Times Now's hashtag aggression
At a time when the Indian media is under constant criticism for its alleged biased coverage and the phenomenon of “paid news” has acquired serious dimensions, TV news channels seem to have adopted yet another tool – the hashtag – to trivialise issues this election season.
With social media providing boundless and unregulated scope to make or break things, some of these channels are going overboard to promote misleading hashtags on platforms like Twitter, in an evident bid to exaggerate a subject they are reporting or debating on.
This unethical practice was seen taking centre stage during the past few days even as the electronic media remained abuzz with news relating to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
When Arvind Kejriwal accused some TV news channels of “having been sold to BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi to drive his party’s agenda during the Lok Sabha elections,” the electronic media fraternity came together like never before, to launch an onslaught against the AAP leader.
It is, however, ironical to know how a leading English TV news channel resorted to ha(r)shtags to attack Kejriwal and his party for “dictating terms to the media.”
As if allotting its prime time to grill Kejriwal for his “audacity” was not enough, Times Now kick-started a clearly unfair hashtag: #IntolerantAAP. The channel even went on to flash a news ticker boasting of the fact that #IntolerantAAP was a top trending hashtag on Twitter.
Although the channel did not openly ask its viewers to use the hashtags on social media platforms, mere flashing of such one-sided hashtags on the TV screen should be seen as these having endorsements of the news outlet.
The channel also vehemently used its official Twitter page @timesnow, which should primarily focus on providing real-time info on major newsbreaks, to pass on its aggressive views to over six lakh followers.
Here’s one such tweet: “He threatened to lock up, then denied & now continues his rant against the media – Kejriwal takes intolerance to a new level #IntolerantAAP (sic).”
Moreover, tidbits of information on the issue were tweeted by the channel using the hashtag #IntolerantAAP.
Even as the AAP-media face-off got murkier after Kejriwal fired fresh salvo at the media at a Nagpur rally on March 23, Times Now stepped up its “campaign” against the party.
This time, the channel urged its followers on Twitter to use #IntolerantAAP to tweet.
“Can AAP show such open disregard for media freedom? Tweet using #IntolerantAAP,” said a Times Now tweet.
You don’t say.
While the channel questioned Kejriwal and his party’s “authority” to blame the media, one would wonder how could it assume the authority to term the AAP “intolerant” for making not-entirely-baseless allegations. Rather, the channel displayed a greater degree of intolerance in doing so.
Thus, a few on Twitter aptly pointed out to this fundamentally flawed approach to journalism, despite the fact that the channel was successful in creating a hype against the AAP in the virtual world by registering numerous Twitter impressions with the hashtag #IntolerantAAP.
“I dare say that @timesnow is being 'shocking'ly intolerant over fair criticism. Its immoral to start IntolerantAAP (sic),” said one Chetan Joshi@jossolid.
#BackToMobocracy and #AAPChaos were a few other anti-AAP hashtags that have originated from the same newsroom.
Times Now coined #BackToMobocracy after AAP workers protested in front of the headquarters of the BJP in New Delhi, while Kerjiwal’s recent visit to Mumbai was summed up by the channel as #AAPChaos.
Sample these tweets made by @timesnow: “Kejriwal detained in Gujarat, backlash in Delhi; AAP #BackToMobocracy as workers doorstep BJP, triggering clashes.”
“#AAPChaos leaves aam aadmi fuming, Maharashtra Govt mulls strict action against the party for damaging public property.”
While the veracity of the information put in these tweets is subject to cross-check, the hashtags are quite conclusive in nature and are an imposition on the viewers.
And if wider dissemination of information (misinformation in these cases) is the key to influence public opinion, the TV news channel is guilty of polarising public opinion by forcing its own views, reflected in unsubstantiated hashtags, on millions of its viewers.
Further, such slanted hashtags offered a prized opportunity to unscrupulous elements, which are guarding the cyber space on behalf of various political parties, to frame and defame their opposition. Isn’t it a politically partisan approach that Kejriwal was precisely talking against? More so, when social media is expected to have a significant impact on the voter in the general elections slated next month.
The above arguments against manufactured hashtags are applicable to everybody and everything, not just to Kejriwal and the AAP. However, Times Now has been suspiciously lenient towards other political parties vis-à-vis its use of negative hashtags.
For instance, when Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi compared Modi with Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler at a Gujarat rally recently and accused his government of “stealing” farmer’s land at the behest of corporates, the channel ran the comparatively soft hashtag #AggresiveRahul to live tweet his speech.
Similarly, the channel used #ForgottenScams and #TaintNoBar to report about various parties fielding alleged scam-tainted candidates in the forthcoming LS polls.
These hashtags were critical of neither the Congress nor the BJP.
On the other hand, a few other English language TV news channels are also embracing the trend of promoting offensive hashtags.
If the commotion at Mumbai’s Churchgate station during Kejriwal’s train ride was #AAPtheatrics for Headlines Today, the channel described the ongoing spat between the BJP and the AAP as #ModiKejriWar, further fuelling a war of words between the followers of the two parties.
Free, fair and balanced reporting is the cornerstone of an independent media. But when such an objectionable practice is encouraged by the media, it defeats the very principles of journalism.
In the case of a media outlet, the purpose of a hashtag should be to help people know a story unfolding rather than to assert a point of view.