The Raj Thackeray affair

You don¿t say 

Darius Nakhoonwala

 

Suddenly, the media¿s irresponsible behaviour has become centre piece of discussion everywhere – except naturally in the media itself. The Raj Thackeray affair has got everyone asking: what¿s wrong with these TV clowns that they create such awful problems by hyping non-events like the one we saw in Mumbai last week? Only one newspaper amongst the major ones thought it fit to comment on the media.

The Indian Express wanted to know "Was a sense of proportion in play? Were there enough editorial checks? …It is inadequately realised that the power to show is also the power to mobilise. Did the visual media act with a sense of its own power, in covering the events in Maharashtra?" The answer is an obvious no, but did any of the otherwise loud editors have the courage to point this out? No, sir, they did not.

 

The Hindu, which leads the pack of moral posturers, avoided the issue completely. But it didn¿t eschew its usual posturing. It called Raj Thackeray some names and praised the Congress which had dithered before arresting him. "…the ruling Congress-Nationalist Congress Party coalition has shown exemplary resolve in enforcing the rule of law." What a joke! Come on, man, stop being such a fraud.

 

But in fairness to it, The Hindu did point out something that other newspapers had missed. "A heartening aspect of this episode was that all major political parties hastened to distance themselves from this chauvinist binge. The BJP, which partners the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, has been quick to denounce the MNS agitation as unconstitutional. Particularly commendable was the firm and statesmanlike defence of the Constitution by Leader of the Opposition L.K Advani… The correct responses of major political parties have taken the wind out of the sails of the clumsy attempt to bring back regional chauvinism as a strategy of political mobilisation."

 

The Telegraph pretty much missed the point when it asked whether "whether Mr Raj Thackeray would like to live it down at all, or dine off it for some time to come. The conflict he has created, or re-created, could still be the making of him." It wasn¿t Raj, dear, that created the conflict; it was the damn media." But unusually for it, there was a pat on the back for BJP for criticizing the Sena. But once again it was the Indian Express that said it loudly and clearly. "Advani¿s criticism of the Sena¿s anti-Outsider tirade is valuable, most of all, for the expansive terms in which he locates it. The Sena¿s campaign is against the "Constitution" and "the concept of national unity", he says, and every Indian has the right to live, work and travel to any place in the country, irrespective of his place of birth." Right on, baby, attaboy!

 

The Times of India was polite to both sides but didn¿t seem very annoyed at what either Raj or the media had wrought. It said "the tirade against Raj by a clutch of north Indian leaders, not to mention BJP stalwart L K Advani¿s sharp remarks directed against both Raj and Uddhav Thackeray, ultimately forced the government¿s hand." Tirade, you ignoramuses? Do you know the meaning

of the word?

 

The Asian Age also wrote a strangely sedated edit in which not a sentence is worth quoting. One only has to contrast this with what it may have written had Raj gone at the Muslims.

 

To sum up. I want to reiterate that in the public eye, the media has started becoming the real villain, especially TV. The powers-that-be in the media space need to be aware of this and do something about before there is a groundswell of public opinion for gagging the half-wits. Then the good will get penalized with the bad. So it is up to the good to gag the bad, not the government to take the lead.