Is the Indian journalist trying to be more relevant by having a point of view, and in the process losing his/her ability to be irreverent, unbiased and the most effective monitor and upholder of democratic values? A case in point is what the cover story in the December issue of the journal, The Caravan alludes. No one knows the complete authenticity of what it says and maybe all of it is not true. Let me use it to make a point, without endorsing what’s written.
The 16-page story written by Rahul Bhatia gives instances to support the ‘saffronisation’ of Network 18, a media company that owns a clutch of prominent news channels and magazines, including CNN IBN, IBN7, CNBC TV18, Awaz, Forbes India, moneycontrol.com and news portal First Post in which the Reliance led by Mukesh Ambani has a substantial stake.The story, while highlighting the group’s new political leanings following Reliance Industries’ Mukesh Ambani’s takeover, gives instances:
- “Last year, CNBC TV18?s Vivian Fernandes, who co-wrote Raghav Bahl’s book, was despatched to interview Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. A person involved with the production of the interview recalled that Fernandes asked a difficult question about water conservation in Gujarat. “Modi’s organisers had asked to see the questions before the interview, and demanded the water conservation question’s removal. When Fernandes sprung it on him anyway, Modi broke away from the camera and glared at a public relations executive in the room.” “‘Why is he talking like this?’ the person recalled Modi saying. ‘Are we not paying for this interview?’” The production crew realised that the interview was part of a promotion for Modi.”
- At the group’s senior management getaway in Macau in early 2013, “the editors’ mood sank further when Raghav Bahl let the large gathering know he favoured Narendra Modi as India’s next prime minister.
- “I (Bhatia) spoke to the editor again in the middle of November. ‘It’s serious. They have started putting indirect pressure on editors to not criticise Narendra Modi,’ the editor said. ‘I think Think India was created to promote him.’”
One would think that such unsettling revelations supersede the tilting stances of the media once BJP won 3:1 in the recently held Assembly elections in Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Nonetheless it is stark enough that the media, particularly the news channels, thought that the elections held in the fifth state, Mizoram that Congress won, should all but be ignored. In fact, most of the print media too relegated the all-important news from the Northeast to inside pages.
We pride ourselves in being close to the theory of Walter Lippman’s “organic” relationship, where a healthy democracy and the free press co-exists. We eulogise the so-called freedom. The on-ground facts are far from reality. Even the democratic institutions, which are supposed to nourish these instruments, are yet to understand the freedom of press in full. As for the media, it seems to have only gone bad to worse as political parties seem to have tighter reins on the publications.
Sometimes, this is illustrated in a rather grave manner, and opens wide the gaps within. The Mail Today, the compact of the India Today group, on December 13, immediately after the Assembly elections in the four states were announced with surprising results for the Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party, carried an op-ed published under the name of eminent lawyer Shanti Bhushan, titled ‘Kejriwal is on course to ruin 2014 for the BJP’.
Shanti Bhushan, a former law minister and a founding member of AAP denied having penned the article. He also filed an “FIR relating to forgery, cheating by impersonation and defamation”.T hereafter, admitting “failure of editorial diligence” Mail Today offered an apology while assuring that “measures have been taken to ensure that such a mistake is never repeated”. The editor Sandeep Bamzai tweeted: “We have been had, our deepest apologies to Mr Shanti Bhushan whose purported article has been carried on our edit page this morning.”
Although the article may not have been because of any malafide intention on the part of Mail Today, it is quite intriguing that an article is published in the editorial pages of a mainline newspaper without cross-checking the authenticity of the writer. What’s further unsettling is that the newspaper belongs to a group that is held in beacon-like esteem. Bhushan has said that the newspaper “never contacted me to write an editorial”.“When unsolicited articles are received by the editorial department, the person is asked for a contact number. The person is then spoken to on the telephone. This is standard practice, nothing out of the normal and isn’t even done to verify the author, but simply to contact the person before publishing their article. Keeping in mind the explosive nature of this article, it is odd that Mail Today did not try and contact Shanti Bhushan before publishing this article,” says newlaundary.com.
Too many unanswered questions, SoPs not followed, and too well-timed that put media in the witness box here. Whether the wave is for the ruling party or not, whether it will have to give way to a new choice are altogether different debates. The concern I’d like to draw attention to is media practising exhibiting its own preference every election. Back in 2009, Partha Banerjee has written in countercurrents.org against the media bias for the Congress. As the countdown for the 2014 General Election begins, it’s apparent there is a pro-Modi wave within the media. It seems politics and media make easy bed partners. Look as some statements from parties and their leaders:
- Post 2009 elections, Outlook carried a story in which Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda admitted to offering a newsorganisation money to publish content that was more favourable to him. Hooda even said the organisation “returned the money taken from my rival to publish news items against me”.
- In 2010, senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj claimed she was offered fuavorable media coverage during the national elections the previous year in in exchange for Rs 10 lakh.
- In the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, Congress leader Sandeep was “shocked” when a news channel approached him with a package to cover Rahul Gandhi’s visit to the East Delhi constituency.
In this kind of a scenario, it is understood why channels and newspapers have to align themselves to media houses. Plus corporatisation has done its bit on the profession. Now, the issue is whether the reader will get the real news rather that relevant news? Is there a way?
Feedback: abatra@exchange4media.com
