Is the media a communicator, a reporter or a campaigner? Is it necessary for anchors to shout to communicate? Should opinion cross into news, or remain confined to the editorial and opinion pages? These and many more questions are raised from time to time, particularly these days when the lines are so blurred that the role of the media comes automatically under scrutiny.
The coverage of the Anna Hazare movement against corruption was one such issue where television channels turned into campaigners, and news bulletins were consumed by the ageing Gandhian’s fast. There was little – in fact nothing – of what was happening in the rest of India and the world as the channels and their anchors focused on Anna Hazare through the day and the night. TRP ratings – that are perhaps the sole motivating force behind television – of those channels that were unabashedly campaigning for Anna Hazare rose dramatically, justifying the coverage and the campaign for the owners of the 24-hour news channels.
The question, which has induced chatter in many a drawing room since, is whether Anna Hazare has been a creation of the media, or whether the media simply reported the movement as it was. To turn this on its head for a better understanding, perhaps the question one should ask is: if Hazare’s fast had been taken up as just one of the main stories of the day, along with the other news (Libya, Kashmir) that was breaking at the time, would he have become as big an icon? In my view, yes, he would have as good sober reporting of the movement would have interested viewers, and drawn the crowds regardless.
In fact, the hysterical anchoring was a put-off and gave sufficient fodder to those seeking to belittle the popular response to Anna Hazare. Sober reporting – of the fast, of the government’s panicky manoeuvres, of the people’s response, all put together – would have generated the same level of support for the movement against corruption. It would have also saved the media from the serious accusation of becoming TRP motivated campaigners, with the strength of free and fair reportage adding to the strength of the media per se. News bulletins were instead dispensed with, and the screaming debates on television did not really add to Anna Hazare’s stature; rather, in some ways, took away from it.
It is important for the television channels to realise that nothing attracts more than unbiased reportage of news. Discussions can be organised around the top stories, with the participants allowed their share of time and space. Reporters/anchors are there to present the story, not to try and become the story themselves. When this defining line is blurred, news becomes manipulation and facts are distorted leading the media to tread on extremely dangerous ground. Media Watch organised a discussion recently, seeking to answer some of the questions raised here. Excerpts from the discussion are carried in this issue..
