Too much TV is bad for edit writers
You don’t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
What is common between the Indian cricket team in South Africa, the England cricket team in Australia and the Congress party in India?
Defeat. Stark, humiliating, humbling defeat.
And what was common between the editorials on the Congress’ comprehensive loss of power in central India? Three things, mainly.
They were all in a rush to say this was not triumph for Narendra Modi; they were all in a rush to hail Arvind Kejriwal as the new Messiah of India politics; and they were all in a rush to write off the Congress in the general election.
That’s what happens when you write after watching TV.
But hang on. Do you think the papers that waited for a day before writing did much better? Not at all.
The Telegraph wrote an appallingly bored edit and had this to say on Tuesday: “Her (Sonia Gandhi’s) comment that the prevalence of inflation contributed to the defeat begs the question about the cause of the inflation and the failure of the government to tackle the problem… There was the persistent perception that Congress governments at the Centre and the state levels were incapable of effective governance and that they lacked a coherent direction… aggravated by charges of corruption... created a general ambience in which the Congress was not seen by voters as their first choice for ruling their states… the party was taken by the flood of its own failures.” Yeah, right.
The Indian Express, prompt as always, solemnly stated the obvious in its very first sentence. “If there is a message..it is that of the voter's alienation from the Congress…” Then there was this sentence. “While each scorecard will be read more closely to coax out its specific messages, the expression of a building anti-Congressism rings out across the different political contexts and states… The party has no fig leaves to hide behind.” Does saying the same thing in four different ways leave the reader wiser?
The Hindustan Times which is a traditional Congress supporter, had a nice turn of phrase as its opening sentence. “Like a deer caught in the headlights, the Congress waited in the middle of the road only to be run over twice, first by the oncoming BJP juggernaut and then the unexpected vehicle from the slip road, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).” It dwelt mainly on this, rather droning on the million mistakes of the Congress.
The Times of India had an interesting take. “..Congress may have fundamentally misread the meaning of mandates in its favour in 2004 and 2009 general elections. It took them to mean a rejection of ‘India shining’ and by extension the India growth story, therefore a licence to continue with politics in the old mould…This consists of juggling a calculus based on carving up the electorate into ever finer slices based on caste, communal or regional identity; then throwing calibrated freebies at each, while playing on a politics of grievances rather than of aspiration.” Perfect.
The Tribune said, “voters have rejected the politics of entitlement pursued by the Congress nationally. Its rights-based politics is expected to be pitted against Modi’s pro-growth agenda in 2014… the Congress cannot ignore the fact that it has lost despite all its pro-poor initiatives: the rural job guarantee scheme, a farmer-friendly land acquisition law, the right to education and subsidised food.” Indeed. That’s the key lesson.
But it was The Hindu which was truly precious. It wrote a full 955 word edit which was at least 300 words too long. It got into its pet peeve in the second paragraph to say, “While the results certainly boost the BJP’s chances in 2014, it would be premature to read these as an unqualified endorsement of the party’s Hindutva brand of politics.”
(Sometimes I ask myself why it doesn’t change its name from such an utterly communal one. It can become more objective then and not have to keep proving its ‘secular’ credentials in that tiresome way it has).
It gave credit to Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Raman Singh, Vasundhara Raje and the AAP. The Times of India (ToI) also made the same point, by the way.
But The Hindu was more categorical and took time out to do some Modi-bashing. “If the BJP is seeking to sharpen the ideological divide over secularism by nominating Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate ahead of the Assembly elections, there is little evidence from this round of elections that such a strategy will deliver guaranteed victories on the ground.”
That’s fine but was that the main message of the election? What’s with this bunch?
Only around the 563rd word did it realise that it had gone off on a rant. Then it said “There is no denying that Mr. Modi has injected some vigour into the BJP’s election strategy with his aggressive campaign style. The Gujarat strongman has expanded his sphere of influence… Mr. Modi has also been under pressure to reinvent himself as a mass leader showcasing a development-oriented agenda.” Then it contradicted itself: “what is certain is that the new political energy that Mr. Modi has brought into the BJP’s national election campaign would be a consolidating factor at the national level.”
I think two people wrote the edit.
*****
Can you imagine Afghanistan winning the next cricket World Cup? Or even reaching the semi-finals?
Well, the way the leader writers reacted to the AAP’s explosive performance in Delhi was exactly how it was if Afghanistan had done that. Dismay, wonder, disbelief, admiration and, above all, a sense of puzzlement: how could this happen?
But it having happened – just as it had in 1983 when India beat the mighty West Indies in the World Cup – the editorialists set about disseminating knowledge or giving gyan as it is derisively called in north India.
The Indian Express devoted a full editorial to the topic. “Making this dramatic debut in Delhi means that the AAP has already gathered critical national resonance. It has established a secure base for venturing outwards into other regions of India.”
Then advice from the boundary line as well: “The challenge for the AAP, to keep its core values alive as it extends itself into new areas and roles, will be formidable.”
The Hindustan Times which has been more than a little scornful of the upstart party daintily ate some crow. “With the stunning triumph of the AAP in Delhi, an amorphous party which literally came out of nowhere, the politics of the Capital has changed forever. The new kid on the block, broom in hand, has felled a mighty chief minister, Sheila Dikshit, dealing the Congress a death blow… The real challenge for the AAP comes now in making the transition from rank outsider to freshly minted insider.”
The rest of the edit was dross.
The Pioneer had a prolonged go at the Congress for misrule, corruption, price rise and so on (343 words out of 458) it finally sniffed at the AAP which had thwarted the BJP. This is what it said right at the end of the edit: “…the Aam Aadmi Party partly took over the BJP's anti-establishment platform. The BJP should not assume that it can exploit the reject-Congress wave during the Lok Sabha election without putting in additional and more credible effort… It remains to be seen, though, if the AAP is able to build on its maiden dream run in the months to come.”
But it was The Hindu which took the cake by mentioning AAP only thrice in its 958 word edit: twice in the first para while summarising the facts and once towards the end, in a throwaway line: “The rise of the Aam Aadmi party also signals public alienation from traditional political parties which appear increasingly disconnected from people’s aspirations and expectations.”
The Times of India had a very clean take on AAP: “While AAP’s emphasis on clean politics and impeccable integrity is welcome, it must now learn the ropes of governance… Failing this the euphoria surrounding AAP will be short-lived.” That’s it, really.
Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.