During the last week of February, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting sent at least two television news channels—Tiranga TV and ABP News—a show cause notice for airing the February 22 press conference of Major General Asif Ghafoor, the spokesperson of the Pakistani armed forces, in which he spoke about the Pulwama attack.

According to the February 23 notice(s) sent to these channels, Tiranga TV and ABP News appear to have “violated” two provisions of the Programme Code of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, by telecasting the “said media briefing”.

The notice stated that Tiranga TV showed “the said media briefing for a duration of 20 minutes and 45 seconds and during which there was no intervention from the channel on the correctness or otherwise of the claims being made in the said media briefing in order to ensure that there is no violation of the aforementioned Rules”. It said this had occurred even after the ministry had issued an advisory on February 14 warning private channels to be cautious about content following the Pulwama attack.

The two rules violated were: Rule 6 (1)(e), which states that “no programme should be carried in the cable service which is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote anti-national attitudes,” and Rule 6 (1) (h), which says “no programme should be carried in the cable service which contains anything affecting the integrity of the Nation.”

While it’s important for new channels to take editorial calls on the content they’re putting out, are the show cause notices a suppression of free speech and clamping down on free and fair journalism—one that requires both sides of the story be told? Shouldn’t a news organisation report on what both India and Pakistan are saying, letting the viewer make up their own mind about who is right and who is in the wrong?

Newslaundry reached out to a few journalists who are faces of their respective TV channels to ask them their opinions.

According to N Ram, Chairman of The Hindu publishing group, there is nothing wrong with knowing what the Pakistani side says. “I think it is perfectly all right. It is good journalism to inform and provide full information to the people, on the basis of which they might form their opinion. But TV news channels are in a vulnerable position because of the licensing regime that it falls under.”

Ram says it’s customary for governments to put out information in a situation of crisis or conflict—but one has to also know what the other side is saying as well, otherwise, it creates a situation of “one-sided propaganda.” “The problem here is that they (I&B) cannot do this with newspapers because newspapers don’t operate on a license,” said Ram, whose recent series of stories on the Rafale deal brought out all the dirt from under the carpet regarding the deal. “Unfortunately, TV channels operate on licensing, which is why the Programme Code is broad and sweeping, so much so that anything the government doesn’t like, can be brought under it. Truthfully, the government is clearly wrong in issuing these notice to news channels…”

He says it’s the Programme Code itself that should be challenged. “People (from these channels) should stand up and say they did nothing wrong. What they did was in the interest of good and fair journalism, the purpose of which would be to inform the audience and their viewers. It is important for people to understand what the other side says before they form their own opinion, instead of simply depending on just one version of the events. I hope they will stand up rather than admit that they were in the wrong.”

Rajdeep Sardesai, consulting editor with India Today, says concerns of national security will “override all else in a war-like situation”. “However, I believe that the government’s job is to set broad guidelines—and not diktats. We channels must necessarily report both sides of the story; we are journalists and not soldiers. We don’t wear the tricolour while reporting. What we wear is the flag of truth.”

According to him, it is the job of a journalist to resist propaganda. “Post 26/11, the government did put in certain guidelines to deal with terrorist operations, such as the necessity to not show it live. Broad guidelines were provided, which I have no problem with. But these broad guidelines should be ideally set by a regulatory body rather than the I&B ministry. Once guidelines are set, it should be left to newsrooms to interpret these guidelines and effectively put them in place. I am uncomfortable with any form diktats imposed on free speech.”

Sardesai also says he has no problem the Programme Code based on “national interest” but its interpretation should be left to individual newsrooms. “In my view, Pakistan’s side of the story must be reflected, but whether to air it live or not is where the question mark is raised. This decision on what constitutes ‘national interest’ should be left to the wisdom of the newsroom.’

“TV is an extremely powerful weapon of influencing public option and must, therefore, be used with an element of caution,” he said. “One has to be more conscious of their responsibilities and exercise due diligence. If Hafiz Saeed or the Jaish held a press conference, would you air it live? No. Not in my view: terrorists must not be given the oxygen of publicity … But should I reflect their stand in my reportage, that this is what they have said? Maybe yes. It depends on the situation. one size does not fit all. TV needs to show greater responsibility than it does at times. The responsibility should be towards telling the truth and not inflaming passion or inciting violence in any form.”

Rahul Shivshankar, editor-in-chief of Times Now, says: “In principle, no one favours the policing of content. Governments should have no role in determining what goes on air. Governments cannot influence editorial content as long as reportage is responsible, complies with the law and stipulated guidelines. I haven’t seen the notice issued to the broadcasters so I can’t respond on specifics, but I am sure that the channels will have a reason for carrying the content that is under the lens and I am sure they will present a case in their defence.”

R Jagannathan, editorial director of Swarajya, says: “I think that in a moment of heightened tension or near-war like situation which was building, it is better to be careful about reporting what the opposite side is saying. In war, the key element is psychological warfare. Therefore, it is better to not give the enemy a free run on your media airwaves. There is a time for fairness—and that time is after the difficult situation has passed. But at the point at which tension is building, it is not a good idea to give the enemy a great platform at home.”

According to Jagannathan, news channels should not be giving “free propaganda time” in a situation like this. “One should monitor what the other side is saying and then get the Indian side’s version to it as well. This is not the time to be fair. There are times when you have to be fair and that is when there is no threat to the country. How do you know that what the other side is saying is correct? You have to give the benefit of doubt to your own country and not to the enemy country until the dangerous situation has passed.”

When asked whether the I&B ministry was correct in handing out notices to ABP News and Tiranga TV, he says: “Yes, I think so. Journalists should monitor what the other side has to say and then give a gist of it side-by-side along with the Indian version. This way, you will not be playing into anyone else’s hands and won’t be giving propaganda time to the enemy.”