|
|
|
|
|
The Indian Airlines hijack and lie sudden arrival of the Karmapa Lama from Tibet has sparked off a debate. is it the government or the media which is to blame for the unfortunate projection? In other words, is it a messy projection of events by the media or a simple projection of the mess for which the government must take the blame?
The issue really touches on the sensitive relationship between an independent media and the government in a liberal democracy. That this relationship has to be adversarial is commonly accepted.
The classical formula, which once guided media behaviour, was fairly simple: critical support to the establishment. This meant that the governments in a democracy were elected by the people. The role of the media was to respect the people’s verdict but also to reserve the right to criticise the government on an issue by issue basis.
This system, to work coherently, presupposed a degree of order in the various media establishments. It was the responsibility of the editor to sustain the political fine of the newspaper on important matters, of policy- the economy, foreign policy and so on.
This system worked well during the phase of the Congress party of the Congress Party’s monopoly on power. After Indira Gandhi split the Congress in 1969, the media too was fractured, a large chunk of it supporting the more right-of-centre ‘syndicate’ Indira Gandhi had eased out. The Syndicate along with the Socialists and the RSS (notably Nanaji Deshmukh) -and media barons like Ramnath Goenka regrouped under Jayaprakash Narayan’s leadership. In some senses the coalition led by Atal Behari Vajpayee today is an elaboration of that experiment.
After Indira Gandhi’s emergency, the media turned totally against her. The media became part of the opposition. There was great irony involved here. The media had placed a glorious role in fighting authoritarianism. But, by becoming a partisan for the opposition against Indira Gandhi, it also lost sight of the classical formula: critical support to the government elected by the people.
Since the emergency was followed by the upheavals of communal, caste and coalition politics, the old balance had not been restored to the media.
Meanwhile, the communications explosion and the emergence of the electronic media have certainly energised the media but also added to the murky incoherence of the general scene. Economic liberalisation and the promised El Dorado have also led to the, entry into the editorial yanks of middle-level power brokers, consolidating their basis by influencing postings and transfers. Their strength is not professional but that of influence peddlers.
The issues raised by the hijack and the arrival of the young Lama are, in a lively but somewhat chaotic circumstances, a challenge to both the government and the media, particularly its electronic component. After the initial setback of the intelligence failure at Kargil, the government pulled itself up with remarkable alacrity. The electronic media venturing into this sort of reporting for the first time, demonstrated brilliance.
But in the hijack (and the Lama case) both the government and the media have come a cropper. Why? H.K Dua, Ashok Tandon, Sudheendra Kulkarni, Kanchan Gupta, now in the Prime Minister’s Office, are all former journalists. They should have some ideas.
The Joint Secretary. External Publicity, and his staff, the Principal Information Officer. Government of India, supervise substantial information outfits. How prompt and effective are they in amplifying official policy and action?
At the media end also soul-searching must be done. Time was when seasoned journalists were dedicated to South Block - PMO, External Affairs and Defence. These journalists had spent years covering NDMC, Municipal Corporation, New Delhi, and Tis Hazari courts, state governments and Parliament. By the time they touched issues of national security, they were seasoned, responsible and could be trusted, sometimes with national secrets.
In the current permissiveness, the razzle-dazzle of the star system, asking relative amateurs to be involved with issues of national secularity reflects poorly on the media and harms the national Purpose.
Someone must take the
initiative to organise a serious brainstorming session, spread over days
if need be, on national security, foreign affairs and the media.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
