ITV

Tag: NBDSA

  • NBDSA cracks the whip: news channels caught in a spin over sensationalism

    NBDSA cracks the whip: news channels caught in a spin over sensationalism

    MUMBAI: The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) has been rather busy, doling out a series of rulings that have left several prominent Indian news channels with a bit of egg on their faces. It appears some broadcasters have been playing fast and loose with the facts, prompting the watchdog to flex its regulatory muscles.

    In a decision that’s got everyone talking, ABP News found itself in the NBDSA’s crosshairs over one 7 September 2024, interview with the former BJP MP, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The complainant, Indrajeet Ghorpade, wasn’t chuffed about the alleged “character assassination” of olympic wrestler Vinesh Phogat. The NBDSA, clearly not amused by the chuckles at Phogat’s expense, closed the complaint with an “observation to take care of the issue,” effectively telling ABP to mind its manners. It seems some interviews are more of a grapple than a chat.

    Not to be outdone in the “oops” stakes, Times Now Navbharat received a stern talking-to for a broadcast from 5-6 September 2024, titled ‘अवैध मस्जिद’ पर महिलाओं ने मुसलमानों पर खुलकर सब बता दिया ! (Women openly tell everything about illegal mosques). Ghorpade, a busy chap indeed, also lodged this complaint, citing misleading thumbnails and a rather leading line of questioning about Shimla’s Muslim population. The NBDSA, advising broadcasters to ensure “tickers and thumbnails should conform to the actual version of the discussions/interviews,” has told Times Now Navbharat to snip, snip, snip that thumbnail from the video, if it’s still lurking online. A case of “don’t judge a broadcast by its cover,” perhaps.

    Meanwhile, Zee News felt the heat over a quartet of programmes aired on 15 and 16 October 2024, all revolving around the rather unsavoury (and frankly, bizarre) concept of “thook jihad” and “urine jihad”. Utkarsh Mishra’s complaint highlighted how a perfectly sensible UP law about CCTV cameras in eateries was spun into a battle against “thook jihad,” seemingly legitimising “state-sponsored and legislative targeting based on one’s religious identity”. The NBDSA, clearly unimpressed by this “spitting image” of sensationalism, issued a warning to Zee News not to “repeat such violations.” They’ve also been told to scrub the offending videos from their digital presence. Looks like Zee News got a bit of a sticky wicket there.

    Finally, Citizens for Justice & Peace landed Times Now Navbharat in hot water again, this time for 19 August 2024, programmes dissecting “teaching in Madrasas in Bihar”. The complaint alleged inflammatory language and selective reporting surrounding claims about “Pakistan-Published books” and “non-Muslims as ‘Kafir’”. The NBDSA, after a good long chinwag with both parties, concluded that the broadcasts had indeed fallen short of journalistic standards. They’ve directed the broadcaster to take down the objectionable segments and, in a polite but firm tone, told them to get their house in order.

    In all four cases, the NBDSA emphasised the importance of factual integrity, responsible language, and a strong editorial spine. The verdicts serve as a wake-up call to India’s noisy newsrooms: shock and sensationalism may fetch eyeballs, but they won’t go unchecked.

    For some broadcasters, it’s clearly time to trade outrage for oversight — or risk a growing pile of takedown notices. 

  • NBDA strengthens regulations with graded penalties for broadcasters and digital publishers

    NBDA strengthens regulations with graded penalties for broadcasters and digital publishers

    Mumbai: The News Broadcasters & Digital Association (“NBDA”) is the collective voice of the news, current affairs and digital broadcasters in India, whose membership includes leading news and current affairs broadcasters and digital news publishers, who run news and current affairs channels and digital news platforms. Members of NBDA are some of the nation’s top-rated news channels and they command more than 80 per cent of news television viewership in India.

    One of the significant achievements of NBDA is its independent self-regulatory body “News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority” (NBDSA), which was established nearly 15 years ago. NBDSA has emerged as a time-tested complaint redressal system and process for the viewers.  Since its inception, NBDSA has been headed by eminent former judges of the Supreme Court of India, and by other renowned Independent Members, who have striven to improve broadcasting standards.

    The NBDA Board felt that it had become necessary to review and amend the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Regulations (regulations) to bring it in sync with the evolving media landscape.

    The NBDA Board is grateful to Justice (Retd) A. K. Sikri, chairperson, NBDSA, Justice (Retd) R. V Raveendran, former chairperson, NBDSA and  Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, for their invaluable guidance and inputs in facilitating the process.  

