Honest reportage as footnote

IN Media Practice | 09/10/2012

‘Good PR, they say, craftily conceals its hand’, wrote Anjali Puri in a recent piece on this website. Her article went on to explore the different ways in which new-age PR works, and how the lines between advertising and editorial are blurring. In what follows, I will try and show one instance from the past week that demonstrates how this happens, how at times the ‘hand’ becomes apparent to a discerning reader, and some issues they point to.

A case of PR?

The lead story on page 3 in the October 5 Mumbai edition of the DNA piqued my interest. A 7-column headline announced ‘HC allows Wardha water for power plant'. The story beneath it, spread over 4 columns went on to narrate how the Bombay High Court (HC) judgment ‘refused to stop the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) from diverting 87.6 million cubic metres (MCM) of water’ to a thermal power plant belonging to a subsidiary of Indiabulls Limited, on the basis of an assurance from the state that 328 MCM water will be supplied for irrigation and how this was enough to irrigate 75,000 hectare of agricultural land in Vidarbha. This judgment was seen as ‘a major reprieve’ for the thermal power plant by the paper. The story stated how the judgment was in response to a bunch of petitions, filed among others by The Society for Backlog Removal and Development, which challenged the diversion of water meant for irrigation to a power project. About this Society, the paper notes that it ‘claims to represent the farming community in the Vidarbha region’.

A reporter of course ought to be skeptical about claims made by organisations, so one is not taking issue with the use of the word claim here. But when was the last time we saw the word ‘claim’ being used when a paper speaks about how a power project will bring reprieve and development to a region?

What piqued my interest further, however, was a three column story nestled beside this larger piece, with a reporter’s byline against it (the larger article did not have a reporter’s byline). ‘Ajit cleared Indiabulls Power water demand in 48 hours’, was the sub-headline for this story, and it went on to narrate how former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, who resigned over allegations of involvement in the irrigation scam, cleared the allocation of water to the power plant within 24 hours of receiving the file, and an order to the effect was issued within the next 24 hours. It states how the HC’s decision to not stall the allocation of water to the power plant will be a big blow to the farmers of the region, after they had waited for the project to be completed for nearly five decades.  The story had quotes from the VIDC assistant chief engineer stating how even 500.72 MCM water would be barely enough for irrigation and drinking (as against the state’s ‘claim’ that 328 MCM would be enough).

This kind of diptych, offering two sides of the story might seem fair—it might appear that a newspaper is giving space to both sides of the argument. However, the layout and headlining (the story critical of the diversion of water was sub-headlined under a 7-column headline) clearly spelt out which part of the narrative was more important. But perhaps, this was my skeptical mind going into an overdrive, I thought.  And tried to forget all about it.

PR it is

But in the face of aggressive PR, is it possible at all to forget? Not when the next days’ edition (October 6) of the DNA, on page 7, says ‘Indiabulls to power Vidarbha’s growth’. The PR plug is apparent in the headline itself. The story stated how the Bombay HC judgment ‘is expected to go a long way in bridging the demand-supply gap in the state’s power deficit…and boost economic activity in the area’. Note the absence of the word claim when talking about things on the state/ corporate side. The story is peppered with upbeat  quotes from unnamed officials; all of them state that in fact water is not being diverted, and the power project will bring prosperity to the region.  Said one highlighted quote,“ Large scale projects like the Indiabulls power plant will not only generate employment locally but also boost economic activity across the state.” It was attributed to ‘irrigation department official.’

Were officials not named because they were not spoken to at all? Were the quotes dressed up by the Indiabulls PR? The blurb with the story is instructive too: headlined ‘Proven Wrong’, it stated how the petitioners’ claim about water diversion was false. This story too, like the previous day’s pro-Indiabulls piece, was bylined ‘DNA Correspondent’.

According to insiders, the story critical of the diversion of water to the power project was held back, and was published only the day after the HC delivered its judgment on October 4. If true this points to how public opinion is sought to be influenced at crucial junctures during a case—had the story appeared before the judgment, public opinion against the diversion of water to the power plant might have been bolstered. And that wouldn’t have amounted to good PR for Indiabulls.

The system is bigger than the individual

DNA is in the process shifting its office into the Indiabulls centre in Mumbai’s erstwhile mill district. The same complex houses the office of NDTV, CNN-IBN and Times Now and Zee are all located in buildings constructed on mill land; The Indian Express Group works out of Express Towers even though it has properties on erstwhile mill land, while Hindustan Times is in the process of moving into the Indiabulls building referred to earlier.

Considering that the builders and developers of these plush offices have business interests spread across verticals, which side will the media weigh on in the event of a controversy over some project involving the owner of their office space?

Recently, a prominent business channel was asked to tone down its coverage of construction labourer deaths in the Mumbai Metro project, since one of its stakeholders is the main contractor for the project. Things like this raise questions about the extent to which the media can play a non-partisan role and fulfill its responsibility as a watchdog of democracy; it links back to the series of articles published some time back on this website, where Paranjoy Guha Thakurta pointed out the perils of cross-ownership and the thinning lines between the editorial and the boardroom.

Perhaps, it does not matter if there are reporter(s) or stories, like the one exposing Ajit Pawar's largesse to the power plant referred to earlier, that try to point out the contentiousness of an issue, or take a pro-people stance. The system will work in ways as to make them irrelevant, if not a lesser counterpart to the larger narrative, in which the big media and its owners are complicit with the corporate elite who grease the system to keep it running. The layout of DNA on October 5  discussed above, including the branding of the section as ‘Power for Indiabulls’ is symptomatic of this. And for people who access this news online, not on the Epaper, even this lesser counterpart does not show up. In the discourse of development and progress sponsored by the corporate elite, whose spaces the media works out of, honest journalism can be perhaps, at best, a footnote.