WHY 'LIBERTY TO MEDIA' WEAKENS DEMOCRACY?

In Asian countries, liberty to media has been a controversial issue. On one side, the right to information and freedom of expression has been provided while, on the other hand, regulations for media are there to curb its freedom.

Historically “press freedom” is known as such because it was printers and newspapers that fought for this right, which nowadays refers to media in general. Although the freedom press was guaranteed in the first amendment but to what extent it? This freedom should be protected has been battled in court and debated in public for more than two centuries.

I prefer the old saying: “if you give someone a foot, then they’ll take a mile.” means LIBERTY HAS NO END. If you give liberty, then they’ll take more. Media is mostly misused by political parties in India for the purpose of misrepresentation, where it acts as the fourth pillar of democracy. Many politicians, particularly in South India, have started channels either on their name or on their relatives like JAYA TV, SURYA TV, etc.

Media plays a vital role in influencing the view of the public since we humans tend to get influence quickly. Several instances involve the manipulation of news to gain political benefit. This misleads the audience, thus leading to deception or lack of authenticity. For example, a particular party may manipulate reports in their favor, thus favorably influencing the audience like, during the elections of Delhi in 2015, the victory of AAP over BJP resulted from manipulated facts and fake promises.

Media, the provider of facts and news, is chopping stories and presenting what’s favoring them. The reports themselves should be familiar with the political environment, and their presentation should have a proper diction. When it comes to the authenticity of the information provided, it might not be genuine or completely authentic from every perspective. It can lead to a certain degree of misrepresentation on the part of the general audience. This is seen as a kind of information that bore viewers and diminishes public interest.

Many times media is affiliating to one of the parties and acts biased. Biases can occur on a very basic or personal level. As the sources of providing information are ultimately humans, they might favor certain news compared to others. Clergymen and spiritual gurus are becoming the representatives of political parties for their own selfish reasons. People who regard their mentor also support the parties being represented by their ideals, thus devaluing their democratic right to elect representatives.

A particular celebrity may receive undue importance and set wrong ideals in front of society, especially youth. Ex: Salman Khan is a citizen first and celebrity next, so presenting him as a hero even after the violation of laws is unjust.

If we consider from the matter of national secrecy, then the live telecast of “the attack of 26/11” was such foolery. The result of the telecast, the mission extended long in accomplishing as the terrorists were well informed about the move of our NSGO commandos.

As we know, that excess of anything is dangerous, so limitations are necessary if we don’t want media to see as a dictator. Since KINGSHIP SEES NO KINSHIP. Therefore liberty should be under limits.