Changing media landscapes in India, China
By Global Journalist Staff Posted Fri, Dec 1 2000
With the upcoming IPI meeting in New Delhi next January, IPI Global Journalist launched a discussion on how the news business is developing in the two most populous countries in the world: China, strongly controlled, and India, an open democracy. The two countries face many of the same problems: populations that together total more than half of the people in the world today, both multicultural societies and both developing economies. What role does the news business play in helping each country overcome its problems? What are the drawbacks and advantages of each system? On Oct. 26, Stuart Loory, IPI Global Journalist editor, discussed these issues with two veteran journalists, T. R. Gopalakrishnan of India and Xiguang Li of China. Part of the discussion was aired on KBIA, the local National Public Radio station in Columbia, Mo. Following is an edited transcript of the discussion.
Stuart Loory: What is the main role of the news business in your respective countries as you see it?
T.R. Gopalakrishnan: In India, the system was adapted from the Western democracy when the constitution was written at the time of independence. The concept is essentially the same as it is in the West — a free press as one of the bulwarks of democracy, one of the mainstays of the system besides the judicial, the legislative and the executive. There is a strong commitment to a free press, which is enshrined in law and the constitution. There have been attempts to curb freedom of the press, but they have invariably failed. Following an emergency situation from 1975 to 1977, the protection of freedom of the press was strengthened.
India’s is one of the largest media industries in the developing world and probably freer than many other countries in this region. We take great pride in our free press.
Xiguang Li: The news business has become one of the largest industries in China. Anyone who has money wants to invest in the industry. But China forbids a private person to own a news business; every newspaper, magazine and television or radio station must be run, at least in name, by an organization associated with or attached to a government agency.
In China, there are about 2,000 daily newspapers, 8,000 magazines, 900 TV stations and numerous radio stations. The Chinese Communist Party and the government exert a strict control over the media, especially major national newspapers such as People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party Central Committee. However, with China’s transition to a market economy, propaganda-heavy newspapers such as People’s Daily are quickly losing market shares to more consumer-oriented newspapers. From 1979 to 1999, People’s Daily’s circulation dropped year by year from a high of about 6.2 million to two million, while a local newspaper, Beijing Youth Daily, has become the most popular paper in the Chinese capital.
Chinese television is also tailoring its programs to the audience’s interest. China Central Television, the largest television station in the country, has started a few programs investigating widespread corruption among government officials. The most popular is Focus, a program similar to CBS’s 60 Minutes. It has an audience of 180 million on average.
Loory: Do you think there is much chance that in the foreseeable future the press will be completely open in China?
Li: As China moves to a free-market economy, joins the globalization process and opens its political system, liberalization of the press is inevitable. I’m sure that is the trend. But you can’t tell if the process will start in three years or five years. No one can say for sure.
Loory: Mr. Gopalakrishnan, you heard about how in China the news business is still pretty tightly controlled by the central government, but it loosens up as you get down to the local level. I have a feeling that in India there might also be some controls. For example, how does the Indian press cover the Indian-Pakistani conflict? Is there complete openness?
Gopalakrishnan: Yes, definitely there is complete openness. Government control over the news media, especially the print media, is virtually nil. The bulk of major publications in India is privately owned, and there is absolutely no government control over how we interpret any event in the country, including Indian-Pakistani relations.
The electronic media, television and radio, had been a government monopoly until five years ago. Today, while the government controls all the radio stations, there are at least three privately owned television channels with their own news operation, which are completely independent of government control.
There is absolutely no government control over media coverage of any given event. Newspaper, magazine and even television journalists are free to report what they see, and they are to report and comment on it the way they see it. At times the Indian press does a lot of critical coverage of government policies although we are expected to maintain a balanced view. But that, I guess, is part of journalistic ethics.
Loory: Professor Li, how does the system in India seem to you? Do you think a system like that could work in your country?
Li: The Chinese system is in one respect similar to India’s: to some extent the central government cannot control the local media. The local media enjoy to a greater extent freedom in coverage of international and national news and news in other provinces. For a long time in China, the good news was the only news allowed to be reported, which meant that any scandal, any story negative about the government, government officials or society was taboo. Today, bad news is becoming the real news. For example, a local newspaper will report on the misdeeds of high-ranking government officials in other provinces or in the capital, Beijing, but normally not those of local big shots. This is a common tactic to boost freedom of press in China.
