Media’s Coverage of International Affairs — Part II

Aman Malik

No money?

Lack of resources has often been cited as a reason for poor coverage of international news in India. However, Delhi based Alex Perry of Time magazine thinks otherwise. Says he: "I`m sure the Indian media faces the same financial restraints as anyone else."1  Delhi based John Elliott of Fortune magazine goes a step further as he contends, "Newspapers could make better use of news agencies. I think the problem is an insular lack of interest in most serious coverage."2  "There is an information gap," says Naqvi, as he tries to put things into perspective, and continues, "I have traveled across continents all on my own expense, just to prove the point that it is possible to cover the world."

The private industry in the country has not shown any interest in covering the world for India. The promoters of almost all news networks in the country are people who have non-journalistic backgrounds and hence do not "think like reporters." Some of the countries¿ leading industrial houses have stakes in private news organizations, and they can muster enough resources to go global. However, even these private news agencies have found easier alternatives, which sadly, most often comprise cheap formulations.

As any discerning reader would notice, in an average newspaper of say twenty-two pages, the `International` section is often relegated to the fourteenth or the fifteenth page. Here too, almost all news stories are reprinted wire reports. Even in the case of television, most international footage is taken either from that country`s local networks or from global news agencies and/or international television networks.

Could FDI be the solution?

In June 2002, the Indian government allowed foreign direct investment in the Indian print media (up to 26% in the news and current affairs segment) with a precondition that "Editorial control would have to remain in Indian hands and that three-fourths of editorial positions would have to be held by Indians." No FDI was however allowed in news agencies in accordance with the 1956 Cabinet resolution, which prohibits foreign news agencies from distributing news directly to the Indian press. Such distribution is allowed only through the Indian news agencies. This was a sure step toward opening up the Indian media albeit with sensible safeguards in place.

Needless to say, this decision raised a furor with critic after critic denouncing the Government`s move as a "sell-off."

B. G. Verghese, who was quite vocal in his support for the move, argued his case in the following manner (Who`s afraid of FDI in print?; Rediff.Com, July 17, 2002)3:

"The chip, computer, satellite, cellular/sat-phone, fax, Internet, email, and their rapidly multiplying and incestuous progeny have transformed the ground rules. You can read Dawn or The New York Times in Delhi even as your (NRI) cousin reads The Indian Express or Outlook in Bangkok or Boston. Shut these out - if you can - and we will no longer remain a free society. India would truly be another and less pleasant country."

"Geographically and geo-politically, India is well placed to serve and service the West Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, Australia and even Western markets."

FDI could - and should - bring in $10 billion of investment into the Indian print media (to begin with). Then hopefully, there would be one excuse less to contend with.

Can`t care less about the world?

A part of the problem may also be the general outlook of the Indian people towards the outside world.4  India is predominantly a Hindu country and the Hindu faith is inward looking as opposed to Islam and Christianity which have a tendency to influence foreign societies with their ideas of human conduct. The Hindu faith, however, emphasizes on `penance`, `tranquility`, `self-discovery` and `victory over all illusions of the world.` Further, most Hindus like to believe that theirs is a "way of life" and not just a faith or religion and want to be seen as "tolerant and assimilative" of alien cultures and thought processes.  

The fact that India is such a large country (with one sixth of humanity living within its boundaries) only complicates matters. We generate a lot of internal news, as we never seem to get over with our internal squabbles (from petty politicking to match fixing scandals). Moreover, news organizations are always on the prowl playing the detective and doing their bit to unravel the latest "sex scandal" or "secretly filming" celebrities in their private moments. Much of what most Indian newspapers or television news channels seek to pass off as "news" is sensationalism. Indeed, their content is at times so ¿tabloidish¿ that it can put some of the world`s best known tabloids to shame. Even non-political foreign news covers little else apart from Jennifer Lopez or Jemima Goldsmith.

Are our journalists competent enough?

Are our men and women competent, informed and opinionated enough to cover some of the most sensitive global issues and present a holistic perspective before the Indian audiences? Perry certainly thinks that Indian journalists are skilled enough and can be as "sophisticated" as their counterparts in other countries. However the tendency amongst most journalists, to `analyze` rather than report, is quite evident. Very few reporters actually file their own observations, quotes and interviews.

"This has the dual effect of making a lot of what they write sound very pompous, ill informed and uninsightful," says a senior journalist who pleads anonymity. The job is given far too much status and everyone wants to be an opinion writer, rather than roll up their sleeves and get dirty, as reporting requires. This also means that a lot of "news" is in fact opinion masquerading. This tendency gets worse with foreign news because reader feedback is negligible.

Says Sirohi: "In Washington, it is rare for Indian journalists to have real sources in the US government. I think Indian journalists are many times plain wrong about policy issues." The Internet has further made the job of such `armchair journalists` a lot easier. They can now get their background research done much quicker. Plagiarism is not uncommon among Indian journalists. Lethargy, coupled with the ease of supply of news, keeps the Indian journalists from leaving their offices to go out and report.

Initiatives so far…

Dr. Prannoy Roy`s ¿The World This Week¿ on Doordarshan was probably the first and for some time, the only India-based programme which looked at the rest of the world. Then Saeed Naqvi`s World Report went much further and had rare exclusive interviews with world leaders such as Gorbachev in the Kremlin and Fidel Castro in Havana on their home soil.

