The corruption telethon ends
Do we now hear that there is "communal" and "secular" corruption? It depends on whether you support or oppose the midnight eviction of Baba Ramadev. If the polity is not serious about corruption as it is often pointed out, the nature of media coverag
says B P SANJAY
_150_200.jpg)
A Head of State welcome to Baba Ramdev, followed by his eviction and externment two days later, was a saga covered live by the television news channels. Be it Anna Hazare or Baba Ramdev’s crusade there is always a subtle divisive posturing attempted by the media that cleverly shifts the responsibility to the polity and civil society groups. While candle light advocacy is dismissed as the non-voting extra constitutional voice, the rustic followers of Ramdev were initially upheld as the real people (read voters) who had to be safeguarded against the designs of the Sangh Parivar.
Later studio panelists began to speculate on the background of each person present there and theorise on the religiosity of the crowd including their politically incorrect leanings if any. The task is made easier when you throw in the communal card. Thereby votaries of civil liberties could haggle over the forces behind and not the cause. If the polity is not serious about corruption as it is often pointed out then the hyped media coverage punctuated by discussions has equally hurt the cause and very soon, the government may be laughing all the way at having achieved its objective of deflecting and polarizing the debate into secular and communal slots. Do we now hear that there is “communal” and “secular” corruption? It depends on whether you support or oppose the midnight eviction of Baba Ramadev.
Tough questions that are now being asked by the media can also be asked about the media. Was there a need to initiate a live non-stop coverage of the Anna Hazare and Ramdev initiatives? Before anybody says that they are not comparable it should be said that for the viewer they both seemed the same and are as important because media decided to bring us their spectacle. Wasn’t there anything else in the country or the world that was equally important? Adding insult to injury was the Times Now Breaking News announcement. The event remained the same but each new or old actor coming into the debate to say something became breaking news.
The channel’s repeated assertion that somebody not answering questions about Maran was to suggest that it deserved all the credit for reporting the scams. The fact that DMK was keen on telecom ministry for its stake in media--carriage and content-- is well known. The suave Maran was left untouched by the media and it should now ask itself why? Was it because the DMK as is claimed was arm twisting the coalition leader or was it because SUN network and its corporate presence in the media world was/is quite formidable, and the rest of the media enterprises did not want to take them on? Now that the political climate in the State is favorable, they can take on Maran and the network.
The institutional mechanisms or the bold whistle blowers that provide the documents in the first place are completely ignored. Know-all panelists take over. An aspect of media practice in India today is that all the 24X7 new channels have exclusive claims about their role in exposing corruption and predicting election outcomes. Even the sober print media has started claiming its impact factor. A perverse observation would be that despite a stranglehold control over the media by the DMK Inc, the present ruling political party won overwhelmingly. We may analyse this or as is our wont uphold the sagacity of the ordinary voter.
We need the media and no one denies their role in putting issues and concerns in a perspective to the public. However, when it decides to overdo, as it tends to do in many cases, we move on . In rapid succession, issues are highlighted and forgotten. One should admire the panelists’ views and perspectives on all issues, drinking water, HIV, corruption, Dravidian politics. It is like an interactive voice response where all the questions can be punched in and we can expect answers from the same panel by exercising the choice of media. Uncomfortable questions about club versus country with respect to cricket are glossed over because prolonging such debates would hurt and affect their corporate clients and would mean shaking the iconic images of the heroes.
Media is a love-hate engagement and more so television because you are accosted with images. However, redundant they are, the potential it has of offering something new is what keeps the viewer going. At the end of the three-day telethon if the viewer feels disenchanted that neither corruption nor black money is the issue, truly blame the messenger for overdoing its so called fourth estate role.