MEDIA LITERACY IN INFORMED DECISION-MAKING

The role of media in the 21st century is ever changing and so is the interpretation of the
information and data disseminated thereof. This takes place through several mediums,
electronic media, newsprint, radio, pamphlets, public announcements and the like. It is pretty
unlikely to discover the issue involved in such simple process of public awareness, yet its
presence is nowhere negligible considering the nature of effects it is capable of producing at a
large scale. At this juncture, media literacy gains momentum in minimizing possible friction
in between and among its consumers, creators and intermediaries. The absence of the same
generates friction which takes shape under the veil of information asymmetry,
misinformation and uninformed decision-making, inter alia.
To be definitive, media literacy pertains to a form of education which imparts necessary
analytical skill and critical understanding to create and interpret media and its related affairs,
while developing the ability to analyze data or any other information likely to impact the
public at large, or is meant for public dissemination. Here, informed decision-making attains
significance with its application in each stage of rational decision undertaken with the
primary objective of creating, disseminating and consuming information via media. Let it be
illustrated through the recent Hollywood celebrity defamation case of Johnny Depp v. News
Group Newspapers,1 wherein the media trial of the renowned actor for allegedly being a
“wife beater” led to the catastrophic downfall of his acting career for two years whereof he
lost potential acting contracts worth millions while being banned from being casted for any
role in Hollywood. Here, an informed decision of the concerned media house in contrast to
what was published in The Sun (British tabloid newspaper of the news group), could have
prevented the proportion of damage that Mr. Depp had to sustain due to defamation (through
libel). The veracity of the allegations of Mr. Depp`s former wife (Amber Heard), if were
ascertained to its pure authenticity or till the Trial Court rendered its decision, an informed
decision over the publication of the news content could have been reached. The lack of the
same led to dissemination of fictitious information before the public, thus rupturing the
dignity and reputation of the victim while misleading public trust.

The above indicated is a classic example of media ethics being profoundly neglected by its
creators while the impact of the information disseminated reaching its zenith due to public
inability to critically evaluate, detect and identify the content pertaining to or embedded with
misinformation.

Again, to understand the nexus between achieving media literacy and arriving at an informed
decision, the misleading claims of Sudarshan TV UPSC Show pertaining to favorable
treatment being tendered in public service examination towards Muslim candidates, may be
discussed to plausible extents. The alleged Sudarshan TV programme, “Bindas Bol” was
suppose to broadcast as per its latest promo, a big expose on conspiracy to infiltrate Muslims
in government service. A two judge bench comprising Justices Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and K.
M. Joseph2 stated that it has to first circumspect in imposing a prior restraint in the nature of
an interlocutory injunction under Article 32 of the Constitution on publication or the airing of
views. The petitioner contented that the promo to the programme contained statements which

1
John Christopher Depp II v. News Group Newspapers Ltd and Dan Wootton, EWHC 2911 (QB)
2
Firoz Iqbal Khan v. Union of India & Ors [W.P. Civ. No. 956/2020]
were derogatory of the entry of Muslims in civil services. That the airing of religious views in
the course of the programme would violate the Programme Code enumerated under the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 read with the Code of Ethics and News
Broadcasting Standards Regulations. The Court was further of the view that investigative
journalism must know its limits thereby refraining itself from encroaching into communal
matters likely to cause disharmony, conflict, violation of peace and tranquility. However, the
interim order was not passed due to the above indicated reasons.

The case reiterates the need for increasing media literacy among television broadcasters who
if are left to operate with information dissemination at their own sweet will, shall most
certainly cause more harm than public awareness. The contours of information can be tamed
with great ease as per individual discretion for personal satisfaction, such as more TRPs as
evident in the instant case, leading to increased number of live viewers and subscribers to the
channel.