Bhrasht media sceptical of Anna’s fight

BY Seema Kamdar| IN Media Practice | 13/04/2011

All media were plugged into the fast from the word go and stayed there till the last sip of lemon water went down the throats of the protestors. Both scepticism and enthusiasm marked the frenzied coverage of Anna Hazare’s fast at Jantar Mantar.

SEEMA KAMDAR comments on the subtle differences in their stance.

Anna Hazare’s fast threw up an unexpected surprise in media coverage. The media usually goes to town whenever there is a semblance of mass frenzy and this one was no exception. There was no way the media would not cover this national event exhaustively. But the difference lay in the interpretation of the same set of facts by the channels.

To be sure, each channel aired Anna’s crusade throughout the day. There were live reports from every city; senior journalists parked themselves at Jantar Mantar for live feeds; anchors stuffed studios with every familiar face - preferably celebrity but not necessarily cerebral - who could mouth an opinion on the subject; opinion polls streamed along the bottom; SMS campaigns were drafted and disgorged in no time. In short, all that goes with the baggage of building on an ongoing, super-hot development was on display on every channel.

Newspapers, forever anxious not to fall behind television, sported banner headlines for days and followed the mood of the people. Forgotten activists were dusted out of the archives and quoted extensively with pictures along with random citizens, perhaps to balance the overdose of Bollywood; and editorials sung odes to the new Gandhi.

All media were plugged into the fast before the word go and stayed there till the last sip of lemon water went down the throats of the protestors. The treatment of the news however differed and the difference was subtle.

While some put up a furious show of solidarity with Anna, some others demonstrated motivated scepticism at a campaign that had the potential to grow into another Tahrir Square-scale of agitation and which could give them reason to worry.

Arnab Goswami of Times Now was wholly with Anna and dismissive of any voice of dissent or cynicism. Every few minutes, he would tell one of the panelists crowding his studio that what he was witnessing was “incredible”. His child-like enthusiasm was not shared by the other two leading English news channels, CNN-IBN and NDTV. At one point Rajdeep Sardesai of the former squatted amidst protestors at Jantar Mantar getting a first-hand feel of the place and for some reason not liking it. Unlike 26/11, when all channels were in their element, the latter two split ranks with Goswami this time round.

Otherwise easily excitable, Sardesai sat grim and unhappy at Jantar Mantar with Arvind Kejriwal, and a bunch of young protestors. He was raising questions of credibility, sustainability and viability. He had little hope for the future of the campaign and did not see where it was going. The movement was “directionless,” he said derisively. Kejriwal and the crowd around him indulged him patiently. He asked Meghnad Desai whether this mass support would be visible after the camera crews left. Desai responded, “Yes. In this instance, the media has followed us, not led us.” Sardesai then posed that the IPL would stem the tide of humanity flowing in to support Anna. The youths around countered this perception gustily. But his face remained unyielding.

While he is entitled to his resolute scepticism, the disconcerting part was that his questioning seemed noticeably designed to brainwash the viewer and perhaps a prospective participant in Anna’s crusade. More worryingly, the questions were rather facile and did not pertain to any sensible aspects of the movement such as the supporters, the bill, or the government.

A similar situation was unfolding on NDTV which was not as direct in expressing its displeasure over the campaign. The anchor steered cautiously by covering every visual aspect of the campaign but showing little enthusiasm about the movement, the way he would about the World Cup or a movie about to be released.

When Sonia Gandhi wrote to Anna on the third day of his fast pleading with him to end it, Anna graciously thanked her and told her he would continue. Soon, CNN-IBN and NDTV flashed, “Anna thanks Sonia Gandhi.” This continued for a few minutes without any explanation at all. Somebody in one newsroom had a different idea of clarity; the flash was changed to “Anna thanks AICC president Sonia Gandhi.” One got the impression the fast was over and Sonia had been instrumental in achieving the breakthrough. Times Now mercifully kept it straight and told us Anna had rejected Sonia’s appeal instead of seizing on his perfunctory courtesy of thanking her for her concern.

However, most of the media including dailies missed the bigger point made by Anna. Anna had made a simple but potent statement in response to a question that if Sonia tells the government, it would act. Curiously, none of the key channels picked up this bit though this clearly was THE breaking news. This was Anna’s gentle way of saying that Sonia can move it if she wants. Not only did the media miss its cue, one prominent national daily had an eight-column headline the next day telling us that Anna’s crusade was backed by Sonia. It needs some stretch of the imagination to think that Sonia would back Anna’s crusade considering that his crusade was against her government’s reluctance to move on the bill.

A similar absence of mind was on display when Kapil Sibal, shrewd and playing to the gallery as always, smartly diluted the climb-down of the government by declaring the government and the people were united in the fight against corruption. This new knowledge was promptly flashed on the channels relentlessly and the government emerged as Anna’s willing partner. There was no doubt in the far-seeing minds of the channel heads that Anna’s fast was not against the government and he was fighting some alien enemy all this while.

Newspapers too gave away little of value. Sonia came out looking as heroic as Anna, given the selective leaks about her disapproval of his fast, her keenness to eradicate corruption and her excessive pressure on the government to comply with Anna’s demands.

Will the media ever shed its opinions, biases (often questionable) and plain dumbness to play fair? If one can’t get an honest and intelligible coverage of a straightforward public agitation, where does that leave complex issues facing the nation?