News Broadcasting

Journalists need to hold power to account: Boaden

Published

15 years ago

June 14, 2011

MUMBAI: “If the BBC is weak, or lacking in confidence, or isn‘t sure about its editorial judgments and methods, then it runs the risk of being pushed around…of losing its independence in all but name.”

The cautionary note has come from BBC News director Helen Boaden.

Elaborating on the task of newsmen, Boaden has said that the journalist‘s job is to hold power to account – to shine light in dark places. But they can only do so if they have the courage of their convictions – if they have done their journalism properly – and if they are properly able to weigh up the consequences of their actions.

Speaking on ‘Value of Journalism’ at The BBC College of Journalism and POLIS international conference, Boaden said that people are surrounded by more sources of news on more platforms than any previous generation could have imagined. But in a sea of information, opinion, misinformation and sometimes downright lies, it‘s vital to know which news you can trust.

“So for all the innovations that have changed the broadcasting environment so rapidly, the principles – for us – are the same. It‘s important to do the right thing – whatever the pressure. That way, you build your reputation for independence and impartiality,” she added.

Last year, the BBC News channel had record audiences for many major news stories. It recorded the highest reach of any UK news channel – 7.4 million – on the day that Gordon Brown resigned and David Cameron became prime minister. The day after the general election, 7 million watched, and 6.9 million watched the rescue of the Chilean miners. More recently, on 11 March, the channel reached a new record of 8.5 million for the Japanese earthquake. On the same day, the BBC website, too, had record traffic internationally with 15.8m unique users.

“Our ratings for trust, impartiality and independence have also continued to rise over the last three years. There‘s a direct connection between these sets of figures. As the perception of trust and impartiality increases, so do our audiences. The BBC Trust has shown that impartiality is an important factor in the audience determining its choice of broadcast news provider,” Boaden said.

In a major survey published last year, Ofcom found that 91 per cent of people thought it was important or very important that “news in general is impartial”. So if partisan reporting is allowed under a new Communications Act – and there are detailed arguments for and against – then the BBC will do everything it can to maintain and strengthen its tradition of impartial journalism.

“But that means we must be strong enough, and fair and honest enough, to admit mistakes when we have made them. To hold those in power to account we have to be accountable ourselves,” Boaden noted.

That‘s why the other side of this story is how the UK pubcaster handles complaints about its journalism. “Complaints come in all shapes and sizes. We must be strong enough not to cave in to those who complain of a red menace – as they did in the 30s – or that we are being unpatriotic in holding Fifa to account We should be confident enough to say to all our audiences – not just those in positions of power – we stand by our programmes,” she added.

But at the same time, the coverage should be sensitive enough to be able to recognise where complaints have validity.

Boaden offered an example. When Israeli commandos boarded a boat called the Mavi Marmara, which was bound for Gaza, in a raid that left 9 people dead last year, Panorama mounted a brave, thorough and forensic examination of what went wrong. After the programme – which was called “Death on the Med” – the BBC received 2,000 calls, letters or e-mails, three-quarters of them critical. The pubcaster estimated that a quarter of those who contacted the news outfit were part of a lobby group, using wording recommended by a particular website. In the end, however, it‘s not the volume of complaints that counts – wearying though it may be for editors – but their validity.

Subsequently 19 complaints, raising 51 substantive points, were put to the complaints process. In this case, the Trust took pains to praise the programme as “an original, insightful and well-researched piece of journalism.” It stressed its impartiality and accuracy.

But three points were upheld by the Trust – two relating to breaches of the BBC‘s editorial guidelines regarding accuracy and one on impartiality.

“We apologised for the mistakes, and accepted the praise. And that, I think, is how it should be. Saying sorry should not be seen as a sign of weakness. Nor should it be seen as such by our opponents who invariably take delight in a BBC apology,” said Boaden.

“We must be independent in our journalism, but independent-minded enough to recognise our own faults, where they exist – without anyone assuming that we are caving in to political pressure, or being pushed around. Indeed, it should be seen as a sign of institutional health – that an organisation not only stands up for its journalism, but holds up its hands if it gets things wrong – whatever the status of the complainant,” she added.

