Media must shun rabble-rousing

By rudimentary definition, media – both print and TV – is supposed to inform, educate and empower people about political, social, economic and cultural developments in a fair, unbiased and non-partisan manner. Also it is expected that media will, displaying healthy skepticism, question, investigate and exercise due diligence before disseminating news. It does have apparently an adversarial role as far as governance is concerned but not that of a hostile antagonist.  

 

The basic tenets of journalism are being flouted every day. Of course there are a few exceptions (like The Hindu, Indian Express in print) but none apparently in mainstream English News TV. The anchors have no qualms in setting up kangaroo courts to try the political class even when the matter is sub-judice but will not do so in the case of the Jindal-Zee scandal, citing this very excuse. The fine of Rs 1 lakh imposed by NBSA on CNN-IBN for ‘biased, tendentious and factually incorrect’ reporting in the case of a land allotment by the Haryana government too did not find any traction with media (except Times of India’s Goa edition of December 23, 2012). Hindu editor Siddharth Vardarajan has put it aptly though a little crudely that ‘we (media) do not like pissing in the tent’.   

 

Ours is admittedly a flawed democratic process, more so because of tremendous heterogeneity and inhuman economic disparities. The political class has failed to come up to the expected standards and the downside of democratic process – hankering for votes to gain power – has resulted in endemic corruption, division of the polity and other ills. The media has taken full advantage of aweak and divided political class and has succeeded in engendering a sense of disenchantment and even disgust with the political process largely through unprofessional, unethical, biased and irresponsible journalism.  Anchors/editors have used extortionist methods of 24x7 coverage of alleged wrongdoings of politicians and perverse use of right to free speech so that they may enjoy a disproportionate sense of power – that too without any accountability. And have succeeded, it is obvious, but for how long?

 

The divided and enfeebled political class has failed to withstand media attacks, legitimate or motivated. The editors/anchors have become outlandishly arrogant and have become presumptuous enough to even lay down policy framework not only with regard to internal governance but foreign relations too. They have no mandate to do so. The political class, at least, has to go to the people to get a mandate through universal suffrage every five years but the editors/owners/anchors, drunk with the transient power they have managed to usurp, are even not beyond calling for war at the drop of a hat. The TV anchors will, if they have their way, go to war with Pakistan and even China and Australia simultaneously to avenge any real or imaginary infringement of the nation’s honour. Then there are media groups like the Times Group which milk controversies like the current Indo-Pak fracas from both ends, so to speak. One section promotes amity through campaigns like Aman ki Asha and the other like Times Now and particularly its anchor Arnab Goswami, is all for teaching Pakistan a lesson for its so-called perfidy. 

 

The latest example is the recent ceasefire violation in Jammu & Kashmir. This incident and particularly the beheading of a soldier has been treated as manna by so-called ‘non-partisan, liberal and educated anchors like Goswami,Rahul Shivshankar, RahulKanwal, RajdeepSardesai and even BarkhaDutt-- of Times Now, Headlines Today, CNN-IBN (Karan Thapar anchoring ‘Last Word’ being an exception on this issue) and NDTV respectively-- to derail the tenuous but effective peace which has prevailed on the LoC for the last 10 years. Not much importance has been given to people living alongside the border in J&K who have gained a sense of normality in their lives because of the ceasefire. While Times Now and Headlines Today did everything to raise the emotional pitch about the beheading, NDTV has tried to ridicule the attempts to retrieve the situation by claiming that the state is sending ‘mixed’ messages and maliciously insinuating that the Prime Minister is more worried about the legacy he wants to bequeath than ‘honour’ of the country. The government has, seemingly succumbing to the pressure, put the ‘peace process’ on hold. Only temporarily, it is hoped.

 

The means adopted for rabble-rousing are equally subversive. The facts are distorted, the negative aspects areover-emphasised and issues which can lend some reasonableness are either ignored or given perfunctory treatment. Even the case of beheading was not so uncommon an incident as it was made out to be. The army chief himself, in an interview, admitted that even in 2011 two such beheadings had taken place and the matter was sorted out at the level already agreed to by the two countries.

