Of The Missing Broom

Media credibility always seems to take a beating, particularly when the chips are down and the newspapers and television channels are expected to cover news with levels of maturity and responsibility. A recent example was the coverage of the beheading of the Indian soldier by Pakistan troops with television channels in particular astounding even many in the government with their hype and their hysteria. Anchors who should have reported facts calmly turned into screeching personalities, as they used harsh adjectives to describe the state of Pakistan, and virtually dared the Indian government to wage war. Guests who did not agree with this point of view were initially badgered out of shape, and eventually not invited as sanity was clearly not the order of the day. Officials in government as well as ministers in government shook their head in wonder, wondering whether the menu of the day for news channels was war, and more dangerously so, war without thought.

The media is facing a crisis of credibility and needs to repair the damage it has done to itself before it can hope to regain its space and reputation as a responsible watchdog for society and the nation. TRP and advertisements drive what has been actually described by a major newspaper and television channel owning industrialist, as a business with respect for news and facts becoming secondary in the process. It is ironical that in an environment free of formal censorship, the media is drawing its own lines, virtually blacking out news concerning the poor and the marginalised, zeroing in on one news to the detriment of all other issues, becoming the jury and the judge all in one go, with the result that news takes a beating in more ways than one. Paid news is another major issue where facts merge into advertisements with the ordinary viewer having no way of detecting the difference.

It is important to free the media from control that eats into its credibility, and makes it partisan. This is easier said than done as the broom has to be wielded from within, and not from the outside. To do this effectively, all newspapers and television channels have to come on board to agree to a common code of ethics but given the mushrooming of the media, the patterns of ownership, the contract nature of the journalists’ job, this seems to be an impossible task. News thus has become entertainment for some sections of the media, fiction for others who play with fires of half truths almost every day, with the proverbial broom remaining evasive and elusive

Politician or scribe?

It is not often that an Urdu newspaper is in the so called national news but editor and owner of Nai Duniya Shahid Siddiqui managed just that with his interview of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. The long interview had Modi declaring the now television made famous, “hang me if I am guilty”, in response to a question on the Gujarat violence that left over 2200 persons dead and many more wounded and homeless across the state. Subsequently, Siddiqui has been expelled from the Samajwadi Party and is back on the television maintaining that the party that he only recently joined had “shot the messenger” and had still to get its act together in Uttar Pradesh.

 Journalistically there was nothing wrong for Siddiqui to interview Modi and splash it across his newspaper. And secularists who might find fault with the line of questioning will have to admit that it was largely a journalistic exercise with several questions also posed to the BJP leader and now aspirant for prime ministership. However, the problem here has arisen from the fact that Siddiqui has insisted on wearing two hats, flitting from party to party, even as he continues to run his little newspaper. Since the Samajwadi Party won the elections, he has been appearing regularly on television channels as its spokesperson, with scribes adding two and two together to make five and insisting that the interview had the Samajwadi Party’s backing. As speculation ran wild, many journalists insisted on writing and asserting on television that this could be the beginning of a new SP-Modi camaraderie.

 A panicky Samajwadi had no choice but to expel Siddiqui who has not been particularly close to the leadership anyhow, and scotch rumours that there was any underhand dealing with Modi. Siddiqui, who has gone through all the political parties in Uttar Pradesh, now says he will stick to journalism. And perhaps the next time he decides to join a political party, he should resign as the editor of Nai Duniya, leaving it to professionals to handle. This experience should convince him of the liabilities of working as a journalist and a politician together, as an interview taken as a scribe can acquire staggering political dimensions for no reason at all.

Several journalists have joined politics in the course of their careers, but in most cases they have resigned from their newspaper to represent the people in Parliament. This has to be woven into the unwritten but understood code of ethics guiding the media to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

In Full Glory

The other day I reluctantly agreed to participate in one of those excited bordering on the hysterical television debates. Reluctantly because these are usually a waste of time, with participants struggling to get a word in edgeways, and more often than not serious debate turning into a slanging match.

 I was not disappointed. With the television anchor I mean. He kept interrupting in mid-sentence or just as one started speaking to shift to someone who had joined them on air. And what was probably more distracting was that after asking you a question he would turn away to make gestures , presumably to his team at the back; or look at his messages on the mobile telephone and respond, laughing to himself while you tried to ignore the happenings in the seat next to you, and talk to the air as it were. Then without having listened to a word you had to say, he would get back into the discussion as he knew the questions he wanted to ask, he was just simply not interested in your answers.

