t is
an unfortunate fact that both on television and in print the national
media seems to show an increasing tendency to ignore the problems of
working people, especially the peasantry and working class, and the poor
in general. Coverage, when it occurs, is superficial and episodic. But
what accounts for this bias? I think there are several distinct but
interrelated factors.
First, is the effect so-called market forces have on the
media. In general, the economics of the Indian media is driven by
advertising revenues. This, in turn, means that editorial content must
yield space to advertising because it is the latter which pays the bills!
So there is a problem of real physical space – column inches or minutes on
prime time – for all kinds of news. But excessive dependence on
advertisers also means that advertisers get to have a say in both the
content of specific news items (especially at particular moments of
controversy) and also in terms of whether the overall ambience created by
the news helps sell a product or not. And within this it is clear that an
advertiser would not like to have a commercial for his or her product
sandwiched by news of starvation, poverty, disease.
Second, the composition of the newsroom, particularly of
the English national news media and even the electronic vernacular
channels, leans heavily towards higher socio-economic demographic strata.
So there is also a sense in which the sensibility of the average
journalist may not really be attuned to the problems of the poor and
marginalised.
Third, the established political parties, the government
and those who wield economic and social influence play a very big role in
defining what constitutes "news". What the prime minister says or does,
for example, is always considered news. The same goes for statements and
decisions by captains of industry. But news of people’s struggles and
problems get dismissed as "activism", "NGOs" etc. We saw how farmers’
suicides were not considered news (except in The Hindu and a few
other papers) but when the prime minister travelled to Maharashtra there
was quite a bit of coverage. But as soon as the PM moved to other things,
so too did the news coverage. Hardly anyone took note of the fact that
farmers’ suicides actually increased after the visit.
So within the constraints of the market and of the social
demographics of the media there is also bias and lack of professionalism.
And I think these are the factors that account for vast aspects of the
lived experience of the majority of Indians being considered irrelevant as
far as "news" is concerned.
As far as your questions on page three kind of journalism
is concerned, I am not at all against media coverage for "society" events,
fashion shows, religious festivals and the like. Supplements exist
precisely to cater to sectional interests and as society becomes more
prosperous and variegated this is only to be expected.
Sadly, however, our supplements, instead of catering to
the diversity of tastes which we know exists, have become homogenised
around a shallow "golden mean" of celebrity news, gossip, astrology,
vastu and other obscurantist cults, and a certain kind of film writing
that has nothing to do with paying Bollywood the due it deserves. The same
is true for what passes as "spiritual" writing, which is more akin to pop
psychology than the exploration of philosophical issues and concerns.
And unfortunately, many of these kinds of things have
begun to invade
mainstream news spaces, further marginalising the problems and
concerns of the majority of Indians.
The Kalinganagar struggle (in Orissa) is an interesting
one and I’m glad you
brought it up. Not only was the horror of the massacre of the protesting
tribals played down – there was no live coverage, no breathless commentary
of the type even the smallest terrorist incident provokes – and even
though what followed was especially gruesome (the mutilation of the bodies
of the dead tribals by the police) there was virtually no coverage. The
reason I think Kalinganagar became a no-go area was because it came at the
intersection of three media blind spots
– first, the protest of poor marginalised people is not considered news;
second, allegations of wrongdoing by the security forces are almost always
ignored or played down whether they occur in Kashmir, the North-east or
against the tribals in Orissa, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and elsewhere;
third, the target of public opposition was an industrial project which the
media sees as India’s passport to economic development. So as an
institution, we have bought into the
myth that big business and the security forces can do no wrong, and that
in any case, the protest of some poor folk being displaced in some
"remote" part of the country is not news.
I don’t think global finance has played a role in the
Indian print media scene since other than on a very limited basis there is
no foreign capital in newspapers. As for television, I am not sure our
channels are so bad because of global finance. Star News is linked to
Murdoch and CNN-IBN and Channel 7 to the AOL-Time Warner, I suppose. But
the coverage of all channels is uniformly bad. But certainly, as the role
of domestic monopolies and global finance increase, I think all these
negative trends that I have spoken about will get magnified.
Can the Kherlanji case become a Jessica Lal or
Priyadarshini Mattoo case for the media? You know, I doubt it will. The
Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo
cases became middle class cause célèbres not just because the men involved
in the crime were powerful and influential but also because we as a middle
class society could identify with the victims. She was one of us, is what
every right-thinking person in Delhi would have thought when they heard
the shocking news of the acquittals of the killers of Priyadarshini and
Jessica. But when it comes to Kalinganagar or Kherlanji, there is not just
a remoteness of physical distance but also of caste and class that kicks
in.
Or even the BMW case. Had the Nanda boy killed "one of
us", I don’t think the case would have gone the shocking way it did. At
least not without the media kicking up a fuss. At the same time, I want to
clarify that being a middle class victim of a crime committed by a
powerful person does not now mean justice will be done. In our social
hierarchy, the politician and the policeman are still top of the pile. But
the Jessica and Priyadarshini cases have stripped them of a certain amount
of immunity enjoyed. This is a good thing. But as in these two cases I
would like to see our justified concerns being converted to all cases
where powerful offenders target the weak and defenceless, the Dalits,
Muslims and tribals. No doubt the media, including my paper, The Hindu,
have a big role to play in sensitising public opinion on this point.