UNETHICAL PRACTISES BY MEDIA
The media, considered one of the four foundations of democracy,
plays a crucial role in shaping society’s opinions. As the fourth pillar
of democracy, the media has a very high duty and responsibility for
society. It is capable, through its perspective, of transforming the
mass mindset. The media acts as a watchdog and brings us a
platform where the people can know about the things happening in
society.
The foremost duty of media is to showcase the truth and present it
to the viewers, but nowadays unethical practices of media lead
to adjudicating the rights and wrongs. The media does not have
any right to adjudicate the rights and the wrongs. Media trials have
caused wrongful portrayal of alleged accused and have acted as a
helping hand in destroying their careers merely by the fact that they
were accused, even though they have not yet been portrayed guilty
by the court of law. Media trials have evolved as one of the greatest
challenges to society which even affects judicial proceedings. With
technological advancement, it has become very common for the
media to follow unethical practices in order to obtain wrongful
gain.
Cross-Media Ownership
Today, multinational companies all over the world control most
of the media outlets. For them, it is not only a source of profit and
business growth but also a road to control and power. They follow
their economic interests by investing in media groups. A well-
known name in the media empire is Rupert Murdoch. In Australia,
he not only controls media platforms, but he also has control over
international media platforms, including India.
The Reliance Group in India, operated by the Ambani family, has
considerable influence over media outlets. They own the media
company Network 18; Network 18, in turn, owns several TV news
channels. Corporate business ownership limits the simplicity and
legitimacy of the media. In the Akash Ambani case where he was
involved in a car accident in the year 2013, very few media
houses actually covered this incident to its full extent, and some
had to delete their story later from those who reported it. Clearly,
the company’s control over the media did not encourage the public
domain to report information about the case.
In addition, a significant proportion of the shares are also owned
by a large number of companies that control many media
platforms. Sun TV Network, 77 percent of the shares of which are
held by Mr. Kalanithi Maran, will be an apt example in this regard.
Again, Sun TV’s promoted Kal Radio is an institution in which Mr.
Maran holds shares in an individual capacity as well as a Sun TV
promoter. With this in mind, if one person has too much influence
over the media networks, it is very clear that these channels will be
seen in the same direction under the control of the same individual.
In the same way, and in the same context, these networks would be
present. Thus, a major motivation behind the restrictions on cross-
media ownership is to preserve the diversity of media so that
citizens have access to diverse viewpoints that enable them to have
access to a wide variety of views and thereby participate fully in the
democratic process.
Paid News Syndrome
The Indian media helped democracy to take root, rise, and prosper
on its soil in the post-independence period. Eventually, however,
democracy itself is under attack from the same media, especially
during elections. The syndrome paid news began to spread in the
body named society which in turn infects the credibility of
media. Paid news may be interpreted as the publication or
broadcasting, for the benefit of the party, of a news item that is
usually biased or misleading in return for consideration. It is an old
phenomenon, but during the 2009 general elections, it became
particularly noticeable.
In relation to its report on paid news published in 2009, the Press
Council of India (PCI) defines it as any news or analysis which
appears in print or electronic media for consideration in cash or in
kind. In its 47th Report on the Issues Relating to Paid News, the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology
under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MoIB)
endorsed the definition provided by PCI and referred to this
phenomenon as the syndrome of paid news. It included ads
disguised as news, too. A detailed and inclusive legal concept of
paid news, however, is important and should be formulated in
consultation with stakeholders, such as the PCI, journalists, and
corporate entities.
Different explanations for the increase in paid news were found by
the Standing Committee. A few of the main contributors are low pay
levels and a decrease in journalists’ autonomy, media
corporatization, and the tug of war between editors and managers
of newspapers and networks.
In most cases, the media house managers enter into an
arrangement with a group to publish paid news, which then
requires the reporters to report news in favor of the organization
paying them. Journalists are therefore limited to serving as publicity
agents, copywriters in advertisements, etc. Instead of journalists,
administrators play a more active role in the collection and
distribution of news that would raise revenue. The relationship
between management and journalists is soured by such
intervention and leads to a hostile work climate.
Also, a private arrangement is often an agreement between media
corporations and corporate organizations or non-media
companies, in which a few shares of the company are allocated to
the former for advertising space and favorable publicity by the
latter. This phenomenon began in 2003 when Times of India (TOI)
publishers Bennett, Coleman Company Limited (BCCL) decided to
start a paid content service called Medianet that sent journalists to
cover companies’ product launches for a price. This move was
widely criticized, but it was later swept under the carpet, and other
media networks have boomed with this activity.
In the case of Dr. Narottam Mishra v. Election Commission of India
& Ors, on June 23, 2017, the petitioner, current Minister of Home
Affairs, MP, was disqualified by the ECI for filing false accounts of
election spending and using paid news during the 2008 elections.
