Well, the circle is complete. Finally, (even?) Barkha Dutt started using the lingo of the (extreme?) right wing. Verbatim from her recent post is “And I certainly don’t see NDTV as either victim or crusader. Oh please. This is what is fake liberalism”.
She was taking on her former colleagues who apparently couldn’t stand against the management of the news outlet. Well, to be fair to all parties – it is always the call of the ‘editor’ to decide what would be published and what wouldn’t. Humans enjoy exercising a sort of authority over others and think it is their ‘power’. Editors of news outlets are always subjected to inducements to threats from all affected parties; be it thugs, thieves, officials, celebrities and of course our beloved netas. There was a time many political, philosophical thinkers used to publish their own newspapers. From Tilak’s Kesari, Gandhi’s Young India to Rajaji’s Swarajya, to CPI-M’s Ganashakti, to Maran’s Murasoli and Thackeray’s Samna and Ramoji Rao’s Eenadu, there were many newspapers that molded the public opinion – based on the thoughts of the editors.
There is a characteristic that successful editors often exhibit. Playing the god. The ever-powerful politicians are dependent on editors, especially during election times. However, in the good old days, people used to be a bit ethical about what they wrote. Then, the print media was relegated to the back with the advent of televisions that beamed news, analyses and debates into drawing rooms. Once economic reforms set in, the competition has grown manifold and so only TRP matters.
After all, people working in the media too are humans and are subjective to inducements. And, in the beautifully corrupt society we live in, politicians know how to pacify the egos of underpaid journos and fulfill their wants.
However, the problem started when media persons started believing they are way above the system and they could influence people and hence the elections. This “playing God” syndrome has affected the best of the professionals. Gone are the days when an editor had to starve to run the paper. Now, talent is available abundantly and at the drop of the hat, people are ready to change their opinions. Many of them recognize the fact that they only can propagate the public opinion, but they cannot create it. Yet, they pretend that they create public opinion only to lure clients who vary from corporates to politicians.
Once Cho Ramasamy said he is freer to criticize the government because he has nothing to lose, unlike Ramnath Goenka, who has other businesses too. But, when journalists turn into businessmen establishing media empires that are worth hundreds of crores, expecting them to be neutral and consistent in their reporting and analysis is foolish. Everyone is entitled to have their opinion, bias toward any theology, philosophy or even political affiliation. As long as one states his or her preference clearly and expound it, people consider it as their point of view. However, when one shouts from the roof top that he is “being neutral” and propagate a biased report, readers are bound to notice the discrepancy. Wise editors realize their limitations i.e., they only can further the people’s opinion but cannot create one on their own.
Narendra Modi’s Victory is a copybook case of limitations of a sustained campaign against an individual and how public forms their opinion against the writings of even the most noted newspapers. On the other hand, VP Singh rode to victory over Rajiv Gandhi using the support of newspapers that exposed the Bofors scam. It doesn’t mean media outlets are weak. They are strong in their own way. They only become weak when they try to be something other than what they are.
Politicians are clever species. At least far cleverer than the species that call themselves journalists. When a media outlet subscribes to the political thought of a particular party, it only shows an inclination of editor’s mind and not necessarily mean that he/she may derive any monetary benefits for his/her support unless the political party thinks there would be windfall gains. However, political outfits would scrutinize and select media outlets to represent and propagate their ideologies. And, here it is the influencing power and reach of the media house, be it a newspaper or a television channel or even an internet news website. When a political party supports a private media outlet, it is a pure business transaction with the sole aim of enhancing the electoral fortunes of the party.
Even if the media outlet is financially strong, individuals working in it remain individuals, each wanting to further their own self interests. Hence starts the nexus between politics and media starts. When the media outlet is small but effective, it is chosen for the simple business reason – cost effectiveness.
Some individuals from bigger enterprises would split and start their own ventures – of course, with political backing. Some survive, some don’t. Yet, most will make money that many would last for some generations. Well, that is the difference between journalists of bygone era and the ones we are observing from the nineties.
In a transaction with small enterprises, the media house will be exploited to every possible extent by the politicos. The small media venture would first feel the association as an acknowledgement for its success. Before the media house realises what is happening, the party takes control over it. The editor may not even realize when his ideology transformed into a political ambition, however small it may be. Well, then it would become a mouthpiece for the party. By the time the editor realises he was simply being used and abused, he would not be in a position to question the party and assert his independence. The moral authority and principles will be long gone. The pragmatism has taken over. In most cases, especially with people who are true to their ideologies, the monetary compensation was not sufficient, even to cover running costs.
The story culminates when the editor smokes in a small corner of a coffee house and shares his experiences to the next generation. He lives in nostalgia. He has only himself to curse. He knew he was good but was tricked into toeing the line. What does he realize? It was the party that needed the media outlet and not the other way. The media house had a reputation that was built over years, which was encashed by the party. But, the party made it sound like they did a favor to the media house by associating with it, which is a pure nonsense.
So, thus goes the story of media creed dominated by individual greed. Maybe whatever Barkha Dutt wrote of her NDTV colleagues – former and current, was correct. The point is everyone in that business knew of the nexus between press, politics and corporates. All media houses (NDTV included) have suppressed information and propagated wrong news. They did it as a service and disservice against both BJP and Congress, as and when it suited them.
What Barkha Dutt wrote about NDTV was not important. What Barkha Dutt omitted was critical. As a person, who figured in Radia tapes, did Barkha Dutt not know how NDTV was functioning? In eighties and nineties, newspaper reports never mentioned the religion of riot victims and one-sided statistics. If Barkha Dutt thinks NDTV is neither the victim nor the crusader, the same is applicable for entire media. When professionals start businesses, they are no more businessmen. Like her colleagues at NDTV, even Barkha Dutt doesn’t have any rights to talk about news censoring, political pressure etc. Political leaders emerge out of the society and so are journalists. In the great public life, all are under spot light and all are exposed in their bathing suits.
