Mumbai Terror and media’s forgotten role

TV channels drew much flak for going overboard covering the Mumbai terror live for more than 60 hours. The likes of Barkha Dutt, Rajdeep Sardesai, Arnab Goswami etc. etc. overworked to bring ‘exclusive’ reportage to the anxious audience. Does’nt matter, if they asked some silly questions to the relatives of those who were taken hostages inside Taj (like, ‘Are you worried?’). They made sure that their TRP ratings shot up by over 30 points in those 60 hours.
In the bargain, as critiqued widely, two important events were almost forgotten: elections in 3 states and the death of V. P. Singh (Unfortunately, he died at the wrong time). But one thing was clear: the attacks did not dither the voter from coming out to vote. In fact, the average across the states was 66 per cent, much higher than what it used to be earlier. And as the results show us, the voter came out defying all odds just to make sure that only the performer got elected. The BJP’s cashing in strategy on terror boomeranged, as the voter did not perceive terror as something that concerned only the ruling party. All this shows that that the voter has become more intelligent and choosy. No party, thus, is a frontrunner in the coming Lok Sabha elections.
Coming back to the live media coverage of Mumbai terror: It was sheer loss of professionalism on the part of Indian TV channels. They threw all caution to the wind and reported as if they were the only heralds of hope for those trapped inside and waiting anxiously outside, not to mention millions of hungry viewers all over. All norms of broadcast journalism were forgotten, at least for sometime. Their main concern seemed to be only TRP ratings and nothing else.
Compare this with the reportage of BBC network. They too went live to a certain extent; but they never gave a feeling of a loss of balance anywhere. Granted, that they were a foreign channel and that they did not have as much stake in the Mumbai terror as Indian channels did. But such stakes need not overburden you to be melodramatic and, in some cases, even to the extent of loss of voice. It is true that reporters too are human and, perhaps, most of them were covering such terror live for the first time. But, whatever happened to those long years spent in training, learning news values, social responsibility, sense proportion and so on? It is indeed unfortunate how journalists conveniently forget fundamental theories of journalism when it comes to competition.
Media sets agenda and manufactures consent. This was proved decades ago by Walt Lippman, Noam Chomsky and others. The coverage of the Mumbai attacks was a fascinating example corroborating these theories. The audience was made to believe that Taj and Trident were more important (national icons!) and CST was just another railway station. We were also told that it was an attack on Indian economy. But does our economy depend only on a miniscule filthy rich people who frequent such avoidable hotels?
A quick final comment: over the last five years or so, more than ten thousand farmers have committed suicide, owing to debt and other reasons, in Maharashtra alone. But that tragedy does not seem to be a worthwhile issue for the TV channels. However, lives lost in Taj and Trident are deeply mourned. Does it mean that some lives are more valuable than others? It is true that all terror attacks should be condemned and that we cannot condone the violence that takes its toll on hundreds of innocent civilians. But all lives are equally precious and hence must be given equal waitage, if not intensity. A farmer’s life is as important as the life of a wealthy man dying in the Taj or a police official dying while fighting terrorists at CST. We can only hope media will learn from their mistakes.