 The element of drama that has crept into news presentation on television is amazing. The professionalism of being detached, and yet concerned, from the news is over as anchors now shout themselves hoarse, attack guests for being not nationalist enough, wipe tears, and let their emotions become so loud that they totally eclipse the guests and even the issue being discussed. The inbuilt bias thus, pours out, as anchors make known their dislike of a guest they do not agree with, and their delight over having a guest who speaks their mind. There is no room for objectivity here, as news has long since turned into views and except for the headlines that are sometimes read out without too much of passion, everything else is coloured with huge dollops of bias. 

 It is time that television heads in particular sat down to analyse the news content of their channels with the intention of introducing some levels of professionalism into the presentation of news. The media is supposed to provide the information to the reader, or as in this case the viewer, without prejudice and allow him or her to make up their mind on the basis of this knowledge. The television channel can recourse to a visual editorial at some point in the day where its view on an issue can be communicated to the viewers, but short of that a BBC kind of format would be very welcome. After all even here there are avenues, as the BBC uses its professionalism to peddle incorrect news on occasion without ever opening itself to the charge of editorialising news. So there many ways, most of them far more sophisticated than the chest beating that passes for news discussions these days.

Perhaps, dissent muzzled

Despite large scale protests by the journalist community the Delhi police has not yet filed a chargesheet against Urdu journalist and commentator on Iran and Arab affairs, Syed Mohammad Ahmad Kazmi. He was arrested on March 6 in connections with the February attack on an Israeli diplomatic vehicle. Kazmi had publicly taken a position questioning the immediate attribution of the attack to agencies linked to the Iran government. He was arrested soon after and has been in jail now for over two months.

 Several journalists have come together to demand his immediate release as the police has not placed any evidence before the court that can justify his detention. The police has not submitted any proof of his involvement in the attack on the Israeli diplomatic vehicle. Kazmi is a journalist of repute, having worked with Doordarshan earlier. He is well known in journalistic circles and well regarded. Several individual journalists and media organisations have raised serious doubts about the arrest, demanding a full investigation into the arrest.

 It is extremely unfortunate that the government has decided to ignore the protests, even though the Delhi police and its special cell has still not been able to frame a chargesheet against Kazmi. Journalists are always easy targets, and it is sad that more and more media personnel are being targeted in such a manner in the sub-continents. In Pakistan the situation is even worse, as several journalists have been killed, with nine deaths being reported in just the last one year. In most cases the killers are not apprehended and the investigation reaches a dead end without any arrests. 

 Journalists who speak their mind, and try and do their job with integrity and courage, are coming under pressure in almost all of South Asia where they are being targeted for reporting the truth. This has to stop, with governments and civil society working together to create an atmosphere where free and fair reporting is protected, and journalists are able to operate without fear of their lives.

Who will watch the watchdogs?

Sometimes, it is embarrassing to be called a journalist. And one such occasion was just recently, when a newspaper devoted its entire front page; unprecedented in itself, to the movement of Army troops to Delhi as a possible “coup.” The story belonged more to the ranks of fiction writers; with innuendoes replacing facts, and conjecture passing for news. Despite the flurry of strongly stated denials from the government and the Indian Army, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief stuck to the story for a day before dropping it like a burning hot potato altogether.

Several questions arise from this, and all have to do with journalism. On what basis was such a story written? Who planted it? Why did the newspaper not check it from the proper authorities within the Army and Defence Ministry? What kind of action is due?

And importantly, who is there to take any such action? The Press Council of India is a toothless & redundant body and there is not a single institute that can serve at least moral sanctions against erring newspapers and television channels; and make them apologise for baseless reports. The media is clear about not wanting any intervention by the government, and rightfully so. But in an atmosphere where a code of ethics does not exist, and basic norms of journalism are being flouted everyday, what can be done to ensure that freedom is respected and yet not violated.

Television news channels and sections of the print media have moved away from the basics of impartial reporting in the news pages, to comments and opinions that are no longer confined to the editorial pages. Reporters are encouraged to give their views about ongoing events, with information becoming secondary to opinion. Single source stories are being encouraged with the editorial guidance and control that is necessary to ensure that the facts have been checked at all levels and from all sides, slipping dramatically as news becomes linked entirely to the business rationale of ratings and advertisements. 

The situation needs to be addressed urgently. Bodies like the Editors Guild, perhaps, can rise to the occasion and play a role in effecting some kind of check on news from within. There is a need for introspection and quick action to keep news straight and narrow, instead of crossing all ethical lines. The watchdog cannot become a rabid dog, as it will then self-destruct.