The Commission has identified 42 cases of paid news against
Mishra. He appealed to the High Court of Delhi, which stayed the
Commission’s disqualification order. In addition, the HC has
prevented ECI from pursuing any cases relating to paid news and
has claimed that such disqualifications impair the freedom of
expression of the person. As a result, the Commission moved to the
Supreme Court in October 2018, which remained with the High Court
of Delhi on the question of investigating the cases of paid news. The
judgment of the Supreme Court on this case is still awaited.
People are entitled to obtain correct and objective information from
the press, on the basis of which opinions are formed on various
issues of public interest. To describe and penalize paid news, there
is no straightjacket formula. Now the fate of paid news and ECI’s
power to investigate these issues rests on the Supreme Court’s
decision in the Narottam Mishra case.
Media Trials
The Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of
expression under Article 19(1), i.e., the right to hold opinions without
any interference and the freedom to seek, receive, impart
information, ideas of any kind regardless of the frontiers, either
orally, or in writing, or even in print, or in any form of art, or through
any other media of the person’s choice. This is also subject to
special duties and responsibilities and the rights or reputations of
others.
Even before the court has given its verdict, this phenomenon of
declaring the accused as a defendant is an unethical media
practice known as the media trials. It is the widespread publicity of
the accused’s guilt and the imposition of a certain impression of
him, irrespective of any judgment provided by the court of law.
Where court trials have been widely publicized, the media has also
played a major role in causing hysteria among audiences, making
it almost difficult for the trial to be a reasonable one. There were
reasons why the media’s exposure to such cases was sensationally
high.
Impact Of Media Trials
The concept of the impact of media trials is such that in portraying
incidents that have to be kept a secret, the media has been
successful. While the media serves as a watchdog and provides us
with a forum where people can learn about the problems that
happen in a country, it is important to remember that this has only
led to one group or one person being biased against the entire
world. Media trials have led the suspected accused to be
misrepresented and have acted as a helping hand in damaging
their futures simply by accusing them, even though the court of law
has not yet found them guilty.
The Supreme Court in the Manu Sharma matter further outlined the
dangers of a media trial. It observed that there existed a serious risk
of prejudice being caused if the unethical media exercised
unrestricted and unregulated freedom in so far as carrying out
parallel trial procedures without being held up to any standard. In
addition, the constant scrutiny of any accused without any
conclusive exposition by a competent court of law also runs
contrary to the rights of the accused. One of the core concepts of
criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence (ei incumbit
probatio qui dicit non qui negat – the duty of evidence rests on the
one who asserts, not on the one who denies), but this no longer
seems to be the case in the present state of affairs.
Conclusion
Media plays a crucial role in shaping a healthy democracy and is
truly a backbone of a democracy. Its impact is really noteworthy,
which reminds politicians about their unfulfilled promises at the
time of elections.
But besides the good character, the evil of media is trendy these
days. Excessive coverage or the hype of sensitive news has often
contributed to communal protests. The illiterate are more prone to
provocation than the literate. Constant repetition of news,
especially sensational news, leads to apathy and insensitivity. The
media should take utmost care in airing or publishing such
sensational news. No doubt media is a watchdog in the society but
what about media itself; who will regulate the malpractices of
unethical media like paid news, media trials, and malpractices
arising out of cross-media ownership? There should be a proper
framework for media. In recent years, the media, like other
institutions, have come under the influence of politicians. The media
thus no longer reports about the people’s grievance but in favor of
the ruling party. It has been contaminated by political factors.
The media is meant to be either like a hero battling with a mic or like
a mirror showing us or pretending to show us the bare facts and the
astringent reality of life
Unethical practices by the media can significantly impact public opinion, democratic
institutions, and individual lives. Here's an overview covering the causes, consequences, and
notable case laws related to unethical media practices.
1. Causes of Unethical Media Practices
a. Commercial Pressure
• TRP (Television Rating Point) race leads to sensationalism and dramatization.
• Advertising revenue often depends on viewership, pushing media to prioritize
sensational content over factual reporting.
b. Political Bias and Propaganda
• Media houses sometimes align with political parties or ideologies.
• Paid news and propaganda reporting distort public perception.
c. Lack of Regulation and Accountability
• Self-regulatory bodies often lack enforcement power.
• Inadequate legal or professional consequences for unethical reporting.
d. Race for Breaking News
• Haste in being first leads to half-truths, misinformation, or even fabrication.
e. Conflict of Interest
• Owners of media conglomerates may have business or political interests that
influence content.
2. Consequences of Unethical Media Practices
a. Misinformation and Public Mistrust
• Spread of fake news can cause panic (e.g., false medical advice during pandemics).
