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Painstaking journalism has been replaced by quick TRP driven journalism where the desire is to create media personalities that sell, and convert the serious business of elections as one line slogans.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.

No need for a censor

The publicity given to the reported use of social networking sites like Facebook in consolidating public opinion against the government in Egypt seems to have made even the government of Democratic India nervous. So much so that Union Minister Kapil Sibal was authorised to hold a meeting with the top executives of these sites asking them to edit (a more realistic word is censor) offensive references to the Congress leadership on these sites. Fortunately, the executives did not entertain his request and the government has not succeeded in its vain, and admittedly stupid attempt, to control internet content.

It is true that there is a side to the web that is vulgar and ugly. Obscenity, pornography, communalism, racism, sheer nastiness can all be found in cyber space. At the same time, however, the internet is being overtaken by humour, great music, clever videos, irreverent and often valid criticism of political leaders as well as free and frank debate. 

There are any number of sites carrying news analysis, comments and reports on all possible issues that bring invaluable depth to discourse. In fact it has become the alternative to the mainstream, the last being controlled by the Indian government and the first finally finding an outlet for free and democratic expression.

People in troubled areas like Jammu and Kashmir, and the north east, are increasingly using the internet to pour out their problems, as are democratic forces in the rest of India. This clearly has become a source of worry for the government not just here but in other countries like China, that want to muzzle free opinion and do not look at criticism as a wake up call. Laws are formulated and exercised to curb democratic voices with a free print and television media being at best an illusion. News is blocked out on a daily basis but now those at the receiving end of state arrogance have moved to the internet sites with the result that while information might occasionally be delayed, it is certainly no longer denied.

According to reports India has a 100 million internet users, third only to China and the United States. Facebook, Twitter and Google are all amazing expressions of freedom with individuals having the facility of blocking out the offensive. 

One can only hope that good sense has dawned and the government has realised that interference of this kind is neither judicious nor welcome. One hopes that instead of imposing restraints, the government imbibes the democratic spirit of India to encourage a free and fair information flow.

Katju has a point

The war of words between the new Press Council of India chairman Justice Markandey Katju and various media organisations is unfortunate. Justice Katju’s criticism of the media would have been wholesome had he refrained from voicing his desire to acquire controlling authority of a kind that is not acceptable to journalists and their organisations. However, at the same time the media bodies would have done well to take some of the criticism on board for a deep introspection of the misuse of power, and the failure to inform as an impartial watchdog of the Indian democracy. Instead the media decided to lock horn with the former Judge, and willfully throw out the baby with the bath water.

Many of us must be wondering why in the elite drawing rooms of Delhi we are not hearing an equally loud condemnation of Justice Katju and his rather brash views. It is simply because the general public is secretly rather happy about the criticism, as they are fed up of a media that distorts the truth, resorts to sensationalism, and has little respect for sobriety and facts. And some of this evident in the personalised attack on the Judge whose demand for a regulatory authority to curb in some of the channels posing as news television, needs serious consideration.

At the same time the Judge must realise that as the PCI chairman he is dealing with the media that has been ultra sensitive about its freedom since the dark days of the Emergency. Hence, the words and phrases of a courtroom will have to be tempered, and issues put on the table for discussion without unbridled rhetoric raising hackles. He is right in arguing that the Press Council, currently a redundant body, should have some more teeth but how sharp these should be, can only be determined in consultation with journalists. Currently the PCI can only admonish and censure, the powers being far out of tune with the increasing violations of basic ethical norms.

However, apart from the question of authority the entire structure of the Press Council needs to be examined and perhaps, overhauled. It has become a defunct body and needs a larger representation of journalists and editors. More powers cannot be possible if these rest only in the one government appointee, the chairman, but can be looked at if the PCI is brought under a board of eminent persons with a say in related matters.
It is, thus, important for both sides to withdraw from the brink and instead of grand standing use the opportunity to see what can be done to make the media more accountable and ethical without government control..

