Multiple choice

Whenever media is attacked, it invokes the spirit of people's inalienable right to know and largely succeeds in warding off the attack because

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The closure of the popular tabloid, News of the World, the arrest of the top executives of the Rupert Murdoch-run News International on phone hacking charges and the proceedings of the Leveson inquiry have focussed attention on the skewed internal workings of an otherwise vibrant British media. This has resulted in a bizarre turning of the tables. A readership accustomed to viewing the media as white knights in shining armour puncturing the pretensions of the powerful and the pompous has suddenly been exposed to unethical practices, blatant illegalities and the cosy relationship that exists between the fourth estate and politicians. 
The results have not been edifying. In the past, the media conducted themselves with the militant cussedness of trade unions. Every right was fiercely guarded and transformed into a privilege; every hint of regulation was instantly transformed into a larger battle for democracy; and the occasional statement on accountability was painted as an insidious assault on the people’s inalienable right to know.
The boot is now on the other foot. Instead of being assiduously wooed and flattered by the powerful, the Leveson inquiry has witnessed powerful media barons such as Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, being subjected to merciless interrogation. Indeed, as the inquiry meanders from the internal workings of the newsrooms to politics, the likes of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, are having a torrid time explaining their convivial relations with the Murdoch empire. Hostile public opinion is veering to the opinion that existing laws and quasi-official bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission aren’t enough. What the media need is a public-spirited, independent regulator.
It is difficult to gauge whether or not the chairman of Press Council, Markandey Katju, was influenced by developments in London when he rushed into battle against India’s ‘unionized’ media. A high-spirited individual with very definite (and occasionally bizarre) views on all subjects ranging from Salman Rushdie’s writings to cricket’s role as a promoter of false consciousness, the retired Supreme Court judge has proffered a simple argument: if all professions are regulated, why should media be any different? Waging a turf battle against the electronic-media-appointed watchdog body headed by the former chief justice, J.S.Verma, Katju has strongly argued that the Press Council be transformed into a Media Council and assume the role of a regulator.
Katju, it would seem, had very definite ideas about editorial content and the hierarchy of news. In his perception, the media must play the role of social reformers and not fritter away their eagerness in frivolity and tittle-tattle, never mind the fact that not all their consumers are preoccupied with virtuousness. It is precisely because of his highbrow certitudes and disdain for popular journalism that his insistence on a media regulator has been viewed with a measure of amusement by the fourth estate.
If an all powerful regulator in the mould of Katju, it has been argued, assumed responsibility for the whole media, it would be tantamount to murdering diversity and ruining a vibrant and growing industry. In spelling out his philosophical preferences robustly, Katju unwittingly helped focus attention on the dangers posed by an activist regulator who would replicate the ideals of the so-called New Information Order, once favoured by the fellow travellers of the Soviet Union.

  1. it fiercely guards its rights as privilege

  2. it converts attacks on itself as attacks on democracy

  3. it successfully identifies itself with the theory of the inalienable right of people to know

  4. never in the past was it exposed in the manner it was following the Murdoch incident

  5. not many believed that media had any vested interest until Murdoch exploded on the scene
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

(1) No doubt whenever attacked media guards its right as privilege. But this is not the reason why it largely succeeds. This at best may be a contributory factor to success. (2) It's largely true that on being attacked the media demonstrates it as an attack on democracy. This usually helps in warding off the attack as the idea of democracy appeals to people in general. (3) It is always important that people should accept certain propositions. Media has been successful in identifying itself with the idea that the right to know is fundamental to democracy. If people can be assured of their inalienable right to know, democracy is ensured. Perceptions play a very crucial role in determining public opinion. Media has been successful in selling the idea of people's inalienable right to know as fundamental to democracy. By doing this media has successfully kept people on its side. Of all the answers c) best answers the question. (4) It's perhaps true that media, in the past, had not been exposed in the manner it was now. This instead of helping media in warding off attacks invited public wrath and denunciation. It does not answer the question. (5) True, but this too does not help the cause of the media in so far as warding off of attacks is concerned. Not the appropriate answer to the question.

Keep practicing — related questions