Laziness, malice and axes to grind
Given the arrant nonsense that passes for news these days, perhaps the very word needs to be redefined.
S.R. RAMANUJAN laments the collapse of standards. Pix: Times Now~s coverage of Haryana government~s offer of cabinet status to yoga guru Ramdev.
The old school of journalism and its ethical standards, when even a headline based on the facts of the story in a newspaper attracted a privilege motion in parliament, is being replaced by a noisy, raucous, highly subjective and agenda-driven journalism. There is absolute disregard, rather contempt, for values and this has become more pronounced with the advent of national television media which has become extremely competitive. What matters is only sensationalism with its collateral TRPs.
We had been told, in the olden days, that one should never use an "off-the-record" quote even if it is uttered by design or due to a slip of the tongue at the time of a formal interview. Even if the reporter is tempted to use such a slip, the consent of the interviewee has to be sought.
The idea of secretly recording a conversation amongst friends or acquaintances and telecasting it or printing it, was out of the question. This is especially so after a public figure has made it clear that the conversation is not on the record and that any recording device has to be turned off.
But a Union Minister’s remark during such an "off-the-record" conversation was recorded and telecast recently, leading to a national uproar, the echo of which was heard in the Lok Sabha, and ending with an apology by the Minister. Given that sting operations are the norm in today’s media, no one questioned what happened with the minister as being unethical.
This episode raises certain fundamental questions. Is it not a violation of one’s "right to privacy" when someone makes certain remarks in a private conversation which are then widely publicised in the media? Does the Constitution say that once a person becomes a minister, he ceases to have any protection for his fundamental rights, including the right to privacy?
This will amount to gagging any informal or private chat of a citizen if it is not within the realm of political correctness. But a question may arise whether ‘’right to privacy’’ is a fundamental right. Yes, it is implied under Art 21 according to the Supreme Court. In a detailed decision, Justice Jeevan Reddy held that the ‘’right to privacy’’ is implicit under Art 21.
If private conversation in the cocktail circuit of Lutyen’s Delhi or off-the-cuff remarks can be recorded and telecast, no politician or bureaucrat can escape the consequences of media trial.
The second question is why was the remark called racist? He was only reflecting the mindset of Indians or all Asians when it comes to the colour of the skin of a woman. It is unfortunate that he named the country when it came to dark-skinned people. Otherwise, he was only mocking the weakness of Indians for fair skin irrespective of gender.
Congressmen do not come from another planet and they also share the same mindset. Every parent would prefer a fair skinned son-in-law or daughter-in-law. This was highlighted in a recent television show.
We had also been told in journalism school that one should maintain a perfect balance in the coverage of Parliament or State Assembly proceedings. Did you look at the frenzy in all the national channels on April 20, when the second part of the Budget session began? Have you ever seen channels repeatedly telecasting that such and such leader would speak at such and such time in Parliament?
That is what we were told from Monday afternoon on, namely, that Rahul Gandhi was to participate in a discussion at 4.00 PM on the agrarian unrest. Channels had fixed the time for the resurrected leader’s participation and they were reminding their viewers every five minutes that "Rahul is to speak shortly".
Many members of the Lok Sabha, cutting across party lines, spoke on the subject and not even their names were mentioned in TV or in print. In contrast all the channels were telecasting Rahul’s speech back-to-back from 4.25 PM to 11 PM. What takes the cake is that the Agriculture Minister who gave a fitting reply, backed by data, rarely found a mention. I could not see even one paragraph for the Minister’s reply. In an earlier era, such selective reporting of the Parliament’s proceedings would have attracted a privilege notice. Now, such distorted coverage is the ‘in’ thing.
The anchors, who are otherwise sharp and cynical, did not even ask why Rahul ended his speech abruptly. They may not ask even today the link between Obama, Gorbachev and net neutrality when Rahul raised the issue during zero hour. According to a tweet, the total duration of the coverage of all the national channels put together was 10 hours for the rescue of Indians from Yemen, but 200 hours for the return of Rahul Gandhi.
Checking and rechecking of facts seems to be again a bit old fashioned. When Baba Ramdev was made the brand ambassador of Haryana for yoga and ayurveda, it was assumed by the channels that it meant cabinet status, a palatial bungalow, a secretariat, car etc. One anchor went to the extent of saying that Ramdev will have a berth in the cabinet.