    The salient features of the regulations are:

    With the inclusion of digital news media in its membership, the regulations have been amended to bring digital publishers under the purview of NBDSA. Further, several new definitions have been added in the Regulations, which include:

    “Digital News Media” means digitized news content that can be transmitted over the internet or computer networks and includes content received, stored, transmitted, edited or processed by a digital publisher;

    “Digital News Platforms” refers to platforms which facilitate transmission of digitized news content over the internet or computer networks including social networking sites or social media;

    “OTT Platforms” refers to platforms which facilitate transmission of any program, feature, news-item, news-report or any other matter over the internet or computer networks on demand;

    “Digital Publisher” includes a news portal, news aggregator, news agency and any other entity which is engaged in publishing of news and current affairs content on digital news platforms, OTT platforms, social networking sites and social media.

    Penalties to be imposed for violation of the Code of Conduct have been broadened to include graded penalties, which are as follows:

    7.       Powers of Authority

    “Where, on receipt of a complaint made to it or otherwise, the Authority has reason to believe that a Broadcaster or Digital Publisher has violated the Code of Conduct, the Authority may, after giving the Broadcaster or Digital Publisher concerned, an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry in such manner as is provided by these Regulations and, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the following penalties to be imposed upon the broadcaster or digital publisher:-

    For the first violation issue/express:

    a. warning, admonish, censure, disapproval, regret, apology and/or

    b. impose a fine of upto Rs. 2 lacs

    For the second violation issue/express:

    a. warning, admonish, censure, disapproval, regret, apology and/or

    b. impose a fine of upto Rs. 5 lacs

    For the third violation issue/express:

    a. warning, admonish, censure, disapproval, regret, apology and/or

    b.  impose a fine upto one per cent of the total annual turnover of the channel.

    Provided such fine shall not exceed Rs.25 lakhs, in any given matter.

    In addition to the above, on the third violation of the code of conduct, the authority may direct a particular programme to be suspended for up to one week and/or direct the broadcaster to suspend the anchor for upto one month and/or issue any other direction as the authority deems appropriate to the broadcaster or digital publisher and/or recommend to the concerned authority for suspension/revocation of license of such broadcaster;

    Provided that the fine imposed by the authority shall be recovered from the concerned broadcaster or digital publisher.

    Provided that if the authority holds that the Broadcaster or digital publisher has violated the code of conduct, it will direct the broadcaster/digital publisher to immediately remove or suitably edit the broadcast/publication from all digital news platforms, social media and social networking sites;”

    Suo-Motu proceedings

    “The Authority has the power to initiate suo motu proceedings and issue notice or, as the case may be, take action in respect of any matter which falls within the mischief contemplated in these regulations or relating to any matter falling within or arising from the Code of Conduct, and in such cases the Authority would be free to adopt its own procedure and such procedure need not be the same procedure as when the complaint is filed.

    The authority may exercise suo motu power in cases where public interest requires immediate remedial action to be taken, or in other cases where the Authority deems it fit to do so.

    Where suo motu proceedings have been taken ex-parte, the authority will issue notice to the concerned broadcasters/digital publishers within three days giving an opportunity to explain why further action under the regulations should not be taken.

    The Authority may exercise its powers suo motu even on a subject matter brought to its attention by a Complainant whose complaint has been dismissed due to delay in filing the Complaint.”

    New provision added in the regulations

    Emergency powers

    “In the event there is an emergency situation involving egregious and/or continuous and/or repetitive violation(s) of the code of conduct in the telecast/publication by the member broadcasters/digital publishers on a particular subject, the authority shall also have suo motu emergency powers to issue interim directions to broadcasters/digital publishers without following the procedures as mentioned in the regulations.

    In such emergency situations, an urgent meeting of the Authority will be convened within 24 (twenty-four) hours of such violation of code of conduct being brought to the notice of the Authority.

    After the urgent meeting, the Authority can take action against any broadcasters/digital publishers including a particular channel/digital platform/OTT platform which would include a direction to remove the content immediately.

    After the passing of any such interim directions, the aggrieved broadcaster/digital publisher may approach the authority for redressal of its grievance immediately. If a suitable explanation is given by the broadcasters/digital publishers, the authority can set aside the Interim Directions and direct the programme/content to be restored.”

    The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Regulations dated 20.6.2024 is attached.

  • NBDSA imposes a fine of Rs 50,000 on News18 India on hijab controversy

    NBDSA imposes a fine of Rs 50,000 on News18 India on hijab controversy

    Mumbai: The News Broadcasting And Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) has fined News18 India Rs 50,000.The body found that the channel violated principles relating to impartiality, neutrality, fairness and good taste while conducting a debate programme relating to the Karnataka Hijab case on 6 April.

    The debate also failed to abide by a court verdict. The NBDSA has also directed that the video be removed from its platform. NBDSA did not have any issue with the subject of the debate. However, on examination of the matter, it found that the problem lay with the narrative and the tilt that was given to the programme.  

