What is it about Rupert Murdoch’s media empire that makes you cringe? Is it just the unabashed hunger for power? Or the revolting habit of chewing up public establishments to satisfy that hunger? Or is it our disgust with ourselves, we the target audience that laps up every rotten morsel of what he serves up, garnished

delightfully with scandal and sensationalism? To be honest, we needn’t be too disgusted with ourselves in India, where the Murdoch empire doesn’t have much influence yet, except through television. We have very limited access to his publications, especially his terrifying tabloids. But we have problems of our own.
We too need to examine the larger question of media accountability and the acceptable limits of media freedom. Unfortunately, whenever there is such an occasion we the media deftly sidestep the issue and do a merry dance around the fundamental right of free speech. And we the people choose to ignore the dangers and sit back to enjoy the lip-smacking fare.
Take the straw that broke Mr Murdoch’s back — the revelation that his tabloid News of the World had hired an investigator who tapped the phone of a murdered 13-year-old, Milly Dowler, and even deleted some messages to make room for new ones — an act that gave the Dowler family false hope that she was alive. The wave of revulsion that followed this revelation forced the Murdochs to shut down the tabloid. But no amount of craven apologies could save them from fierce public anger and a strict, internationally televised scrutiny by the British Parliament. And of course there was enormous media bashing by the enraged public.
In India, we have seen this unhealthy media sensationalism about a child’s death following the murder of Aarushi Talwar, 14, and the family help, Hemraj, in 2008. All kinds of lurid details were aired, a host of accusations thrown at the grieving parents, unsavoury speculation about the child filled newspapers and television channels and the father was presented as the killer. There was no mass disgust. Only a minister objecting to such leaks in Parliament and the Supreme Court asking the media to exercise restraint as long as the investigation was on.
On the other hand, when conversations between corporate lobbyist Niira Radia and members of the media and corporate world were leaked last year, there was a huge outrage and the government started working on a privacy law. Does this drafting of the Privacy Bill 2011 prove our concern about an unhealthy media? Or is it about our fear of the media exposing our dirty secrets?
Let’s just keep in mind that the Indian media, with all its faults, is still far healthier than the British or American media that is part of the Murdoch empire. For example, it is believed that the News of the World actively encouraged phone hacking and invasion of privacy for juicy stories, and not just of celebrities. Apparently, it also hacked cellphones of relatives of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it made a habit of hugely bribing the police for information. It is also accused of trying to disrupt a murder investigation.
And the fact that British politics is largely manipulated by Mr Murdoch’s media has been clear for years. In Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, the newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane says to a correspondent who reports that there is no war in Cuba: “You provide the prose poems, I’ll provide the war.” Going by his actions, Mr Murdoch may have said the same with regard to the Iraq war.
But in India, thankfully, the media is not half as unhealthy. Primarily because the Indian media is more manipulated than manipulating. Its dubious attempts to sell papers and get TRPs through sensationalism are small and petty. When posing as a player in the big league, it is happy to be manipulated by business houses and the government. Like we heard from the Radia phone leaks in the 2G spectrum scam, where influential journalists were operating as power brokers between corporate houses and the government.
Sure, influence-peddling and trading in insider information are wrong, but they happen routinely in the cosy intimacy between politicians, corporate bosses and influential journalists. There is no accountability even when they get caught — like in the Radia leaks. Oh no, the journalists had no role in the scam that cost the country `1.76 lakh crore, we were told. They were just warmly and convincingly lying to their trusted source, just “stringing them along”. And there was no question of dragging the heads of the organisations they worked for into the mess, unlike in Murdoch’s case. In India, we only have independent agents. Who do nothing wrong.
But the leaks embarrassed big shots, and instead of thinking of ways to stop such wrongful licence granting, the government quickly started to devise ways of stopping such leaks from becoming public. Sure, privacy is an important issue, but so is public interest. The media’s role is to provide information to the people to help us all participate in an informed debate that sustains democracy. For this, leaks can be hugely beneficial. Especially in a country where corruption is so deep set, where life is cheap and dirty secrets are protected by multilayered networks. When transparency is unavailable, leaks may be enormously beneficial for the democratic process, particularly because reports of official enquiries take years to see the light of day and to reach the public. A privacy law could simply be another wall of defence for the government and its friends,
shielding it from public scrutiny and from the people it is supposed to serve.
For a privacy law to be beneficial, it needs to give primacy to public interest. One size does not fit all. Some leaks are downright wrong, while some are necessary. Sting operations can be good, and they can be atrocious too. We need to judge each case with reason, ethics and common sense. We need to ask, who benefits? Is it in the interest of the public? We cannot just go by whose sentiments are hurt. And now that the Right to Information Act is helping us cut through much wool around our eyes, we must not allow information to be blocked through new means. Especially now that parts of the media are deeply embedded in the insidious power games that cheat ordinary citizens to benefit the powerful and the wealthy.
Fortunately, most of our media is still healthy. Let’s focus on keeping it that way.

The author is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted at: sen@littlemag.com