{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033229491173416406, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021806853582554516, 'mean_word_length': 4.572254335260116, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Media self-regulation can work if it is done right

MEDIA ASIA Vol. 40 No. 4, December 2013, pp. 315–317 In his article ‘Does India need its own Leveson Inquiry?’ published in the issue 40-2 of Media Asia, Arghya Sengupta wavers between industry self-regulation and statutory regulation before concluding that “perhaps India should have its own version of a Leveson inquiry”. The premise and conclusion of the Leveson Inquiry are clear: There cannot be a direct regulator of the press, that is, statutory regulation is out. Instead, the industry must step up and play its role in self-regulation. Some of the resistance to self-regulation arises from a misunderstanding of what it is—industry regulating industry. There are four factors that are critical to the success of industry self-regulation: 1. A competitive market 2. A small number of large players as opposed to a large number of small players 3. A motivated industry 4. A statutory regulatory backstop1