Striking a balance between allowing all-comers to complain and making the process unduly restrictive is very hard. It means the system can be preyed on by interest groups, or individuals with an obsessive interest, or those with the time and resources to pursue an agenda of their own. Sometimes, when people complain about a lack of impartiality, they are simply trying to impose their version of the truth on the BBC. “It can be difficult for us, or unpleasant,” she said.

Understandably, in these circumstances, editors would rather be doing the job, than answering complaints about the job. It can be time-consuming, and costly. But it can only be right that everyone is equal in the eyes of the complaints system. The alternative might be an organisation which holds power to account without being properly accountable itself.

“So that the confidence which we need as journalists becomes arrogance. A form of pride which, inevitably, will lead to a fall. We need confidence – and we need accountability. We need systems that work in order to ensure that our journalism is robust.”

She noted that all politicians, of whatever party, embrace the BBC‘s independence in theory – but have occasional difficulties in practice, especially when they are in power. That means it‘s important to do the right thing – whatever the pressure.

“That way, you build your reputation for independence and impartiality. To hold power to account – we have to tell the truth as we see it, to the people who need it, independent of government and commercial interests. But we must do so freely and fairly, and in a genuine spirit of inquiry. And if you ask the questions of those in power – you must be prepared to answer them – and to acknowledge your own mistakes.

Not only does it go with the territory. It‘s a vital part of the landscape.”

Up Next

‘We are now in a very strong position to overcome any new challenges in the Indian marketplace’ : WWE International executive VP Andrew

Don't Miss

Nick US to air ‘Winx Club’ from 27 June

Click to comment

News Broadcasting

Barc forensic audit in TRP row awaits as Twenty-Four probe gathers pace

Published

3 weeks ago

February 4, 2026

indiantelevision.com Team

KERALA: A forensic audit commissioned by the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) India has emerged as the centrepiece of the government’s response to fresh allegations of television rating point manipulation involving a regional news channel in Kerala, with both the audit findings and a parallel police investigation still awaited.

Replying to a query in the Lok Sabha, minister of state for information and broadcasting L Murugan, said Barc had appointed an independent agency to conduct a forensic probe into the conduct of senior personnel allegedly linked to the case.

The move followed media reports claiming that a Barc employee had accepted bribes to manipulate viewership data in favour of a regional television news channel.

“The report from BARC is still awaited,” Murugan told Parliament, signalling that the forensic exercise remains ongoing.

Industry specialists say forensic audits are crucial in alleged TRP fraud cases, as they examine internal controls, data access trails, panel household integrity, staff communications and financial transactions. The outcome could determine whether the alleged manipulation was an isolated breach or a deeper systemic weakness in India’s television measurement framework.

Running alongside the audit, the Kerala Police has formed a special investigation team to probe the allegations. The ministry has sought a preliminary report from the state’s director general of police, including details of action taken on the first information report. That report, too, is yet to be submitted.

The episode has revived long-standing concerns over the vulnerability of India’s TRP system, particularly in regional news markets where competition for ratings is fierce and advertising revenues hinge on weekly viewership rankings.

India’s sole television audience measurement body Barc, has faced scrutiny before, most notably during the nationwide TRP controversy involving news channels in 2020. While tighter compliance norms were introduced in the aftermath, the latest allegations suggest enforcement challenges may persist.

On regulatory consequences, the government said any punitive action against television channels, including suspension or cancellation of uplinking and downlinking permissions, would be governed by the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking and Downlinking of Television Channels issued in November 2022, and would depend on investigation outcomes and due process.

The ministry also pointed to ongoing efforts to overhaul the ratings ecosystem. Television measurement continues to be regulated under the Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies, 2014. Draft amendments were released for public consultation in July 2025, followed by a revised version in November 2025, aimed at tightening audit mechanisms and improving transparency and representativeness.

In November 2025, Barc said it had taken note of allegations aired by Malayalam news channel Twenty-Four, which linked an internal employee to irregularities in audience measurement. The council said it had engaged a “reputed independent agency” to conduct a comprehensive forensic audit, underscoring the seriousness of the claims.

The ratings system sits at the heart of India’s broadcast advertising economy, shaping billions of rupees in annual ad spends. With trust in audience data once again under strain, advertisers, broadcasters and regulators are closely watching the outcome of the investigations.

