The interaction between the Speaker of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and representatives of the media fraternity ahead of the Autumn Session carries an important message for democratic communication. Legislative proceedings are not ordinary public events. They are the formal space where elected representatives raise public concerns, question the government, debate policies and participate in law-making. When the media reports these proceedings, it does not merely inform people about what happened inside the House; it helps citizens understand how their democracy is functioning.
Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather’s call for accurate, objective and responsible coverage is therefore timely. In a democratic system, the media has every right to report proceedings freely, critically and independently. At the same time, the responsibility to present facts with balance and context is equally important. Assembly reporting should neither become selective sensationalism nor official publicity. It must remain rooted in public interest, fairness and truth. The media acts as a bridge between the legislature, the government and the people. Most citizens cannot directly watch or follow every debate, question, motion or intervention in the Assembly. They depend on newspapers, television channels, digital platforms and reporters to understand what their representatives are saying and doing. This places a special responsibility on journalists covering the House. Their work shapes public perception of legislative performance, governance priorities and institutional seriousness. The Speaker’s emphasis on giving prominence to substantive debates and constructive deliberations deserves attention. Disruptions, sharp exchanges and moments of disorder may be newsworthy, but they should not completely overshadow serious discussions on public welfare, development, employment, education, health, infrastructure and accountability. If media coverage focuses only on noise, walkouts or confrontation, citizens may receive an incomplete picture of the Assembly. A legislature must be judged by the quality of its debates as much as by its moments of conflict. This does not mean that disorder or disruption should be ignored. The media must report what happens. But responsible journalism demands proportion. A brief disruption should not consume more space than a meaningful debate on issues affecting thousands of people. Members who raise serious public concerns, study their subjects and participate with discipline deserve attention. When quality debate receives public visibility, it encourages better legislative behaviour. When only disruption becomes headline material, it can unintentionally reward disorder. The forthcoming Autumn Session, scheduled to begin on September 21, will be closely watched. The Speaker has placed before the media comparative figures regarding sittings held in other States and Union Territories, while noting that Jammu and Kashmir is scheduled to hold seven sittings during the session and had earlier held 22 sittings in the Budget Session. Such information is relevant because public discussion on legislative duration must be based on facts, not impressions alone. Yet the deeper question remains not only how many days the House sits, but how meaningfully those sittings are used. Equally important are the concerns raised by journalists regarding media passes, entry, seating, sound quality, Wi-Fi connectivity, parking and working facilities. These may appear logistical, but they directly affect the quality of reporting. A journalist who cannot hear proceedings properly, access the venue smoothly or file reports on time cannot serve the public effectively. The assurance regarding hassle-free entry of accredited media vehicles and designated parking is a positive step. Such facilitation should be implemented smoothly and without unnecessary confusion. A professional relationship between the Assembly and the media is essential. The institution must respect the independence of the press, and the press must respect the sanctity of legislative proceedings. Both have different roles, but both serve the same public. The Assembly must ensure access, transparency and facilities. The media must ensure accuracy, context and maturity.
Finally, the legislative journalism must rise above the temptation of instant sensationalism and return to its democratic purpose. The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve to know not only who shouted, but who spoke with substance; not only who disrupted, but who contributed; not only what created noise, but what offered solutions. Responsible media coverage can strengthen public trust in democratic institutions, while careless reporting can weaken it. The Autumn Session should become an opportunity for both the legislature and the media to show that democracy is best served when debate is serious, reporting is fair and the public interest remains above everything else.