Author: Jaya Jaitly
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: December 22, 2007
Issues before the common man were ignored
by the national 'liberal' media in Gujarat in shameless pursuit of an agenda
that divided the State far more than what a fundamentalist group could achieve
Five years ago, during the last Assembly election,
I was in a small town in Gujarat and visited an old socialist, the editor
of the local newspaper. The Election Commission of India had tightened spending
by candidates. I learned from the saddened editor that to circumvent the old
method of paying for published schedules of public meetings of leaders of
parties, money was now being accepted 'under the table' so that the expenditure
did not have to be disclosed as election expenses.
Money was given to newspaper owners, who,
in turn, had meetings 'covered' by their reporter and published as news. It
is a well-known fact that some regional newspapers in Gujarat enter into deals
with major Opposition parties during election, charging Rs 2 crore for not
writing against it, and an additional matching amount for writing about it
in positive terms. A Chief Minister lost his throne for not going through
with one such agreement. During the current Assembly election in Gujarat,
local cameramen of some television channels were offering 10-second slots
for Rs 30,000.
Apart from localised incidents in Gujarat,
there is a marked disconnect between what the observer of the political scene
saw first-hand in the recent Assembly election and the matter that readers
were offered in national newspapers.
An 'atmosphere of fear' was a phrase bandied
about by secular badge-wearers well before the election. The Election Commission
rightly responded by offering to put up booths exclusively for Muslims to
vote in areas where they were supposed to be terrorised. The Muslim population
at large was courageous enough to reject the offer and declared that they
would stand in line along with everyone else. However, the media told exactly
the opposite story. When Congress president Sonia Gandhi screamed "fear
and death stalk the State", the media obliged with large headlines.
A full report appeared about secret voting
by Muslims because of "underlying fear", yet while campaigning for
a Muslim candidate in Jamnagar on behalf of the Samata Party, I asked a 2,000-strong
audience of largely Muslims that had gathered spontaneously whether there
was an atmosphere of fear around them. They laughed out loud and unitedly
responded "nahin" ("no"). I was led to this meeting place
in a musical procession with women supporters (both Hindu and Muslim) dancing
on the streets as if at a wedding. Fear? Purdah? Hostility? Communalism? Hatred
of Mr Narendra Modi or Muslims? I saw nothing of these. However, none of the
media present wanted any of it.
The entire drama about the "merchant
of death" was not a subject of discourse at hundreds of meetings everywhere.
It was Ms Sonia Gandhi's grandstanding for headlines outside Gujarat and to
frighten the majority of Muslims who have been leading normal lives and had
localised views and allegiances just like everyone else. Neither Mr Modi nor
Ms Gandhi loomed on the horizon. The petition by Mr Javed Akhtar before the
Supreme Court or Ms Teesta Setalvad's complaints to the Election Commission
were complete waste of time for the real voters and only entertained an elite
readership.
The election in Gujarat was fought on a completely
different plane from what was conjured up for the readership outside Gujarat
by the media who had become a dice-thrower at the chequer board of the election,
betraying their own professional tenets, not to mention their readers. Whoever
wins or loses there, communalism will not have been the issue.
Embedded journalism has come to stay since
scores of media are flown in helicopters to selected election meetings or
to accompany the feudal-style outings of the crown prince, ludicrously termed
"road shows". Full-paged advertisements are placed in most newspapers
throughout the year by a host of Congress-ruled States, prominently propagating
dynastic images and the UPA chairperson who has no constitutional authority
to justify such expense from the public exchequer.
Soon this becomes the norm for every party,
and the media is effectively co-opted while editorialising about the freedom
of the Press. Honourable exceptions only show the others more starkly. Readers
struggle to find some meaningful news between pages of semi-clad starlets,
six-pack hunks, and front pages taken up with the current cricket match or
BCCI battle, the Bachchan family's latest trip to a temple, or Shilpa Shetty's
take on world harmony. Many media watchers, including from within the media,
have already admitted to the steady encroachment of froth into what should
be a serious and noble domain. But they do not allude to the real causes.
Some of it may be understandable in the era of the market and eyeball grabbing
commercialism. But it becomes another matter when it enters the political
spaces.
A recent Delhi High Court judgement made headlines
for attempting to define the parameters of investigative journalism, specifically
sting operations. The sad fact is that the state of journalism today is far
worse than demonstrated by the black brushes of stings alone. The Editor's
Guild and the National Broadcaster's Association have expressed dismay over
the judgement.
Self-regulation seems to be taking a long
time coming and it is not clear whether the entire Press would agree to commit
itself to the commonly laid-down guidelines or whether each would want to
push its own envelope to the edges to explore grey areas, as was famously
declared by the Kings of Stings at the Commission of Inquiry set up to explore,
among other things, the methodology of the sting operation itself after the
so-called defence expose of 2001. With injured innocence they squealed that
investigating their methodology for accuracy and ethics was like shooting
the messenger. No one has yet convinced the public that the all such messengers
have indeed done anything other than create sensational entertainment.
We engage with our newspaper like a trusted
friend that is expected to be faithful in its reporting, meticulous in its
quest for truth and accuracy, and be of unswerving integrity so that its credibility
is not compromised. If the Press Council and the Editor's Guild did a thorough
self-appraisal (maybe even some internal sting operations), they would be
surprised at how corrupted and biased the system has become.