Barc has urged industry stakeholders and media organisations to exercise restraint while the probe is underway, calling for an end to “unverified or speculatory claims” and reiterating its commitment to integrity and accountability.

Until the forensic audit and police findings are submitted and reviewed, the government said it would refrain from drawing conclusions.

News Broadcasting

Rajat Sharma defamation row: Delhi court summons Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Pawan Khera and Jairam Ramesh

Published

3 weeks ago

February 4, 2026

indiantelevision.com Team

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has ordered the summoning of senior Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Pawan Khera and Jairam Ramesh in a criminal case filed by veteran journalist Rajat Sharma, sharpening a legal battle over alleged defamation and doctored digital content.

The order was passed on Monday by Devanshi Janmeja, judicial magistrate first class at Saket Courts, after the court found prima facie grounds to proceed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including forgery, creation of false electronic records and defamation.

Sharma, chairman and editor-in-chief of India TV, had approached the court over allegations made in June 2024 that he had used derogatory language against Congress spokesperson Ragini Nayak during a live television debate. He denied the charge, claiming it was fuelled by a manipulated video circulated online.

According to the complaint, a clipped version of the broadcast carrying superimposed captions, which were not part of the original programme, was first shared on social media platform X by Nayak and later amplified through retweets and public statements by Khera and Ramesh. Sharma said the viral spread caused serious reputational harm and personal distress.

The court took note of forensic science laboratory findings that pointed to visible post-production alterations in the video, including added titles and captions. It also cited witness testimonies from those present during the live broadcast, who stated that no abusive or objectionable language had been used.

In a related civil matter, the Delhi High Court had earlier observed a prima facie absence of abusive remarks and directed the removal of the disputed social media posts.

With criminal proceedings now set in motion, the case adds to mounting scrutiny around political messaging, digital manipulation and accountability on social media platforms.

News Broadcasting

Mukesh Ambani, Larry Fink come together for CNBC-TV18 exclusive

Reliance and BlackRock chiefs map the future of investing as global capital eyes India

Published

3 weeks ago

February 4, 2026

indiantelevision.com Team

MUMBAI: India’s capital story takes centre stage today as Mukesh Ambani and Larry Fink sit down for a rare joint television conversation, bringing together two of the most powerful voices in global business at a moment of economic churn and opportunity.

The Reliance Industries chief and the BlackRock boss will speak with Shereen Bhan, managing editor of CNBC-TV18, in an exclusive interaction airing from 3:00 pm on February 4. The timing is deliberate. Geopolitics are tense, technology is disruptive and capital is choosier. India, meanwhile, is pitching itself as a long-term bet.

The pairing is symbolic. Reliance straddles energy transition, digital infrastructure and consumer growth in the world’s fastest-expanding major economy. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, oversees more than $14 tn in assets and sits at the nerve centre of global capital flows. When the two talk, markets tend to listen.

Fink’s appearance marks his third India visit, a signal of the country’s rising strategic weight for the Wall Street-listed firm, which carries a market value above $177 bn. His earlier 2023 trips included an October stop in New Delhi, where he met both Ambani and Narendra Modi.

India is now central to BlackRock’s expansion plans, notably through its joint venture with Jio Financial Services. Announced in July 2023, the 50:50 venture, JioBlackRock, commits up to $150 mn each from the partners to build a digital-first asset-management platform aimed at India’s swelling investor class.

The backdrop is robust. BlackRock ended 2025 with record assets under management of $14.04 tn, helped by $698 bn in net inflows, including $342 bn in the fourth quarter alone. Scale gives Fink both heft and a long lens on where money is moving.

He has been openly bullish on India. At the Saudi-US Investment Summit in Riyadh last year, Fink argued that the “fog of global uncertainty is lifting”, with capital returning to dynamic markets such as India, drawn by reforms, demographics and durable return potential.

Expect the conversation to range beyond balance sheets, into technology’s role in finance, access to capital and the mechanics of sustainable growth in a fracturing world order. For investors and policymakers alike, it is a snapshot of how big money is thinking about India.

At a time when capital is cautious and growth is contested, India wants to be the exception. When Ambani and Fink share a stage, it is less a chat and more a signal. The world’s money is still looking for its next big story, and India intends to be it.