Wittingly incorrigible

The media did not do itself very proud in the coverage of the Assembly elections. The spotlight of course, was on Uttar Pradesh that seemed to hold the key to the Congress party’s fortunes at the national level as well, and for the initial weeks into the campaign the media seemed mesmerised by Congress scion Rahul Gandhi. At one point it began to seem as if the “carpet bombing” by the Nehru-Gandhi clan has affected the electronic and print media more than the voters, with the former hyping the campaign to a pitch that the voters were clearly not in tune with.

For a while all possible assistance was given to Rahul Gandh to win a good number of seats in the UP election by a pliant media that refused to look beyond the Nehru-Gandhi family. After a while it was clear even to those with blinkers on that the electorate was moving towards the Samajwadi Party, and by the end of the campaign the media had clambered onto Akhilesh Yadav’s bandwagon. In the process they made the cardinal mistake of almost writing off the BSP that retains its core vote bank in the state, and SP’s Mulayam Singh Yadav who still calls the shots within the party. In fact the vote in UP was for “Netaji” with his son being a contributory albeit important factor in the mood swing towards the party.

Painstaking journalism has been replaced by quick TRP driven journalism where the desire is to create media personalities that sell, and convert the serious business of elections as one line slogans. There is little to no desire to understand the nature of the constituency, the nature of the vote, and what issues are determining the swing, if any. The media follows the blitz, and often creates it to get the viewers and the advertisements, and when it gets it all wrong, starts apportioning the blame. The pollsters are wrong, is the outcry usually. Yes they are, but did they ask the 24 hour news channels to air their predictions as if these were the final results? Instead of qualifying the exit polls with a perhaps and a maybe, and a heavy dose of skepticism, journalists who are themselves no longer well informed portray exit polls as the actual results. This is bad journalism, and inexcusable at the end of the day.

The print media, always quicker to learn from mistakes than television, was not as quick to be off the mark this time. There were levels of caution evident in the analysis of the exit polls, and this time around several journalists had been encouraged to go out into the field to report from constituencies and campaign trails. This did make a difference as at least a few newspapers were able to sense the mood in UP long before the results, with scribes even reporting a debacle for the Congress from the Nehru-Gandhi bastions of Rae Bareilly and Amethi.

Hopefully this trend will continue as India moves into the general elections, with sound reportage replacing hype and journalists getting back some of their credibility in the process.

From the news theatres

The year began with another media extravaganza. In Jaipur, during the over crowded and over hyped Rajasthan Literary festival. Closing into Oprah Winfrey, the 24 hour television channels and their print counterparts, were sufficiently distracted from the Talk show queen by a bunch of mullahs demanding the head of author Salman Rushdie. The organisers who had announced his participation on their website, following a personal request from Rushdie, who did not want to be left out of the publicity, suddenly found that they had attracted the attention of a group of unemployed clerics. And before they could react, the media had got wind of it, and suddenly the Rushdie saga erupted on television screens as anchors took moralistic positions, and calibrated debates and discussions soon blew the entire affair out of proportion.

The result was that more and more clerics attached themselves to the free publicity they were getting, and soon it almost began to seem that mobs were collecting outside the festival venue to behead the author of Satanic Verses. By the time some level of sobriety sank in, and the media called off its cameras realising that the molehill was becoming a mountain of epic proportions, it was too late. The Congress, with an eye on the Assembly elections refused to come out in Rushdie’s support, the organisers backed off as they did not want the festival to be disrupted. The few who had dared to read from the banned book retreated under threat of law, and the mullahs realising that they had achieved far more than they could have hoped for, went back flexing newly developed muscles.

In the process, the media gave a beating to everything sane and sober. The literary festival was reduced to just Salman Rushdie and little else in the extended and often hysterical media coverage; the minorities  were done a great disservice as the same mullahs were paraded before the cameras with little to no effort to bring out the secular and liberal voices on camera; and in the black and white story that hogged the headlines for days, the nuances of good, sober reporting in a proper perspective were completely lost.

It is time that the electronic media stopped to introspect. And instead of chasing TRP ratings by sensationalising news, tried to bring back sober and honest and courageous reportage into journalism. Instead of turning news into drama, it would help if a sense of responsibility and accountability is exercised so that news gets the respect it deserves. The other day a woman addicted to soap operas named a prominent news channel as the only other competitor for her time, saying “they make news so exciting, it is like a drama.” She was serious in her compliment, but perhaps those managing news in television and also sections of the print media can draw a lesson from the naïve, yet telling observation.

Until next time, all the very best.