Author: Kartikeya Tanna
Publication: Niticentral.com
Date: July 29, 2014
URL: http://www.niticentral.com/2014/07/29/new-york-times-knows-nothing-about-indias-media-politics-234856.html

The NY Times editorial of July 27, 2014 expressed concerns about India’s Press being under some sort of a siege. Quick and easy parallels were attempted to be drawn between Indira Gandhi’s censorship on the Press during Emergency and powerful private owners and politicians imposing censorship today.

The bland assertion that India’s Press is under siege has its challenges. Of course, media ownership does signify content of news reporting or tilt in opinions. If one wanted an objective analysis on gas pricing, Network 18 owned channels and outlets wouldn’t be the first choice given Reliance Industries Limited’s recent takeover.

That said, Network 18 outlets aren’t the only ones available for consumption!
As questionable as Network 18 channels’ reporting of gas pricing may likely be, equally questionable is the sudden outpour of outrage against corporate ownership of media. This tweet by Ashok Malik sums it up:
-----------------------------------
Ashok Malik
@MalikAshok
Corporate ownership of media only began this month. Before that journalism and journalists survived on love, fresh air and divine blessings
10.43 AM- 17 July 2014
-----------------------------------
To develop on Malik’s tweet, this isn’t the first time agendas have dictated news reportage and opinion. The decade-long vicious tirade against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in certain sections wasn’t immune to agendas. To prefer one over the other would be dishonest sanctimony.

What NY Times misses in its editorial are two things:

Firstly, it alludes to the phone calls between Niira Radia and “members of the media elite” to buttress a

“dismayingly cosy relationship” between corporates and media. Little later in the editorial, it appears to lament how Rajdeep Sardesai’s resignation shook the world of Indian television. Rajdeep Sardesai was very much a “member of the media elite”, in addition to several others, who is on tape with Niira Radia.
The editorial effectively laments the resignation of a “member of the media elite” who had a dismayingly cosy relationship” with a corporate lobbyist due to another corporate taking over the control of the company that owned CNN IBN!

This isn’t to say that calls with Radia alone offer proof beyond reasonable doubt of Sardesai (or other members of the media elite) being in a cosy relationship with corporates. But the bizarreness of the NYT editorial is writ large.

Secondly, it refers to DNA pulling off an article by Rana Ayyub which was critical of Amit Shah’s appointment as BJP President. Although DNA’s Digital Content head Harini hasn’t specifically explained why Ayyub’s column was taken down (her blog does not pinpoint any specific reason), there is no apparent indication that it was due to political or corporate pressure.

What is clear from the blog, though, is that it wasn’t pulled down because it was critical of Amit Shah. As Harini writes, DNA has run “far more scathing pieces by the author [i.e. Ayyub] on Shah and they are still online.”

What NY Times, and, indeed, much of the debate on Ayyub’s column misses is the fact that, apart from the usual attacks on Shah, it contained an utterly irresponsible and contemptuous allegation (that too, without any basis) on the judiciary of Bombay High Court. The insinuation in Ayyub’s column (which can be read here) is that Amit Shah managed with a ‘tried and tested formula’ of transferring judges and that he practiced that brazenly in Gujarat when he was the Home Minister.

This insinuation was subsequent to Special CBI judge JT Utpat’s transfer last month. Judge Utpat presided over the trial against Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case. He had also admonished Shah’s counsel for repeatedly giving an application for Shah’s exemption without any reason. Judge Utpat was transferred shortly after that. Therefore, Ayyub’s column, in a funny deduction exercise, insinuated that Shah had managed the transfer of that judge.

The fact, however, is that CBI court judges (as well as city civil judges) are transferred by the high courts of the appropriate state. In Judge Utpat’s case, it is the Bombay High Court (i.e., the Chief Justice and other judges handling administrative matters) which effectuated his transfer.

This is the recognised law and procedure for transfer of CBI court judges.

Moreover, as this Indian Express report points out, it was Judge Utpat himself who had earlier this year requested a transfer to Pune for his personal reasons. The report quotes Registrar General of the Bombay HC as stating that the HC often approves such requests and, along with Judge Utpat, three other judges had been transferred.

Was Ayyub trying to say Amit Shah got to the Chief Justice of Bombay HC with his “tried and tested formula” and managed the transfer of Judge Utpat? And if DNA pulled down a highly contemptuous column for such an insinuation on the judiciary (though not specified by Harini), does that amount to India’s Press being under siege?

NY Times needs to come up with a less lousy explanation to support its deductions and inferences on the muzzling of India’s Press.