Media Coverage of Dissidents
Ed Vaughn (a caller to the program): One of my complaints about international journalism is that nine times out of 10, or 19 out of 20, I hear journalists refer to dissident groups in countries in Central and South America as guerrillas or leftists or communists. Rarely do you hear journalists providing the interpretation that most of the time these insurgent groups are ethnic minorities resisting the domination of the traditional government in those areas. Many of the times they are not guerrillas or leftists or communists; they are indigenous ethnic groups either wanting more freedom or independence or less economic pressures. I think if journalists would look more into the history of these countries, they could provide a broader interpretation of the source of domestic conflict in these countries. The same thing is true in Sri Lanka and many parts of Africa and other places.
Loory: That was a listener, someone who is obviously interested in international journalism, talking about what he considers to be a fault in American journalism. But what about the situations in your countries? Do you think that your news business is doing a good job in portraying dissidents? He mentioned Sri Lanka in particular, and I know you have a lot of Tamils in southern India.
Gopalakrishnan: I would think that the dissident points of view are well represented in the Indian press. Since you mentioned southern India, let me point out that the uniqueness of the Indian media is the large number of languages involved. Besides English, there are about 16 other major languages, and there are publications and television and radio broadcasts in these languages. Besides the English-language press, there is in each state a healthy, vibrant local-language press. For instance, in Tamil Nadu, which is right next to Sri Lanka, there is a very strong press in the Tamil language — daily newspapers, weekly magazines and smaller publications devoted to political causes. So there is a lot of space and effort given by not only the national news media, but also the local-language media, which have a wide reach in individual states to reflect points of view differing from that of the government. The Sri Lankan issue in particular has been covered widely by all the different media. In addition, Internet services in India, which have been completely privatized and are expected to reach five million users in the next two years, make it impossible for any kind of government restriction.
Loory: The dissident groups in China that we in the United States now know about are, of course, Falun Gong, Tibetans and in times past the college students who started the pro-democracy movements in Tiananmen Square. What about the treatment of dissident movements in China these days? Are they being covered at all?
Li: They are being covered, but not much due to the shifting demographics of the the target audience. Newspapers, magazines and television are all targeting the younger generation, such as college students, who are largely apolitical. They are not interested in the former student leaders; what they are interested in is the Internet, the information technology industry, the stock market, pop stars and Hollywood movies. Another reason for the media to avoid controversial political issues is that the government does not allow them to run articles that are against its pronounced policies. As a result, the media do not want to lose money for getting into political trouble.
China, India as Seen in U.S. Media
Loory: How do you think the U.S. press is doing its job when it is reporting problems in your country?
Li: I have written three books on the subject. I think the U.S. media’s coverage of Chinese dissidents meets the demand of the domestic market. The coverage of issues such as Tibetan exiles and the case of Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamos scientist charged with mishandling U.S. nuclear secrets, is clearly in tune with what Congress is preoccupied with.
Loory: So your implication is that there is some control by the U.S. government of the press?
Li: No, it is not control; it is to meet the demand of the reader. Let’s take the example of The Washington Post. Its readers live and work in Washington D.C., and most of them are associated with Congress or the White House or the Pentagon. As a result, the Post’s coverage must focus on what is being discussed on Capitol Hill; it cannot be isolated from what is going on in Washington D.C.
Gopalakrishnan: Well, if you had asked me this question two years ago, I would have said that I was very disappointed with the way the U.S. news media cover India. I was in the United States four years ago, and I got the impression that all the media were interested in was disasters and whatever other negative stories about India. I think that over the past one and half years, perhaps because of India’s growing reputation in the international software market, there seems to be a lot more desire to look at other aspects of the country, such as its industry, technology and education. The visit of President Clinton to India and those of the Indian prime minister to the United States have definitely contributed to the change. I frankly do not know how long this will last. I have always felt the U.S. media for all its freedom seem to follow the U.S. government policy. It has always been my impression that all these years when the United States was tilting toward Pakistan, the media seemed to favor Pakistan in their coverage.
