Kerala takes steps to curb "baseless and malicious" journalism

The Kerala government has decided to stop giving advertisements to newspapers that carried "baseless and malicious allegations". The step, for some reason, has worried journalists in other newspapers in the state.

It all began when members of the State Women's Commission, led by chairperson Sugatha Kumari, stomped into the Kerala chief minister's chambers at the secretariat and placed before him a vernacular journal with some scurrilous allegations about Kumari.

Chief Minister E K Nayanar summoned the chief secretary, the home secretary and the director of public relations and asked them to find a quick way to check obscene and abusive journalism. It was decided to bring them after before the cabinet.

This was the genesis of the controversial circular of March 17, 1997 that set the state government on a collision course with the press.

On the face of it, the circular, issued by the director of public relations to all government departments and public sector undertakings, appears well-intentioned.

To stop the "highly obscene and defamatory articles about social and political workers, public servants and senior government officials," the government ordered that "no government official... shall grant any advertisement to such publications."

This, for some reason, has worried some other journalists who claim the words "defamatory" and "baseless" lend themselves to subjective interpretation and provide scope for the arbitrary application of the circular. It looked, in essence, like an effort to gag the press, they said, hastening to add that they nevertheless recognised the need to curb aberrant trends in the tabloid press.

What they did not want was advertisement revenue being cut off to small newspapers, threatening their survival.

Kerala Union of Working Journalists president Malappuram Moosa even likened the circular to the infamous Defamation Bill mooted by Rajiv Gandhi. S Suresh, secretary of the KUWJ's Thiruvananthapuram unit, had other cause for complaint.

"We do not justify obscene writing and defamatory journalism. We oppose the circular because it was issued without consulting the union representatives and newspaper managements. The government should lay down policy guidelines with regard to advertisements to ensure openness and fairness."

Cartoonist Abu Abraham has a more ambivalent view. "Freedom of the press does not involve the right to get government advertisements. There are small scurrilous rags that should be discouraged. Denying government ads to these papers is one way of curbing scurrilous journalism," he said. But he too felt the government should not discriminate between papers in the matter of ads.

The controversy raises the question whether newspapers have a right to government advertisements. Depending on the government which it often attacks for sustenance puts the press in an odd situation.

This is what the Left Democratic Front government is believed to be exploiting, citing moral reasons.

Says a top-tanking official who helped draft the circular, "We haven't curbed the press. Newspapers are at liberty to write against anybody. But let them do it at their cost. If they want government ads they shouldn't write baseless reports. I don't think the media can find fault with this."

By setting itself up as the protector of the victims of the media, the government hopes to gain some control over the press. The circular is begin touted as a means of swift redressal as opposed to the time-consuming processes of the law.

The police plead helplessness in checking yellow journalism. Astonishingly, the same rag that cast aspersions on Sugatha Kumari also attacked the police commissioner. Another journal has relentlessly smeared tar on the reputation of Chief Secretary C P Nair. But these same papers have survived for years on official patronage.

"The victim of obscene journalism wants a speedy remedy. No existing forum can provide that... The victim... wants swift action. The circular... instantaneously checks the wrong-doer," assets the official.

But the newspapers are free to challenge the decision of the director of public relations and restore its accreditation and credibility by moving the appropriate forum. So the onus of litigation falls on the press rather than the victim of media excess.

Does that mean that the report will not be considered on merits?

"We do look into the merits but not in any elaborate way," the official replies. He draws an important distinction: "The circular affects the newspaper owner, not the journalist. It is only the owner who feels the loss of ad revenue."

After the circular was issued, the big publications have continued to enjoy an uninterrupted flow of government ads. The smaller papers, the immediate target of the government, are feeling the squeeze.

Significantly, the circular comes close on the heels of the heated debate in the Kerala assembly over the alleged routing of government ads to Drishya Chitra Dimensions, an agency run by the chief minister's son, K P Krishnakumar. The report was denounced by Nayanar and his son as "baseless". But this correspondent has proof that the government departments and institutions favoured the Marxist chief minister's son and promoted his business interests.

With this, Nayanar has killed two birds with one stone, though he might not admit as much. The government can now keep a check on at least the smaller sections of the press while looking good in the process.