Financial transparency in the media: is there anything to hide?

The widespread use of the Right to Information Act has broadened the public field of enquiry. The executive now feels the heat of unrestricted scrutiny of its decisions. Even the judiciary has agreed to “voluntarily” disclose its assets. And mandatory pre-election affidavits declaring their assets as well as those of their spouses have subjected the political class to some popular check.
With three of the four estates being made accountable to the people in some form of the other, it is time to make the financial workings of the Fourth Estate—the media in all its avatars— more transparent and subject to the public gaze.
Such a demand is bound to meet with strong opposition on the ground that you cannot compel individuals and private companies to throw open their books of accounts. As long as the various laws of the land are being complied with, there should be no mandatory disclosure of accounts, it will be argued. Further, such disclosure will impinge on the right to conduct business.
But the media-owners never tire of reminding us and the government that the “media is not just any other business”. It is often argued that the media has a social purpose and performs the larger role of informing the people and keeping the government on its toes. Such arguments (and behind- the- scenes lobbying) have yielded frequent and lucrative sops and subsidies to the Indian media .
In the circumstances, those who claim to perform public service and often seek governmental protection and largesse, should be subject to public scrutiny. In fact, media-owners and their high-profile editors should voluntarily agree to the public scrutiny of accounts and personal assets.
While there is some scrutiny of listed media companies through the annual statements and quarterly results they are statutorily required to file, a majority of media companies are still Private Companies or are controlled by closely-held Holding Companies and are thus more difficult to monitor.
Moreover, in the last decade or so, the media has become an arena for the most unscrupulous financial practices: from the signing of private treaties (essentially the acquisition of shares of an advertiser in lieu of allocation of advertising/promotional/editorial space) to the outright sale of editorial space as typified in the recent assembly elections in some parts of the country
But three other factors have lent a sense of urgency to the need for transparency in the financial functioning of the media. First, a whole slew of global conglomerates, angel investors and benami investment companies have pumped stashes of money into the media. Where is all the moolah coming from? Industrialists? Politicians? The underworld? Since all these investments are bleeding, what are their long-term goals? No one has a clear idea of what’s going on. The accounts of all media companies, big or small, should be open to free and unrestricted public scrutiny at the National Informatic Centre (NIC) website.
Second, a whole class of journalists has now essentially become entrepreneurs and wheeler-dealers. Many of the TV channels are fronted by this species and they serve a bewildering array of invisible vested interests. Take the example of Dileep Padgaonkar, editorial panjandrum of the Times Group. Padgaonkar also runs a dubious newspaper in Nepal called The Himalayan Times. Among the activities conducted from The Himalayan Times office at Chiranjiv Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi, is the import of dental products from Switzerland!
Another high-profile editor of humble origins has a sprawling farm-house outside New Delhi. No one has a clear idea of what’s going on. All editors must file annual affidavits declaring their assets as well as those of their spouses and children. These affidavits should be posted at the NIC website.
Third, the political class is steadily consolidating ownership of the media at the regional level and further muddying the financial waters. No one has a clear idea of what’s going on. Apart from keeping their accounts open to public examination, such media-owners should also disclose the sources of their funds. These documents should be posted at the NIC website.
Financial transparency and accountability of the media are desirable not from an abstract moral or ethical high ground. Nor is the demand being voiced to shore up the faltering credibility of the media. The demand stems from the need to expand democratic and popular control and scrutiny of the media. Does anyone have anything to hide?