Two basic theories

I. Social Responsibility TheoryII. Agenda Setting Theory

Role of Media in the Society

Social Responsibility TheoryThis is the American initiative in the late forties.In this model media assigned to perform some obligation towards society. Obligation:- - In formativeness - Truth - Accuracy - Objectivity and balance

Media cannot function in a vacuum. It has connectivity with the political system and people subjected to it.

Media and society are independent and mutually influential

Media shapes the society and gets shaped by society.

In a democratic society, media has definite prime objective to inform people and act as an opinion leader. More practical and relevant in democratic world

More Principles : Media should accept responsibilities towards society Media should fulfil responsibilities by setting professional

standards with regards to the supply of information and the truth, accuracy, objectivity and balance of their reporting

Media should apply self-regulation Media should avoid publicising information that can lead to

crime, violence or social disruption, as well as information that can offend ethnic or religious minorities

Media collectively should represent all social groups and reflect the diversity of society by giving people access to a variety of viewpoints and opportunity to react to them.

Society entitled to high standards and intervention justifiable if the media fail to meet these standards.

News agenda determines the public agendaWe look to news media to cue us as to where

we should focus attentionMedia don’t tell us what to think, they tell us

what to think about

Agenda Setting Theory

Media not only influence what we think about, they influence the WAY we think about them

They do this by “framing” : i.e. through selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration.

These determine the salience of particular attributes of a story of issue

For instance,- Public concern about crime

increased- Yet actual crime levels were falling- Because media were intensifying

their focus on crime, in particular framing crime as

- “something that can happen to anyone” and

- “something most fearsome when local”

Article 1919. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc(1) All citizens shall have the right(a) to freedom of speech and expression;(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;(c) to form associations or unions;(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and(f) omitted(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of

causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

  Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and

“electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

Section 66A

The first PIL on Section 66A was filed in 2012 by a law student Sherya Singhal, who sought an Amendment  after two girls, Rinu Shrinivasan and Shaheen Dhada, were arrested in Palghar in Mumbai. One of them had posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other ‘liked’ it. Some other people who have come under the axe for the same include UP-based cartoonist Aseem Trivedi.

[[]pop[]\

The judgment reads:  “What may be offensive and annoying to one may not be to another. That is what renders 66A unconstitutional and vague. Governments come and governments go, the law persists. And the law must be judged on its own merit. 66A is invalid and it cannot be saved even if the government says it won’t abuse the law,” the bench added.

The rules for blocking websites in India are governed by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000.

This rule came into the power in 2008 after an amendment in the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 69A of the IT Act authorises the Central government, the power to direct either a government agency or an intermediary to block access to any website under a list of very specific circumstances. If intermediary sites fail to comply with a blocking order, they may get punishment of imprisonment and fines. Intermediaries here are telecom service providers, blogging sites, online payment sites, e-mail service providers and Web hosting companies.

Section 69A

Miles to go before we sleep