Press Council calls for better working conditions for journalists after job losses, deaths during Covid19 pandemic

A monument in Noida in memory of journalists who died covering Covid19. Journalists reporting the pandemic paid a high price for alerting people, countering misinformation by providing correct facts on the ground. A very large number of them either lost their jobs or died of Covid19 after getting infection from patients, hospitals and Covid hotspots.

Alarmed at extensive retrenchments and deaths among journalists during Covid19 pandemic, the Press Council of India (PCI) has urged the government and media houses to work on better working conditions, job security for journalists and help families of those who died covering the calamity.

The PCI, India’s supreme media watchdog, in its latest report has highlighted the critical role of journalists by alerting, updating government and people at large on spread of the deadly disease  while themselves getting infected and falling to the same on the line of duty. Though focused on impact on journalists only, the report also notes the shutting down of media houses and downsizing of staff during the pandemic.

As many as 629 deaths of journalists have been documented, and still counting, which the observers say is just a tip of iceberg as many died without being accounted for, mostly unattended in isolation. The report underscores the need for model contracts and better job security measures to protect journalists and journalism from the future threats.

The pandemic has had a devastating impact across sectors, but few have been as profoundly affected as the media industry in India and worldwide. The PCI undertook a comprehensive study to assess the retrenchment and hardships faced by journalists during this period. The findings reveal a grim scenario with widespread job losses, forced resignations, and deteriorating working conditions.

The pandemic saw a sizeable number of journalists losing their jobs in the name of voluntary resignations. The PCI report also highlights that several media houses from large national dailies to regional publications used the pandemic as a pretext to force resignations.

On the other hand, there were those where top editors and management were the first to take the salary cuts. But retrenchments were rampant, with many coerced into resigning or facing termination. In some cases, it was premeditated strategy to implement long-planned layoffs and salary cuts.

For instance,  says the PCI report, The Indian Express retrenched at least 35 to 40 journalists at the start and during pandemic. The Hindu terminated several journalists, with some being informed of their termination via phone calls or notices pasted on office boards. Many media houses reduced staff salaries by 20-50%, with little to no prior notice. These cuts were often communicated informally in at least 75% of the cases.

The situation was worsened by the lack of formal employment contracts, leaving journalists vulnerable to arbitrary termination. Only a small percentage of retrenched journalists received severance pay, and many were forced to use leftover savings or take loans to survive.

The retrenchments and salary cuts had a severe impact on the mental health of journalists. The PCI subcommittee on Covid19 impact documented numerous cases of depression, despair, social withdrawal, and emotional distress among journalists who were laid off.

The emotional toll was compounded by the hazardous working conditions that journalists faced during the pandemic. Despite being designated as essential workers, many journalists were not provided with adequate safety gear or mental health support.

During deposition before the PCI subcommittee,  responses of media houses were varied. While some like Hindustan Times claimed compliance with legal obligations, others such as The Hindu and Business Standard were less forthcoming with details about the number of journalists affected. Defending their case, media houses citied financial losses and reduced advertising revenue as reasons for retrenchments.

PCI opines that the pandemic only accelerated trends that were already in place. The decline in print media, coupled with the rise of digital platforms, had already been eroding the traditional business models of newspapers and the pandemic only  provided a convenient excuse.

The government’s response to the crisis was woefully inadequate. Although the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued advisories asking employers not to terminate jobs during the pandemic, these were largely ignored by media houses. The PCI criticizes both the state and central governments for their failure to enforce their own directives and protect journalists.

The PCI’s efforts to gather data and hold public hearings were hampered by the ongoing lockdowns and the reluctance of some media houses to cooperate. Despite these challenges, the PCI’s subcommittee managed to collect testimonies from a significant number of affected journalists, highlighting the urgent need for regulatory reforms to safeguard the rights of media workers.

The PCI report makes several key recommendations to address the issues uncovered during its investigation. These include the introduction of model contracts for journalists, better awareness of their rights, and the provision of health insurance and safety gear. The report also calls for fast-tracking pending labour disputes and ensuring that journalists have easy access to compensation and benefits. But what is outstanding about the PCI report is its emphasis on the need for further research into the working conditions of journalists, particularly in the context of the evolving digital media landscape.