A common refrain of Opposition leaders and some sections of civil society is the apparent capture of democratic institutions and mainstream media (MSM) by the present dispensation. These allegations have been regurgitated by academics of Indian origin at Ivy League colleges sympathetic to the Congress and merrily lapped up by their friends in the Western media. From there flows the narrative of democracy under threat in India, the rise of fascism, Prime Minister Narendra Modi being an autocrat and comparisons with the likes of Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Donald Trump and the likes.
A few days ago, I received a forward on WhatsApp of a long social media post written purportedly by an intellectual from the world of art and cinema. The author believes “the mainstream media has been comprehensively sold out” and is not trusted by the silent majority. Hence, the person recommends turning to a new band of “independent” YouTube journalists rather than relying on the fakery of the “sold-out entities”. Going by the assessment of this motley crowd of media whiz kids, the individual concludes the BJP is in serious trouble already and the third phase of voting, concluded on May 7th, would “render the election a formality”. So far behind the BJP will fall it will be difficult for it to garner even 200 seats let alone “400++”. But the clincher comes at the end when the writer makes a diabolical prediction — actually suggesting that seeing the election slipping out of his hand, Narendra Modi may try to engineer communal riots. This is not influencing but borders on sinister fear-mongering.
One can, perhaps, discount the preposterous conclusion considering that the intellectual hails from the film fraternity and, therefore, may be prone to fantasy. However, more interesting are the names of journalists and analysts mentioned in the piece. Naming them would make one guilty of the same folly. After all, they have garnered a sizable following for their channels. But can numbers alone be the proof of credibility? If that was so mainstream outlets would still outdo them on eyeball count. But does their track record in forecasting results of previous elections justify such faith?
To be fair, none of these personalities make any secret of their bias. Therefore, even without getting into the definition of ‘independent’ it would be a stretch to put the tag of ‘objective’ on them. The most important question to my mind is what is the basis of their assessment. From all accounts, none of them have been trawling the country for first-hand research. Most of them appear to operate from their home studios. So, are they privy to exit poll results from their psephologist friends, the intelligence agencies or sources inside political parties, who must be doing their own surveys? Do they have or are their views based on hearsay and grapevine? Or, is it simply uneducated guesswork being passed off as analyses and inside data?
Contrast this with what is happening in the TV studios. News Television in India has been reduced to WWF entertainment with 365 days “Noora Kusthi”’ on prime time. The guests include spokespersons of political parties who invariably cancel each other out. So far, I have not seen a single debate on TV which is not represented by at least the two major parties (except for a brief period when the Congress decided to boycott a few anchors). Even representatives of regional parties are regularly called on these shows when they hold forth not just for themselves but also the larger alliance.
The others are either political commentators or psephologists. The latter have their own reputation at stake and steadfastly follow professional ethics, careful of not violating the codes of the Election Commission. The former do come with their own political leanings but anchors usually take care to see opposing points of view are represented — because they know a good fight generates TRPs. There is no room for moderates.
Now coming to actual coverage — I have so far not come across any party or leader being either blacked out or ignored. TV crews follow the Gandhis in flocks. Congress spokespersons get more than an equal share of facetime vis-à-vis the BJP’s. In fact, Rahul Gandhi’s speeches and statements probably get more play than Narendra Modi’s. Otherwise, how are the fireworks being generated on the campaign trail? The same holds true for regional leaders. Media outlets can ignore state leaders only at their own peril for reasons that are well known to all but people are loath to admit. Besides, everyone likes to hedge their bets.
That brings us to print and online publications. Even leaving aside the avowedly “independent” (a euphemism for being anti-Modi) outlets, one has to be blind not to recognise the Left imprint in the editorial and opinion pages. The Left dominance is evident in the composition of various Press Clubs. Here, the Right ecosystem has a long way to catch up. There is no Right-wing paper or portal of any consequence till date. Even those that are considered “sold out” give little space to Right-of-Centre columnists — lest they get branded as “Godi”. As an amateur public affairs commentator of little consequence (the Churchillian definition of a modest man who has much to be modest about), this writer knows how difficult it is to find even a lateral entry into any paper or channel getting past the stalwart Left-lib gatekeepers. One has heard of Swapan Dasgupta’s essay commissioned by the New York Times being gagged by its editorial board. There are many such cases of censoring in India which one doesn’t come to know. For that matter, how many speakers or authors from the Right can you spot at some of the major lit-fests in the country?
Narendra Modi, in one of his recent TV interviews, gave a point-by-point rebuttal of selective criticism and cherry-picking by the liberal chatterati. An empirical analysis of published articles and interviews across media — which can be done in this digital age — will easily prove this point.
It is all fine to accuse MSM owners and journalists of being on the take of the ruling party. But is anyone willing to investigate the “business model” of “independent” media — that are one-person enterprises— where there are no boundaries between “Church and State”, namely owner and editorial, some of whom have lifestyles that are the envy of many business honchos?
The author is a current affairs commentator, marketer, blogger and leadership coach, who tweets at @SandipGhose. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Comments
0 comment