The question of media credibility and
freedom has emerged as a major theme in the run-up to the elections as all
parties – from Congress to BJP to Aam Aadmi Party – have alleged unfavourable
coverage as being the result of either ownership-induced biases or compromised
journalism. “Paid news” is now the favourite whipping boy of almost all
politicians. A few weeks ago, sting operations targeted at some opinion
pollsters added fuel to the fire, as it seemed that some of the polling
agencies were willing to doctor results up to a point. Since media channels are
big consumers of such election surveys, the charge of bias against this party
or that fits in well with the overall attack on “paid” media. And Kejriwal went
to town accusing everyone and his aunt of complicity. "The channels
such as Times Now, Headlines Today and India TV, which have used polls
conducted by these agencies…should offer an explanation and make full
disclosure to the public.” Not surprisingly, he also threw in a Modi angle:
“The country wants to know how much BJP and Modiji have paid to each channel
and opinion poll agency and for how long.”
On 10 March the boot was on the other foot
and Kejriwal found himself at the receiving end of criticism. Unedited clips of
an off-the-record discussion between Kejriwal and a TV anchor showed him
advising the latter on how his interview should be edited and played. The video
seemed to suggest a favourable nexus between him and the journalist concerned.
The video of Kejriwal has raised questions about the media. Screengrab from
Youtube The larger question is this: given these allegations and also the
reality that large parts of the media are owned by politicians, business houses
and even vested interests, how can Indian journalism ever be credible? As I
have noted before, the abuse that many senior journalists get on social media -
including Firstpost - is often the
result of readers/viewers being unable to believe that any story is the result
of honest journalism.
The answer lies in admitting to two shades
of grey – and a paradox at the heart of it all: there is individual bias and
compromise, and collective credibility. Example: it is well-known that Mukesh
Ambani has funded the promoters of Network18, which publishes Firstpost and
Firstbiz. So it is not unreasonable for the readership to presume that, at least
at the perceptional level, we cannot be completely free of bias when it comes
to reporting on Reliance or the Ambanis. However, the bias cuts the other way
too. The perception bias ensures that nothing remotely favourable to the
Ambanis or Reliance will ever be believed if published in our network. In fact,
the network has to go out of its way to prove it is unbiased – and may still
not be believed. It is clearly a no-win situation here. To find credibility, we
thus have to look beyond the obvious biases.
Credibility comes from individual and
collective biases cancelling each other out rather than by pretending that
absolute fairness and neutrality can exist in any medium. Even an individual
blogger who has no funding from any source and anything he wants may be clouded
by his own personal or ideological biases, overtly or covertly. Secondly, we
also have to doubt the assumption that somehow media can be reasonably
independent and credible and commercially viable at the same time.
Good journalism costs money; a serious
investigation into wrongdoing can swallow lakhs of rupees and months of
painstaking effort to bring to fruition. And there may still be few readers to
justify the cost. This can be paid for only by readers or advertisers. But how
many readers are willing to pay Rs 15 daily for a Times of India? How many
readers will read Firstpost if there is a monthly subscription? How many
advertisers will be willing to pay you good money if, at some point, they are
going to be targeted for their own wrongs? So let me repeat: Collectively media
can be credible by neutralising each other's biases, but individually we will
have limitations on perfect credibility. This is why people may watch CNBC even
though they know it is pro-business; they may watch Fox TV even though they
know it has a Christian/Conservative bias; in fact, Fox TV exists primarily
because a large chunk of the audience believes that mainstream American TV,
dominated by the Left Liberal consensus, is ignoring their version of the
truth.
So let’s be clear. Biases emanate from
multiple sources.
The first bias is the personal one. If you like Arvind
Kejriwal or Rahul Gandhi and I don't, our journalism will reflect our
respective biases. We may couch our writing with arguments this way or that,
but underlying it all will be our personal biases. Personal bias (predilection
would be my preferred word) cannot be eliminated, and often we would not be
human if we don't believe in anything or anyone. We have to live with it.
The second source of bias is related to how
journalism is funded. In India, there are many categories of funding sources.
Here are some of them.
1: Big business with surplus cash.
This is the main legitimate source of media
funding. The Aditya Birla Group has a stake in TV Today, the Reliance group has
funded the promoters of Network18 (publishers of Firstpost and Firstbiz)
through a trust, and Kotak Mahindra has a stake in Business Standard, and so
on. The inherent blind spot for these media houses is that they wouldn't be
seen as being objective about the activities of their financial backers. The
problem here is not the source of funding alone but perception.
2: Politically funded newspapers.
This is where the bulk of Indian journalism
gets tainted, because political funding is always the result of backdoor
funding - unless something is specifically designated as a party mouthpiece.
Media writer Vanita Kohli-Khandekar says that "more than a third of news
channels are owned by politicians or politico-affiliated builders. An estimated
60 percent of cable distribution systems are owned by local politicians."
These news organisations will have clear political biases, not to speak of
business biases where the business interests of their political patrons are
concerned. Most Indian politicians are also aligned to business interests.
3: Crooked money.
Given the size of India's black economy,
there are not enough legitimate businesses which can use these hidden cash.
Investing in media is one way to launder black money. Media investments are not
only small (for crooks, that is), but also have the ability to yield big
dividends in terms of political clout and respectability to owners. As Shekhar
Gupta wrote in The Indian Express: "If you have a couple of news channels
and newspapers, a few well known (and well connected) journalists as your
employees, give them a fat pay cheque, a Merc, and they solve your problem of
access and power. They also get you respect, as you get to speak to, and rub
shoulders with top politicians, even intellectuals, at awards and events
organised by your media group. It is the cheapest ticket to clout, protection
and a competitive edge."
4: Mainstream media houses helped by covert
compromises, even blackmail.
There are many legitimate media houses,
both in English and in regional media, that do regular journalism unaligned to
politics. But to make themselves viable, they use covert strong-arm tactics to
earn revenues. The Zee-Jindal case is alleged to be one such example, but it is
a well-known fact that many in the regional media play this game to stay
afloat. Their message to advertisers: "If you don't advertise, we may write
nasty things about you."
5: Formal alliances of media and business
interests.
In order to protect their commercial
interests, some media groups such as The Times of India have sections where
news is paid for, and advertisers are given private treaties that more or less
guarantee them some good publicity in return for advertising revenues. This
model has now been taken up by many other media houses and is no longer unique
to The Times of India. In any case, almost all publications create specific
sections just for the advertiser and call them marketing supplements, or advertiser-sponsored
supplements.
6: A ready source of rentals.
Some media houses that obtained cheap land
in the past from government are able to stay afloat by using rental incomes
from property. The Indian Express lives partly of incomes from its real estate
in Mumbai, and so does the Statesman. The Free Press Journal exists as a newspaper
only to legitimise the real estate interests of its owners. The short-point is
this: media is compromised in many ways, and credibility can only be a shade of
grey. But the media as a whole is more credible than the sum of its parts. One
medium’s biases are countered by the reverse biases of another. If you want
neutrality, read multiple media.
(Firstpost ).
No comments:
Post a Comment