Let's discuss the media

The Indian media is sharp, lively and so much a part of our lives. Buzzing with activity at all times, the media plays a huge role in shaping our perceptions about the politics of our nation, society and future. In this article, the Oracle will assess the media and its impact on our world.

Unfortunately, in this article, the Oracle will only be able to discuss the English language media. This is the form of the media that the Oracle is most familiar with, and let's confess; loves to hate. Therefore, it behooves the Oracle to first acknowledge a debt to this media for providing the considerable volume of information that the Oracle in order to form his opinions.


Here, we use "English language media" as a generic and rather loose term to describe cable news delivered to middle class homes by the top media houses. We clarify that this term will be applied even to channels such as Zee News, Aaj Tak and Star News and NDTV India which do NOT report in English at all. Perhaps "elite media" would have been a better term.

Though freedom of the press would be defended by law in any real democracy, there will always be elements in power, in Government and society that will try to intimidate/subvert the media in subtle ways. The Indian media has generally performed well on that account, managing to remain fiercely independent at most times. And, even though the media may be accused of being hawkish in its tactics or insensitive in its reporting on some occasions, they deserve credit for keeping the citizenry fully informed of national events on a minute to minute basis. Brutal competition is usually good for any industry. Our media, its brashness, its enthusiasm, its zeal is in many ways a testament to our vibrant democracy.

Let us consider the "standard of reporting". It really depends on how we see the media withing the framework of our democratic society. For instance, we could excoriate the media for being obsessed with certain events of no consequence such as reporting on ... say .. Slumdog Millionaire (to take a fairly recent example) in the top story section. We could take the media to task for reporting on the Abhishek-Aishwarya wedding way beyond its actual relevance. A slightly different allegation would be that the media is insensitive and seems to revel in tragedies. A case in point would be the stampede at Chamunda Devi temple in September, 2008 in which 249 people were killed. The media has also come under fire for irresponsible reporting during the Mumbai terror attacks when they were accused of allowing details about Army positions to pass to terrorists through the TV news. To sum up, the media often caters to the obsessions of the public with celebrities or feeds its voyeuristic desire to see blood and gore.

Of course, there is another way to see this. The media is a business and fools who fail to recognize it as such have only themselves to blame for any delusions that might arise. The dangers lie in the fact that the media often gives the public a false sense of empowerment. The corporate media masquerades as the "voice of the people". The Oracle has pointed out elsewhere that the corporate media is actually the least democratic of all the so called "estates of democracy". This is a fact that seems to escape notice completely. What actually happens is that the media essentially reports its own points of view rather than those of the people and we are told that these viewpoints should somehow take precedence over our own. Why? Are the mediapersons, journalists, newspaper columnists elected in any way? Do they even represent a fair cross section of our society?

There are many things we seem not to notice about the media. For one, we must remember that journalism is a fairly low skilled profession. Journalism, on an average, requires a skill set that can be hardly rated as being more specialized than an actor. Just because journalists pass judgement on issues does not mean that they are smart people who know what they are talking about. A glaring example would be the media reports on legal representation for captured terrorist Kasab. Not one journalist seemed to understand the depth of the ethical and legal subtleties of the situation and instead focussed on random remarks made by politicians, knee jerk Shiv Sena reactions and the like. Another case in point would be the ruckus created by Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami demanding the removal of a fellow Election Commissioner, when the media reported on the general smoke screen of sensation and completely failed to display even a basic grasp of the constitutional issues involved. Science journalism is, of course, the best evidence for the proposition that journalists are only semi-literate. We need look no further than the story of the "$10 laptop" that embarrassed India and IIT Chennai recently. The swanky studios, the eye catching graphics, the dramatic background music and imposing names like "Face the Nation", "We the People", "The Big Fight", etc. are all bluff and bluster; a cover for semi-literacy. It is a classic case of anything that glitters being taken for gold.

To be fair, the media never claimed they were experts in anything. "We the people" are responsible for our own stupidity. If we are unable to glean "information" from "opinion" and make up our minds based on what people with the most shoddy academic skills have to say, it is our problem.

