St Xavier’s College, Mumbai hosts its annual college fest – Malhar – every August. As part of Malhar, people from a range of professions and backgrounds, who are known to be experts and veterans in their professions are invited to participate in what is known as the Conclave. This year’s Conclave saw Siddharth Varadarajan, Saba Naqvi, Dipankar Gupta, Ramchandra Guha, Vinod Jose and Dr Sumantra Bose and others, speaking in various fora, covering a range of issues. The Conclave also had an interesting debate between Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Bhupendra Chaubey, moderated by Rudrangshu Mukherjee. The topic for the debate was whether the media requires restriction beyond self-regulation.

Guha Thakurta, now an independent journalist, has long been a critic of today’s media in many capacities (For a brief period, as a part of the Press Council of India). Understandably, he was speaking For the motion. Against it, was Chaubey, National Affairs Editor of Network 18’s CNN IBN.

The moderator, Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Opinions Editor of The Telegraph, addressed the audience in the beginning. “The issue is controversial and there can be greys between the black and the white. The media spends most of its time critiquing other people and institutions, so it might as well face some criticism itself”, he said, while admitting that the debate would be more of an internal criticism as all three of them were associated with the media in some way. Although they were all open to criticism of the media, they made an important point that many of us tend to miss when we comment on the media. The media is not a monolith. There are layers of the media that need to be acknowledged as exactly that – separate layers. “Is it fair to compare a leading national daily like Telegraph or The Times of India with a rag that comes up in the backwaters of some state?” asked Mukherjee, rhetorically. He also touched upon themes like curtailment of freedom of speech as a consequence of restricting the media and declared that there are likely to be multiple views on the subject.

Guha Thakurta was the first to speak. Spiked with rhetoric and wit, he made many important points. He emphasised the fact that journalists could be either watchdogs of society or lapdogs of the powerful. The purpose of the restriction he was suggesting would only apply to the lapdogs in the business and the watchdogs need not be afraid, as it would not apply to them. He said he was a firm believer in the Article 19 (1) of the Constitution that guarantees Freedom of the Press, but also said that it was equally important to ensure the implementation of Article 19 (2), which mentions certain restrictions to this Freedom. He stressed that the agencies set up to “regulate” the media are doing a shoddy job of it. According to him, “The PCI has no teeth” as adequate punishment cannot be meted out by it to errant media houses. “The restriction is for the few bad guys of the press, not the good guys, like my friend Bhupendra”, said Guha Thakurta: a comment that generated smiles across the audience.

Chaubey’s rebuttal was more emotive in nature. He reminded the audience about how the media is still in its infancy and “requires hand holding, rather than a noose around its neck”. He got to the point quickly, with: “At the outset, let me make something clear. Media is not a charity. It is a business like any other. Had it been a charity, I would have struggled to fly here to Bombay, stay in a modest hotel or report on any big story that has just broken”.

We must give it to him for making this honest admission that the media needs big bucks from large corporates for its survival. In fact, when both the journalists took questions from the audience, one question that came Chaubey’s way was on how to separate the owner’s interests and the ground realities while running a media house. Chaubey gave the example of his own channel, CNN IBN, which covered and discussed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Convener Arvind Kejriwal’s exposé about Reliance’s Mukesh Ambani, despite Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) being part owners of the Network 18 group. He also quoted several cases of corruption, including the CWG scam, for which his channel had done investigative journalism and played the role of a watchdog of society. While admitting that the Radia tapes had painted an ugly picture of the press, he also pointed out that it was a bunch of journalists who had brought out the “other side of the story” in the same case. In essence, Chaubey made a case for an official guidance mechanism for the media, rather than a strict regulatory mechanism.

While both journalists made valid points for and against restriction of the media, some other issues assailing the media were highlighted during the debate. There was a consensus on the fact that the industry cannot attract the best talent and there is an absence of a viable, long-term business model. The recent downsizing by Network 18 only substantiates this conclusion.  The debate was engaging as all three journalists who participated, are equipped with unmatched experience in the media apart from being good speakers. The arguments made by Chaubey in favour of guidance rather than restriction, were compelling. Going by the discussion, it seems that what is required is a combination of guidance and restriction to ensuring the quality and integrity of the media.