print, electronic and web platforms about what they think about the recommendations.

1) TRAI has proposed a “single regulatory authority for TV and print mediums”. Is that acceptable or should there be two different bodies considering the dynamics of both mediums are significantly different?

Hartosh Bal, Political Editor, The Caravan:

There is more than just bandwidth that separates the two mediums. The response to news is different in both cases. For example, in TV, a mistake can be corrected in the next bulletin, but that’s not the case in print.  People in the regulatory body should be aware of the nuances of each medium.

Siddharth Varadarajan, Journalist and Senior Fellow, Center for Public Affairs and Critical Theory:

Once there is agreement on the nature of the regulatory authority, its powers, composition, and its independence from the government, I don’t think there is any problem if the same authority is responsible for print and TV. Web content should also come under its purview, although geographical jurisdiction will be a problem.

2) The proposed regulatory body should be manned predominantly by “non-media persons”. Is that fair?

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan, Writer, Scroll.in:

An immensely complicated question. And one that is prone to easy manipulation. I would prefer a much more specific recommendation of the make-up of such a body, featuring more specific criteria for who gets to be picked and who does the nominating, especially because it will essentially be a quasi-judicial body.

Swastika Mehta, Freelance Broadcast Journalist:

A regulatory body for media houses is needed on a war footing. Television news channels have been completely swallowed by corporate houses owning them. This only means there is no real news or impartial coverage of developments – there are now vested interests that are being looked after by “journalists”. Why not have prominent news people on the regulatory body who know the heart of journalism. Why the stress on non-media people?

3) TRAI has stated that both the publication and the coverage-seeker should be culpable in case of paid news. You agree?  

Anuradha Raman, Associate Editor, Outlook:

A sound recommendation since the Election Commission in the case of former Maharastra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan penalised him, leaving the publications who were paid by him untouched. With increasing collusion of politicians and media, free speech is the first casualty and must be protected at all costs.

Hartosh Bal, Political Editor, The Caravan:

Absolutely. Whenever there’s paid news, both parties are always in the know. So it’s imperative that the publication is hauled up too.

4) Political and religious bodies should be restricted from entering broadcast and print business.  Is this too extreme? Is disclosure enough?

Siddharth Varadarajan, Journalist and Senior Fellow, Center for Public Affairs and Critical Theory:

This is too extreme, in my view, perhaps undemocratic too. Of course, political and religious newspapers must then comply with the laws of the land and their editorial output would also come under the purview of the proposed authority.

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan, Writer, Scroll.in:

This might impinge on freedom of expression, especially when it comes to religious bodies. Always understandable why our state might want to impose restrictions on political players, but restraining religious bodies comes across as intervention in the marketplace of ideas. Preventing other governmental bodies (panchayati raj, etc), seems to make sense, as long as you are talking about ownership not publication.

5) TRAI has recommended that media houses disclose top ten advertisers, subscription and advertisement revenue and advertising rates.

Anuradha Raman, Associate Editor, Outlook:

Full disclosures should be the norm, especially so, for media houses.

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan, Writer, Scroll.in:

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Much of this doesn’t necessarily come under the category of trade secrets, at least if there is reasonable leeway in the timeliness requirement of the disclosure. A good provision.”

6) TRAI has included only TV and print for cross-media rules. Should the internet also be included?

Swastika Mehta, Freelance Broadcast Journalist:

Regulating news and views on the internet is still something India is learning to deal with – it’s a not a new medium but the way in which the news and reportage circulates on internet – its faster than TV or newspapers – so yes, some way of measuring ethical standards should be put in place.

Siddharth Varadarajan, Journalist and Senior Fellow, Center for Public Affairs and Critical Theory:

It is very hard to monitor this since the definition of “territory” and “market” is highly ambiguous. My sense is that the Internet should be kept out of cross-media rules for now.

7) TRAI has also suggested a 20 per cent cap on equity for dominant media owners in a market. Dominant market share is calculated at 32 per cent. This is along the lines of the 20-20 rule in United Kingdom. Good idea?

Anuradha Raman, Associate Editor, Outlook:

A good idea, but is market share a geographical spread or a commercial denomination? Most papers claim they are leaders of a market — in the commercial sense.

Hartosh Bal, Political Editor, The Caravan:

I think this one is slightly redundant. Thirty-two per cent market share in a market like ours is highly improbable. What is more important to look at is the journalistic environment in corporate-controlled media houses.

(Complied by Manisha Pande and Arunabh Saikia)