 

Also,Najam Sethi, senior journalist and a senior Pakistani  diplomat, both of Pakistan, claimed (on Last Word anchored by Karan Thapar and on Centre Stage by Rahul Kanwal of Headlines Today respectively) that theIndian army too had beheaded Pakistani soldiers during theKargil war. This was also stated by our own ex- naval chief Admiral L Ramdas in the kangaroo court conducted (on NDTV) by no less than Barkha Dutt herself. Sethi and the diplomat had also claimed that they learnt about this from a piece written by Dutt for the Nepali  journal Himal. None of the anchors/editors of other channels considered it an editorial imperative to confirm the veracity of these claims nor has Dutt so far admitted or contradicted claims of these Pakistani gentlemen.

Further, the inquisition conducted in the studios raise some legitimate questions. The panelists are carefully chosen so that the line pre-determined by the anchor gets confirmed. In this case also, most of the army brass consisting of retired colonels, brigadiers and generals were competing with each other in sabre-rattling. No one asked if these worthies have any direct/indirect connections with an arms manufacturer or a supplier or a think-tank espousing a particular ideological stance. The viewers should be informed about such links for the sake of transparency, if nothing else. Was it only a coincidence that those retired army officers who had espoused the cause of retired army chief V K Singh were more vociferous than others in condemning the government for compromising national interests? In fact, there was a brazen attempt to sow discord between the political arm of the State and thearmy. The anchors have been willing accomplices in this nefarious attempt.

 

The jury for the kangaroo courts is chosen with great deliberation and it includes retired diplomats/bureaucrats, political analysts, intellectuals and people from the ‘intelligence’ world. Here again, it is futile to look for any transparency. There is no knowing what baggage a panelist has brought to the discussion. The anchors never reveal the links or connections these people have with think-tanks, whether indigenous or foreign. The narrative is influenced by the ideologies of different hues some of them subscribe to. Many a bureaucrat and a diplomat try to get even with thegovernment of the day for not providing a sinecure after retirement or on some other personal grouse. The anchors, instead of asking the panelists to be transparent, mislead the viewers. Political commentators like Swapan Dasgupta, Ashok Malik or Paranjoy Guha Thakurta are introduced as independent analysts whereas their ideological colours of ‘saffron’ or ‘red’ are discernible and evident in every word they speak or write.

 

It is very easy to rabble-rouse the people, stoking raw emotions by portraying everything starkly black. However, the situations and issues have grey areas too and a rational and nuanced approach to matters concerning national honour is called for. Media has the power to shape the mind of the people. We have, no doubt, lived and still live with an uneasy situation on our border and have fought three wars too. Yet to keep harping on this and to overplay the fact of militancy, jihad and infiltration from across the border and to underplay the “peace dividend of ceasefire resulting in reduced deaths of civilians and jawans and relative peaceful life for people living on the border” on-again off-again attempts to reduce the tension is tantamount to distortion of the actual position. Opposition political parties will do what suits them and even ask for ‘head-hunting’ as demanded by Sushma Swaraj of the BJP. But will it end there? Pakistan is having problems of its own and there is an apprehension that it may end up as a ‘failed state’. Is it in our national interest then to ask for a ‘final solution’ or as Arnab Goswami has asked rhetorically and on behalf of the nation, “Can imploding Pakistan ever dare needle India again?” Does he realise that a failed state will pose far greater danger than a state which is in need of a helping hand in its struggle to preserve democracy? 

 

Anchors/editors must return to the task of editing and professional journalism. By raising the temperature through jingoistic rhetoric, hysterical pronouncements and by appealing to the lowliest of low instincts of people, the anchors not only betray but dis-honour their profession. Above all, it is imperative that the media tones down its belligerence (even if it is synthetic) and evaluates the situation in an impartial and just perspective. Its task is not to promote enmity, distrust and discord but to work for conciliation, consensus, convergence and peace, no matter how many pitfalls have to be endured in the process and no matter how long the process lasts.