Notes Amita Malik, a media critic, in a column Window on the World (The Tribune, September 20, 2003)6

"But Doordarshan, in its infinite wisdom, confined these extraordinary exclusive programmes to very early morning and very late at night instead of prime time, so hardly anybody saw them. This had its come-uppance all Naqvi`s programmes on India`s peacekeeping coverage were shown to a distinguished audience at India International Centre. When I asked any member of the audience who had seen these programmes on DD to put up their hands, not a single hand went up, although the then CEO of DD had just boasted to the audience that only DD had shown the programmes."

The World This Week has since been revived on NDTV 24x7. Some other programmes that cover international affairs are Foreign Correspondent on NDTV24x7 (which has the same format as Dateline London on BBC World), World View on DD and Duniya on Aaj Tak. World Report was taken off air in September 2003, after Doordarshan decided that the "war in Iraq had ended."  

Amita Malik notes further:

"When it comes to a specialist like Ajai Shukla, or experienced reporters on our neighbouring countries like Rajdeep Sardesai, the programme (The World This Week) is on sure ground. But the New York and sparse London coverage is far from novel, authoritative or exciting. These two correspondents, when it comes to American or British items, are competing with CNN and the BBC and they are not really up to it. Their items always seem second-hand and culled from the local press and media rather than original. Here our more experienced press correspondents do much better."

"Anchored by a young and very assured lady, Farah Deba, World View India has a good line-up of experienced correspondents, some of whom have specialised in particular regions, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and West Asia."

Isn`t it time we had our own network?

In the past couple of decades there has been a lot of political activity in our neighborhood. In addition to the long prevailing issues with Pakistan and China, we have witnessed at close quarters, the Afghan civil war and the American invasion, the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka, the Maoist insurgency in Nepal, attempted takeovers in Maldives, military coup in Mayanmar and border skirmishes with Bangladesh. Sadly, the Indian media did not cover any of these comprehensively. Despite the fact that such tumultuous events took place in our backyard and we intervened militarily or diplomatically in each case, we were always fed second hand information.

But this is an issue for which the Indian political class, the bureaucracy and the Indian industry are equally to blame. The apathetic attitude of private industry has already been enumerated.

Most Indian politicians have no clue about how the international system works. Indian bureaucrats, by virtue of having made it through the civil service exam, one would assume, are knowledgeable about the ways of the world. But they often do not advise their political bosses for fear of losing favour. The politicians on their part may have their vested interests (monetary or otherwise) to look after and so it might be in their interest to keep the general Indian public in the dark about international issues.

As a result, what we should watch or read about other countries is decided in London or Atlanta. That the West uses its media to sell its agenda is a fact hidden from no one. The wide reach of the American and British networks certainly helps spread the "spin" on West`s policies. The manner in which these networks sold the "War on Terror" is something that has already attracted much criticism not just in the Muslim world but also their respective countries. 

The most amazing thing about the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was that it saw the rise of Al Jazeera, a hereto-unknown Arabic network, which is promoted by the royal family of Oman. Networks all across the world took Al Jazeera`s "exclusive" footage (especially of Osama bin Laden) and this made the channel a household name even in non-Arabic speaking countries. The Indian media marketers could possibly learn something out of this.  

In fact in countries such as Venezuela, plans are already afoot to start a global network "as an alternative to CNN."

Richard M Stallman, in his blog5, notes thus:

"…I participated in a dinner which was concerned with the plans to start Canal Sur, as they (the Venezuelans) call the planned alternative to CNN. Many suggested making it a `revolutionary TV` station, and following the best progressive ideas in all ways--for instance, one suggestion was to try to represent not just Latin America but all downtrodden parts of the world."

"I suggested, rather, that they follow the model of Al Jazeera, which doesn`t call itself revolutionary and doesn`t try to be progressive in all ways, but has succeeded in showing millions what Bush doesn`t want them to see."

The way ahead… 

"One day someone in India would start an international television network," predicts Naqvi, "and it would be a runaway success." The need of the hour is the setting up of a clear policy framework on the part of the Indian Government that can then facilitate the setting up and functioning of an international network.

As a first step, Prasar Bharati, the government controlled corporate body under which Doordarshan operates, would have to be truly autonomous unlike at present, where the degree of freedom enjoyed by the body depends on the "blessings" of the government in power. This autonomy would have to be steadfastly upheld if such a network has to be made as credible as the BBC.

If such an initiative is indeed taken and if the coverage is truly world class, then over time, private money, by way of advertising (and possibility even equity), would come in, thereby securing the financial viability of the venture. And then who knows, a culture that is appreciative of international news may emerge and even the non-English media might jump in… 

Today, India needs an international network not just to present to its own citizens an `Indian viewpoint` but also to speak to the world at large.

(The author may be reached at: aman.malik@gmail.com.) 

---

1 E-mail interview with Alex Perry, New Delhi

2 E-mail interview with John Elliott, New Delhi

3 Link: Rediff piece  

4 Interviews with Seema Sirohi and Saeed Naqvi and an article by John Elliott in the Outlook magazine: "Can Hindus be ambitious?"(Dec 21, 1998).

5 Link:  http://agia.fsf.org/rms-blog/entry-20041206

6 Link : Tribune piece