Such is his ignorance that he could not distinguish between cabinet rank status, which Sania Mirza has in the Telangana government, and a berth in the cabinet. The channels also said the BJP was repaying its debt to the Baba for his support during the general election last year – all within hours of the announcement.
Ultimately Ramdev said that he did not want any status or perks. Fortunately, none of the channels has claimed so far that this was thanks to the impact of their campaign. This was surprising because the noisiest channel in India has claimed that the Prime Minister listened to the channel’s show and ordered a course correction on the issue of pictorial warning on cigarette packs!
Should every silly statement of an insignificant leader be made a page one story unless it is motivated? That’s what The Hindu did on Wednesday when it front-paged a story which is not even worth reporting. Some inconsequential person in Meerut said that an attack on churches is not illegal and this was carried as a box item on page one. It served its purpose.
The stupid statement of a nonentity was taken up by the Opposition to paint the government black and to demonstrate that minorities are not safe under the present dispensation. In the same Uttar Pradesh (Muzzafarnagar district) an idol was desecrated in a temple, leading to protests by locals in the area. But this was treated as just local news for the same paper, not worth reporting.
A communal clash in West Bengal around the same time, where the majority community was at the receiving end, was no news for these media outlets. We come to hear of such events through the SM and not from MSM.
This is what this website (www.thehoot.org) wrote on the ‘’sexing up of events’’ by the media:
"Media, both print and television, do like sexing up events. For instance, Headlines Today’s Gaurav Sawant said Rahul Gandhi "will aggressively" lead on the land issue even before he had spoken at the rally. The same channel later, with Rajdeep Sardesai anchoring the midday show, debunked Rahul’s speech. Today Badshah Sen’s opinion was that Gandhi’s speech in the Lok Sabha would be ‘’memorable’’ even as the breaking news was that the scion would speak…. All planned morchas are routinely described as ‘’mammoth’’ even before they are held. Adjectives apparently come cheap".
When Brahmins were attacked and their sacred thread was cut for no fault of theirs in Chennai it was no news for The Hindu. What triggered such an attack would be of interest. With the weakening of the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, many Hindu outfits have sprung up and they were protesting against the Dravida Kazhagam (DK), an atheistic movement founded by EV Ramaswamy Naickar, for organising a function to remove the mangalsutra of married women and for beef eating.
They simply followed the example of the DK in beating portraits of gods with chappals by targeting DK leaders. In retaliation, DK volunteers wanted to take on the Hindus. Who is visually identifiable with Hinduism? Temple priests. So innocent Brahmins who had nothing to do with either of the protests were attacked. This does not evoke any response from the Chennai media.
The attack on a church in Agra was highlighted in all the media. Fingers were pointed at the usual suspects. When it came to light that it was the handiwork of three Muslims, as reported by the Times of India, most of the newspapers and channels failed to provide a follow up.
Another golden rule of earlier times was that a journalist or editor should never become the subject of news himself/herself. The editor’s name will be just in the print line on the bottom of the last page or when he or she writes an edit page article.
Compare it with the present trend. Just because General V K Singh tweeted with sarcasm, targeting a particular ‘’editor-in-chief’’, the former was pilloried completely with the media ignoring his achievement in Yemen which attracted worldwide acclaim. Probably, this is new age journalism or personalised journalism where, if someone doesn’t toe his line, he or she is abused with harsh words like "fraud", "liar" etc.
Take the case of the Pakistan terror boat story. A defence expert-cum-analyst claimed in a newspaper article that the coast guard bungled when it mistook an innocuous fishing boat for a terror boat and blew it off.
Naturally, the Defence Minister was under the media scanner. When a DIG of the Coast Guard indulged in a callous brag that he had ordered the boat to be blown off, the media immediately latched on to it to justify its earlier stand. No attempt was made to cross check the credentials of the DIG who was nowhere in the field of action on 31st December last year.
The media ended up with egg on its face, all because the basics of journalism in cross checking sources was not followed.
We have to redefine what is news. Anything that is not ideologically and politically convenient to a media house is not news. What can pep up its agenda is news. It’s as simple as that. Objectivity and public interest? Damn them.
Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.
Subscribe To The Newsletter