Loory: Which is the most important medium in your country, print, broadcast or online, as far as influencing consumers? And what do you think the situation will be five years from now?
Li: The electronic media, obviously. Television is playing the most important role in shaping public opinion. The Internet is growing dramatically. Last year we had eight million users, this year 20 million. As the Internet grows, the free-for-all on information in China will be inevitable. The Chinese people will enjoy as much freedom as people in the rest of the world.
Gopalakrishnan: In India at the moment, the print media are definitely the dominant force in terms of influencing public opinion and the government. The Internet still has a long way to go. Television is the fastest growing media industry, and over the next five years, I expect television to become the dominant force in shaping public opinion.
Loory: You know, one medium I didn’t mention is radio. I have a feeling that radio must be important in both your countries.
Li: About two years ago, every journalism professor was making the prediction that radio would disappear with the rise of the Internet and cable TV. But now, with more and more Chinese owning cars, FM and AM radios are getting increasingly popular in China. The only radio stations that are suffering are shortwave ones targeting overseas audience.
Gopalakrishnan: Radio still has the maximum penetration in India in terms of the population and the area it reaches. I don’t see radio as a major force in influencing public opinion, but it is in reporting hard news.
Legal Restraint on Media
Loory: I would like to bring up legal controls such as criminal libel or insult laws, or licensing of journalists. What are the situations in your countries?
Gopalakrishnan: There is no licensing of journalists in India. A publication has to register itself with the body called the Registrar of Newspapers. Anyone can start a print publication by registering it and getting the title cleared for copyright purposes. Television, once a government monopoly, is now being opened up to the private sector, and some licensing is required because it is a relatively new medium, and new laws are being framed to govern the electronic media. Libel laws are more or less what they were during the British time. But there is absolutely no licensing required for journalists. The government gives accreditation to journalists, based on the recommendations of the publication or television or radio station concerned.
Li: In China, there is no press law, but we do have a rule requiring a publication or a station to have a license to operate. We don’t have a licensing system for journalists, though. Under the constitution, the Chinese people enjoy the freedom of press, speech and religious belief, but we have rules and regulations that set limits on that freedom. A licensing system of publication ownership is one example. However, most Chinese journalists and journalism researchers believe that with China’s admission into the World Trade Organization, the government has to allow private investment in or even ownership of a news business to compete with Western media giants such as CNN/Time Warner.
Loory: Last week I was at a meeting of the Inter American Press Association in Santiago, Chile, and one of the things discussed there were the so-called “insult laws” in Latin American countries. The insult laws say that a journalist cannot impugn the reputations or insult the personal character of public officials. Do you have anything like that in your countries?
Li: We don’t have an insult law in China, but there are more and more libel cases against journalists. At least 200 journalists have been accused of libel and as a result taken to court. Journalists in turn are demanding a new law to protect them from unjustified lawsuits because they have written unfavorably about public figures. That’s why the Chinese Association of Journalists formed the Protection Committee for Journalists’ Rights.
Gopalakrishnan: No, there is no such thing as an insult law in the Indian statute books. But the normal libel laws apply. There have been cases in which courts have ordered some compensation and forced publications to print apologies. I think the libel laws are quite comprehensive to prevent irresponsible journalism. And appeal to the courts is under the same Anglo-Saxon law that is used everywhere else. It hasn’t been used much in India, but that is the only recourse available to anyone who feels that his reputation has been damaged. There have been cases in which publications have been forced to retract their statements. There is also the Press Council of India. A statutory body, it hears complaints from people and gives its verdict. And publications are expected to publish the verdict of the Press Council in regard to any complaint filed against them.
Loory: What do each of you think might be learned from the other country of benefit to the news business in your own country?
Gopalakrishnan: There is a lot to learn from China. We’d like to think of ours as a free press, and we have read about a controlled press in China. But what we could definitely learn is how the Chinese media have expanded to cover the population and the country and how literacy has grown to help the print media to reach such a vast population. The print media in India are still restricted to urban areas.
Li: I think we have a lot to learn from India because India has a very mature press industry. But I don’t think that freedom of press means you can be unfair, you can be unbalanced, or you can write whatever you want.