    The complaint was filed by Indrajeet Ghorpade on 10 April. The complainant stated that Al Qaeda chief, Zawahiri, had praised Muskan Khan, a Muslim student from Karnataka for confronting a mob that heckled her for wearing the hijab earlier this year. Zawahiri also remarked that in India, Muslim people were facing atrocities and urged the international Muslim community to support the Indian Muslim women, who were fighting for their right to wear a hijab.

    The complainant noted that in the debate programme, the anchor referred to the Muslim students as “Hijabi Gang”, “Hijabwali Gazwa Gang” and made false allegations that they had resorted to rioting. The anchor claimed that Zawahiri and terrorist organisations were behind the entire Hijab row and that in India, there are many “Hijabi” representatives of Zawahiri, and it’s “the Zawahiri gang”. Further, he added that Zawahiri was the face and the students were his mask. The anchor also repeated multiple times during the broadcast that Zawahiri and Indian Muslims follow the same book and same ideology the complainant had alleged.

    NBDSA did not find merit in the broadcaster’s submission that the terms “Hijabi Gang”, “Hijabwali Gazwa Gang” and “the Zawahiri gang” were used only in respect of the invisible powers which were allegedly behind the controversy and not in respect of the students who were protesting in support of Hijab. NBDSA observed that while having a debate as to whether wearing of Hijab be allowed in the schools or not, there was no occasion to blow up the debate by making it a communal issue.

    NBDSA strongly deprecated the tendency of the broadcaster to associate those panelists who were in favour of wearing Hijab by the students with Zawahiri and labelling them as “Zawahiri gang member” “Zawahiri’s ambassador ,”Zawahiri is your God, you are his fan.” . NBDSA also did not find any justification in linking those panelists/persons who were supporting Hijab with Al Qaeda by airing tickers stating “#AlQaedaGangExposed”, “Hijab ka fata poster, nikla Al Qaeda”, “Al Zawahiri found behind the hijab” and “Al Qaeda has planned the hijab controversy”.

    NBDSA further observed that the anchor had not only acted in flagrant disrespect of the Code of Ethics And Broadcasting Standards and the Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage but had also failed to abide by the decision of the Bombay High Court in a case last year. This enjoins an anchor to apply his/her mind and avoid the programme from drifting beyond the permissible limits, including by muting the speaker who flies off the tangent. NBDSA noted that even the Supreme Court has on numerous occasions stressed on the role of the anchor in a news programme and stated that the anchor must maintain a balance between the panelists. However, in the instant case, not only had the anchor failed to stop the other panelists from crossing the boundary but had given them a platform to express extreme views which could adversely affect the communal harmony in the country.

    Therefore, NBDSA held that the impugned programme was violative of the principles relating to impartiality, neutrality, fairness and good taste and decency under the Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage, apart from the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards. NBDSA stated that the broadcaster would be well advised to guide and train its anchor on how to conduct debates on such sensitive issues.

    Besides the fine NBDSA admonished the broadcaster for conducting such a debate, which was not in accordance with the Code of Ethics and/or the observations and judgment of the Bombay High Court in respect of the role of the anchor in a programme as mentioned above.

    NBDSA also made it clear that it has given abundant guidance as to how such programmes should run without violating the Code of Ethics and in case the NBDSA finds that in spite thereof such violations are repeated in future, it may have to direct the broadcaster to ensure the presence of the anchor Aman Chopra before the NBDSA .

    NBDSA further also directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the programme from its website and all platforms and the same should be confirmed to NBDSA in writing within seven days of the order.

    The complainant had submitted that the broadcaster airs an interesting compilation of shows with the objective of spreading communal disharmony and anti-Muslim sentiments in the country. In view of the above, the complainant prayed for NBDSA to intervene in the matter and to stop violations of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines by repeat offenders.

    The broadcaster had submitted that the impugned show was based on a statement made in the video featuring Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Al-Qaeda, which it noted is a multinational militant Sunni Islamic extremist network. The said video was already viral on the social media before its telecast. In the said video, Zawahiri had praised Muskan Khan, a student who had raised her voice in support of the hijab. The broadcaster submitted that it had reported facts publicly available and widely reported by other outlets about the hijab controversy including the decision of the Karnataka High Court which stated that the hijab was not a part of Islamic tradition, and that students were not allowed to wear the same in schools as part of the uniform. In fact, the Hon’ble High Court had raised a question regarding some invisible power behind the Hijab issue.

    The broadcaster had submitted that in the impugned programme, it had questioned the motives of Al Zawahiri and had not made any comment in reference to the girls who were raising their voice in support of hijab.