Of course, no discussion about Indian English language media can be complete without paying a tribute to the dogged dedication with which the media is committed to eradicating the BJP from the country. There was a time when the "communal" BJP was an untouchable in Indian politics, even more than the forces of communism. Then the BJP forged alliances with anti-Congress forces in state after state and this tag of untouchability became all too redundant. Credit goes to the media for keeping the tired old genre of BJP baiting alive.

Even today, at the drop of a hat, the media goes into a frenzy of anti-BJP ranting at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, it is not even necessary for the proverbial hat to drop. A wonderful example would be the recent tirade that the media has launched against the BJP at the snapping of the BJP-BJD alliance. Instead of castigating the opportunistic stance of the BJD for betraying a trusting old ally at a vulnerable moment, the media is all too caught up with celebrating the BJP's setback. The buzz in the media is that the NDA is imploding, notwithstanding the fact that the BJP has added two allies (RLD and AGP) in the last two weeks; and the INLD before that. It also makes no difference that ever since the UPA was formed in 2004, the "United" Progressive Alliance has not managed to contest a single election as a unified whole. It also makes no difference that the BJP has won 7 of the last 11 Assembly Elections outright and made huge inroads into an 8th (J&K) and has just managed to defend two incumbent governments with substantial majorities in two large heartland states. In contrast, the Congress has managed to win one (Delhi) and emerged as single largest in another (Rajasthan). That has not, however, held the media back from declaring that the Congress is on an upswing. Take another instance, when the BJP bagged Karnataka last year, defying obviously contrived* and dishonest opinion/exit poll predictions, the disconsolate media sought solace in pointing out that the Congress would still be ahead if the Assembly segments were grouped in terms of Parliamentary seats. No one cared, of course, to do a similar analysis on Rajasthan. And when the BJP won 5 out of 8 Assembly bypolls in Karnataka at the end of 2008, and the Congress did not manage even one, the plan was to look the other way.

So, why would the media do this? In the short term, the media is relieved that the Mumbai terror attacks did not result in a paroxysm of support in favour of the BJP. But why would the media be against the BJP in the first place? We have to understand what a journalist does. The average journalist is faced with important political, economic and diplomatic issues on a daily basis and yet does not possess the intellectual capacity to process these in an appropriate manner. As such, the average mediaperson finds it vastly simpler to jump on to bogeys, focus on buzzwords and act like a swarm of bees than to think. 24 x 7 television further heightens the need to look smart as opposed to being smart. Blaming the BJP is easy. The BJP lacks a systematic multi level worldwide terror infrastructure unlike Islam does: ranging from the "few misguided youths" who fly planes into buildings to the "peaceful demonstrators" and "victims of discrimination" who burn down Bangalore because dictator Saddam Hussein is about to be hanged. In fact, the motley band of Shiv Sena thugs who show up to break glass panes make for excellent reality television; the meagre financial losses these events entail are more than justified by the money the channel makes by subsequently telecasting this "riot". Understanding the "secular argument against the savagery of Islam" is a nuance that is beyond the intellectual capability of the average journalist.

Perhaps the more pertinent question is : why is the media able to get away with this? The reason is that the media has the privilege of writing its own performance review, and therefore, is effectively free from the constraints of professional responsibility. When the media drives itself into a corner, as it often does, the media can pull out simply by deciding not to talk about their blunder any more on the airwaves. What India needs is a second line of defence against forces of misinformation, such as a higher penetration of media such as blogs and youtube. Media personalities such as Barkha Dutt have already gone public with their dislike of blogs. The fact that the media is the least democratic of all the estates of democracy is a point that cannot be stressed enough. Although we the people are grateful to the media for the wonderful coverage, we should know better than to let the opinions of some semi literate, self appointed intellectuals to influence our opinion beyond a point. Fortunately, most of us already know that. Election results bear that out.


* As a postscript, the Oracle will explain why he considers the Opinion Polls to be "contrived and dishonest". We start by agreeing that opinion polls have gone grievously wrong in recent years. The failure can be blamed on either of two sources (or a combination thereof): the science that underlies an opinion poll or the integrity of the people who administer the exercise. In view of this, the Oracle would much rather question the honesty of the mediapersons than the power of science and logical reasoning.