For five days beginning Wednesday, I and many others in India will be forced to look at a blank screen as Al Jazeera English goes off air. The channel has been awarded a “deterrent” punishment by the Indian government for its alleged misdemeanour of accepting, correcting and apologising for an inadvertent error on air.
A show-cause notice was issued in September last year to Al Jazeera by the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for carrying wrong maps of the country in a graphic.
The error was regretted and rectified by the channel. Subsequently, in a news report on September 19, 2014, a map depicting India and Pakistan was colour-coded correctly but the dotted line marking the disputed territory was missing. This was also rectified in a day. Following that, there have been no more errors.
It was indeed a lapse and the channel’s internal mechanism should have corrected it. But was this an exhibit of “cartographic aggression” as an Indian inter-ministerial committee described it in April 2015? Does an aggressor rectify the act promptly? Does an aggressor regret the act in no uncertain terms? Does an aggressor issue a public apology? Probably not.
The Oxford English Dictionary describes “aggression” as “feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront”. A missing dotted line on a graphic plate surely does not qualify any of these turns?
At times inadvertent errors on graphics do creep in. The right thing to do then is to correct it as soon as it is spotted or flagged.
Follow global processes
During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in September last year, the Gujarat government allegedly circulated “wrong maps” to the media after the ceremony where the memorandums of understanding were signed with China. Was that “cartographic aggression”? Obviously not, for the mistake was our own. For aggression, we perhaps need a “foreign hand”.
During the Indian prime minister’s visit to the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane last year, the Australians displayed an Indian map with the state of Kashmir missing from it – an event which was broadcast globally. Was this incident with the Australians called “cartographic aggression”? No, of course not.
In the case of Al Jazeera as well, a show-cause notice was given, an apology offered immediately and maps in question corrected quickly. But did this warrant a “deterrent” punishment?
While aspiring for a bigger international role, India must also understand and adhere to global processes. UK regulatory body Ofcom clearly states that one of the factors in determining sanctions against a broadcaster would be “whether the contravention in question continued, or timely and effective steps were taken to end it, once the regulated body became aware of it”.
In the case of Al Jazeera, this was done almost immediately. Yet we were awarded a “deterrent punishment”.
This brings us to the role of the regulator. In 2003, through an Act of the UK Parliament, Ofcom was created with powers and duties set for it through legislation.
India must debate now whether the time has come for creating an Ofcom-like body here which can enforce regulatory rules in an impartial and fair manner, particularly for international media companies.
Telling the India story
The problem here is not about errors and rectifications. It emanates from lack of trust. This allows the two sides to question intent. Like beauty, interpretation of intent, lies in the minds of the beholder.
Talking of trust and intent, it took the world’s other celebrated democracy some time to accept Al Jazeera.
In 2011, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had flattering words to say about the network:
“You’ve got a global – a set of global networks – that Al Jazeera has been the leader in, that are literally changing people’s minds and attitudes,” Clinton told members of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Clinton added: “Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock.”
This endorsement came after America resisted Al Jazeera’s entry into the US for a period.
International broadcasters do face regulatory challenges across the globe. An independent regulator in India can address such issues. With an independent regulator would come greater transparency.
India is a big global story and with a growing international push by our prime minister, there is increasing interest in India. If we do not address the concerns of the international media, which complements the vibrant national media, we will be unable to tell the India story effectively.
Like foreign investors, foreign media too has a great role to play in disseminating information from and about India.
There might be occasions when we do not like what is being said about our country but as long as fair journalistic practices are applied, we must learn to take this in our stride. As the old saying goes, “Nindak niyare raakhiye, aangan kuti chavaay” (Keep your critics close, build them a shelter in your courtyard).
Another point raised by the Indian inter-ministerial committee on Al Jazeera is of “deterrent for misdemeanor”. Mistake? Yes. Misdemeanour? Not fair. Regulate? Yes. Deterrent? Not fair.
Anmol Saxena is the Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera English in India. Views expressed here are his own.
A show-cause notice was issued in September last year to Al Jazeera by the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for carrying wrong maps of the country in a graphic.
The error was regretted and rectified by the channel. Subsequently, in a news report on September 19, 2014, a map depicting India and Pakistan was colour-coded correctly but the dotted line marking the disputed territory was missing. This was also rectified in a day. Following that, there have been no more errors.
It was indeed a lapse and the channel’s internal mechanism should have corrected it. But was this an exhibit of “cartographic aggression” as an Indian inter-ministerial committee described it in April 2015? Does an aggressor rectify the act promptly? Does an aggressor regret the act in no uncertain terms? Does an aggressor issue a public apology? Probably not.
The Oxford English Dictionary describes “aggression” as “feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront”. A missing dotted line on a graphic plate surely does not qualify any of these turns?
At times inadvertent errors on graphics do creep in. The right thing to do then is to correct it as soon as it is spotted or flagged.
Follow global processes
During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in September last year, the Gujarat government allegedly circulated “wrong maps” to the media after the ceremony where the memorandums of understanding were signed with China. Was that “cartographic aggression”? Obviously not, for the mistake was our own. For aggression, we perhaps need a “foreign hand”.
During the Indian prime minister’s visit to the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane last year, the Australians displayed an Indian map with the state of Kashmir missing from it – an event which was broadcast globally. Was this incident with the Australians called “cartographic aggression”? No, of course not.
In the case of Al Jazeera as well, a show-cause notice was given, an apology offered immediately and maps in question corrected quickly. But did this warrant a “deterrent” punishment?
While aspiring for a bigger international role, India must also understand and adhere to global processes. UK regulatory body Ofcom clearly states that one of the factors in determining sanctions against a broadcaster would be “whether the contravention in question continued, or timely and effective steps were taken to end it, once the regulated body became aware of it”.
In the case of Al Jazeera, this was done almost immediately. Yet we were awarded a “deterrent punishment”.
This brings us to the role of the regulator. In 2003, through an Act of the UK Parliament, Ofcom was created with powers and duties set for it through legislation.
India must debate now whether the time has come for creating an Ofcom-like body here which can enforce regulatory rules in an impartial and fair manner, particularly for international media companies.
Telling the India story
The problem here is not about errors and rectifications. It emanates from lack of trust. This allows the two sides to question intent. Like beauty, interpretation of intent, lies in the minds of the beholder.
Talking of trust and intent, it took the world’s other celebrated democracy some time to accept Al Jazeera.
In 2011, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had flattering words to say about the network:
“You’ve got a global – a set of global networks – that Al Jazeera has been the leader in, that are literally changing people’s minds and attitudes,” Clinton told members of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Clinton added: “Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock.”
This endorsement came after America resisted Al Jazeera’s entry into the US for a period.
International broadcasters do face regulatory challenges across the globe. An independent regulator in India can address such issues. With an independent regulator would come greater transparency.
India is a big global story and with a growing international push by our prime minister, there is increasing interest in India. If we do not address the concerns of the international media, which complements the vibrant national media, we will be unable to tell the India story effectively.
Like foreign investors, foreign media too has a great role to play in disseminating information from and about India.
There might be occasions when we do not like what is being said about our country but as long as fair journalistic practices are applied, we must learn to take this in our stride. As the old saying goes, “Nindak niyare raakhiye, aangan kuti chavaay” (Keep your critics close, build them a shelter in your courtyard).
Another point raised by the Indian inter-ministerial committee on Al Jazeera is of “deterrent for misdemeanor”. Mistake? Yes. Misdemeanour? Not fair. Regulate? Yes. Deterrent? Not fair.
Anmol Saxena is the Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera English in India. Views expressed here are his own.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!