Let’s clean it up

The professional media was always very shy of the word “I”. Across the world editors cautioned reporters against this, pointing out that their job was to communicate the news, inform the people, and not ever, ever try to become more important than the story itself. So, if reporters were beaten up by the police, or if they were hurt in a mob or in the line of duty, the newspaper would protest, would ensure action quietly, but would not make a hero of the individual as s/he was merely doing what s/he was in place to do. In fact, one entered the profession towards the end of a major internal debate between editors who felt that reporters should not be given bylines as this would take away from the story, and others who insisted that the facelessness was a deterrent and a byline ensured a certain responsibility. Eventually the debate settled in favour of the latter view, as reporters floated automatically towards newspapers who did away with complete anonymity.

The advent made all this appear obsolete as the first few channels launched in Delhi decided to turn reporters into stars. The advertisements, the coverage of news, the discussions were all made to revolve around the individual whose views, tears, anger, excitement made the news as much as the story itself. So viewers, with the enthusiasm of the new voyeurs, spoke more of a particular television reporter/anchor’s histrionics than about the story the person had set out to cover. This trend was strengthened over the years, with reporters on television becoming unabashed campaigners. Like the Bollywood movies, many of the television news channels turn news into drama, making it impossible for the viewers to sift between the facts and the disinformation.

BBC is one of the few television channels that tries to maintain the difference, with the result that much of its coverage is seen as professional and authentic. Fox News that seems to have become the model for most of the Indian news channels offends all sensibilities and carries out campaigns that often transcend the lines between fact and fiction, as happened during the “embedded” coverage of the US invasion of Iraq. This trend is dangerous as it takes away from the credibility of the media, with its efficacy as a watch dog sadly dented.

It is therefore, imperative to restore the credibility of the media by addressing the long list of issues that seem to have stalled its growth as the fourth pillar of democracy in this country. 

This can only be done by the media itself, with bodies like the Editors Guild perhaps, taking the lead to initiate a debate, and action to restore news to a self generated and protected pedestal. There is a great deal to clean within, and perhaps a start can be made to make the story more important than the reporter/anchor once again.

Hysteria on display

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.. 

Lessons to learn...

It was a joy to see the so called media moghul Rupert Murdoch, his son James and their chief executive Rebekah Brooks grovel before the House of Commons media committee. Rubert Murdoch described it as the most “humble” day of his life, while all three tried to soft talk the British lawmakers into believing their innocence.

The answers were for the most part vague, and for those of us in the profession it is impossible to believe that payments were made to private investigators, and sensational stories published with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks being in the loop. The old man might not be aware of the finer details. But that dirty journalism was undertaken by his media group of course is beyond doubt. Rebekah Brooks at the hearing maintained that everyone else on Fleet Street was doing the same, but that does not take away from the fact that News of the World had crossed all ethical boundaries. Particularly when it hacked into and deleted voice mails of the kidnapped British school girl, subsequently killed, without informing the authorities. Her relatives thought she was alive, and the police was completely thrown off the track. Dirty, sordid journalism at its worst.

Of course the Murdochs and Brooks did the usual round of apologies at the hearing. And kept insisting that they did not know, in responses to fairly penetrating questions from the MPs. Murdoch has set up a media ‘empire’ and as the international television channels reported, Prime Ministers went up to meet him rather than the other way around.

India should learn from the Murdoch experience, as corporate monopolies over news are being encouraged and supported by the political class here. The moment any one particular business family starts dominating media vehicles of varying forms and kinds, the result could well be that news becomes censored at the onset. The fact that the corporate houses are dependent on sympathetic governments also lends a slant to the news that projects what suits both, and blacks out the inconvenient. This censorship is sinister and dangerous, as it takes away from the democratic space that should remain freely available to the people of this country, particularly the poor and the marginalised.

This is not to paint the entire media with the same brush- there are so many notable exceptions. But to point out that unless there is serious introspection and remedial action by the media and the public – note, not the government – the ailment will become a terminal disease with the Indian democracy being robbed of an invaluable pillar and watchdog.