• Long-term erosion of public trust in journalism.
b. Damage to Reputations
• Individuals and organizations may suffer irreversible harm from false accusations or
sensationalist coverage.
c. Obstruction of Justice
• Trial by media can influence judicial processes and deny fair trials.
d. Polarization and Hate Speech
• Irresponsible reporting may incite communal tensions or reinforce stereotypes.
e. Mental Health Impact
• Invasion of privacy or traumatic coverage (like graphic images) can affect victims and
viewers.
3. Case Laws and Legal Precedents
India
a. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
• Held: Freedom of press is not absolute; must respect individual's right to privacy.
• Significance: Clarified boundaries between public interest and private life in media
reporting.
b. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012)
• Held: Courts can pass pre-publication restraint orders (postponement orders) in rare
cases.
• Significance: Balanced freedom of the press with fair trial rights.
c. Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018)
• Context: Media coverage tried to portray arrested activists as guilty before trial.
• Significance: Highlighted concern about media conducting parallel trials.
d. Arnab Goswami v. Union of India (2020)
• Context: Allegations of spreading communal hatred and defamation.
• Significance: Raised concerns about primetime trials and biased coverage.
4. Examples of Unethical Media Practices
Case Description Consequences
Media played a key role in publicizing Influenced court of public
Jessica Lal
the case and ensuring justice. But it also opinion; raised concerns about
Murder Case
led to debates on trial by media. impartiality.
Media extensively covered the case, Raised awareness, but also
2012 Delhi Gang
sometimes invading privacy or revealing sparked debate on ethics of
Rape (Nirbhaya)
sensitive details. coverage.
Sushant Singh Speculative and sensational reporting, Targeted individuals and
Rajput's Death including unverified drug angle. interfered with investigation.
5. Recommendations
• Strengthen regulatory bodies like the Press Council of India and News Broadcasting
Standards Authority (NBSA).
• Fact-checking mechanisms to prevent dissemination of false information.
• Mandatory ethics training for journalists and editors.
• Legislative reforms to balance media freedom with accountability.
If you're working on a paper or presentation and want a formatted version (PDF or Word), I
can help generate that too. Let me know!
Here are the relevant laws in India that regulate media ethics and conduct, aimed at
preventing or addressing unethical practices:
1. Constitution of India
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression
• Guarantees freedom of speech, including freedom of the press.
• Not absolute – subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Article 19(2) – Reasonable Restrictions
Allows restrictions on free speech in the interests of:
• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security of the State
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation
• Incitement to an offence
2. Statutory Laws Relevant to Media
a. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
• Section 153A – Promoting enmity between different groups (communal reporting).
• Section 295A – Malicious acts to outrage religious feelings.
• Section 499 & 500 – Defamation (civil and criminal).
• Section 505 – Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will.
b. Information Technology Act, 2000
• Section 66A (struck down by SC in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015) – was
used to curb online speech.
• Section 69A – Blocking public access to content in interest of sovereignty, integrity,
public order, etc.
c. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
• Penalizes media reporting that prejudices court proceedings or lowers the authority of
the judiciary.
d. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
• Regulates cable TV content.
• Programme Code prohibits:
o Content that offends good taste, decency
o Attacks religions or communities
o Encourages or incites violence
3. Press-Specific Regulations and Guidelines
a. Press Council Act, 1978
• Established the Press Council of India (PCI).
• PCI issues norms of journalistic conduct.
• Can warn, admonish, or censure newspapers or journalists for ethical violations, but
has no punitive power.
b. Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867
• Regulates printing presses and newspapers.
• Requires registration of newspapers.
4. Broadcasting and Advertising Regulations
a. Programme and Advertising Codes
• Under Cable TV Act.
• Enforced by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting.
• Prevent vulgar, obscene, or inflammatory content.
b. Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI)
• Self-regulatory body for advertising.
• Can take down misleading or unethical ads (non-binding).
5. Self-Regulatory Bodies
a. News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA)
• For private TV news channels (formerly NBSA).
• Monitors complaints on unethical or biased reporting.
• Can direct apologies, remove content, or fine (voluntary compliance).
b. Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF)
• Represents broadcasters; helps ensure self-regulation.
Judicial Guidelines and Doctrines
• Courts have, in several judgments, laid down ethics and limits for media, especially
regarding:
o Trial by media
o Right to privacy
o Balance between press freedom and fair trial
Key Case Example: Sahara India Real Estate Corp v. SEBI (2012) – Courts can issue
postponement orders to protect fair trial rights.
Summary Table
Law/Act Purpose
Constitution – Article 19 Guarantees freedom of the press with reasonable restrictions
IPC Sections 153A, 499 Penalize hate speech and defamation
IT Act, 2000 Regulates digital content, online speech
Contempt of Courts Act Prevents media from interfering with justice
Cable TV Act Controls TV programming ethics
Press Council Act Promotes journalistic ethics for print media
NBDSA Addresses TV news and digital media complaints
ASCI Ensures responsible advertising
If you'd like a chart, mind map, or PDF version of this for a presentation or project, just let
me know!