Terror attacks and the symbolic message

This has not been the first time; and it may not be the last time either. The scenes are becoming that much more routine and common. In the last seven months or so over 500 people have been killed – most of them innocent civilians – in merciless terror attacks in major cities like Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Guwahati, Malegaon and now once again Mumbai, by both Islam and alleged Hindu terrorists.
The audacity with which these terror attacks are carried out is one angle to these rampant strikes. What is even more shocking and terrifying, especially in the present Mumbai terror, is the obvious message that comes alive as a powerful symbol: India is a haven for terrorists and easy target to vent someone’s anger on someone else. The almost complete failure of Indian intelligence during this terror strike can only further destroy the faith of common man in the State. The life of common man has come to naught, what with he/she finding no security anywhere. Indeed it is surprising that the Mumbai city which is on the shore of the sea had such poor security with hardly any coast guards or security agents at important places like the India Gate, that the terror outfits could sneak in so casually and hold the entire city to ransom.
If we look around the world and see we should further be troubled to learn that no other country, including Pakistan, has had so many and such brutal terror strikes in the recent past. The USA had one major attack – the 9/11. That’s it. After that no one ever heard of any kind of terrorism in that country. Similar was the case in the U.K. After minor terror strikes in 2001 and Glagow international airport car bombings in June 2007, no one heard of terrorists holding the cities to ransom. Only in India can such terrorism be meted out on innocent civilians and how. This is because the powers that be are either afraid to act or they do not have the political will to respond. They did care, of course, about themselves – when the Parliament was attacked on December 13, 2001. Democracy was under attack, they said, as though democracy contained only in the stony Parliament structure and had nothing to do with civilians.
It is now or never. Unless the state acts immediately, these strikes will only increase. Terrorists, whoever they are, have to get a strong message that India and Indians cannot be an easy prey for their hate mongering. Passing anti-terror laws like the POTA and MCOCA will not deter the terrorists from carrying out their sinister designs. What India, at this stage needs is stringent security measures in places of high human activities like railway stations, bus shelters, government offices and also market places. Further, we cannot fight the disease by fighting the symptoms. One needs to go to the root of the problem and see why India is an easy target for the militants. Our think tank has to deliberate seriously, pooling together the resources of the experts in the subject and then act accordingly. Only thus can the terrorists get a strong message and not otherwise. The common people are not asking authorities to provide them with z type of security. What they are just asking is to at least keep cities and towns safe for them to freely move around. If the state cannot do even this much, then it has indeed no credibility to be in power. The common man only hopes that the honourable Home Minister will at last take this wake up call seriously.
As for the media, it was a heyday of sorts. What one viewed on TV, as described by the anchors, may not have been the actual scene on ground zero, even if it was tense and frightening. What one saw throughout the day on TV was melodrama and great work of dramatics doled out by the TV journos. Of course, electronic media is all about dramatisation as journalists there are expected to describe and visualise news. But we till now thought that it was not to be melodramatic and Bollywood style narration. With Barkha Dutts and Rajdeep Sardesais and Arnab Gosamis vying with one another for viewers’ attention, you could only forgive them their misdemeanor.

Power politics and a not-so-sure media

Politics is always about power. But Indian politics is also about power at any cost. That is the message the common people receive always. This time around, it was more vivid than ever. Indian politicians – well, most of them – are concerned about power and only about power and nothing else. They do not seem to be concerned whether people are killed or cities and towns are being burned down by militants.
Take a few examples of recent past: there was a clear case of booking Raj Thakre under the National Security Act. He has already over 80 cases registered against him. This time, though, he went about fearlessly inciting violence and challenging the government to arrest him at its own cost. But the Vilasrao government was not interested in acting tough. Arrest him they did. But we knew it was a token arrest. The reason is obvious. The Congress party does not want Raj Thakre to stop his pranks, as he is a threat not so much to the ruling coalition as the Shiv Sena itself. It is just trying to use Raj Thakre as a weapon to wipe out Shiv Sena from Maharashtra, as they drove away the left parties using Bal Thakre in the seventies. However, it has not been an easy task for them, as the North Indians form a major part of their vote bank. Raj Thakre for them seems a greater choice than North Indians.
Another clear example is the recent Assam blasts and how political parties tried to cash in on them. No sooner was the State rocked by terror attacks than opposition party leader L. K. Advani began the blame game, holding Bangladeshi militants responsible for the blasts. Our politicians, it seems, have an unimaginable sixth sense which can get to know the cause of incidents even before they can be investigated. While it is true that the UPA government is slow on terror, taking into consideration the possible alienation of a community (their vote bank), it is also unfair on the part of the BJP to terrorise a community, holding it responsible for all the terror in the country.
Unfortunately for the BJP, it had to face the turn of events. And it was a very embarrassing situation as well, to see one of the hardcore VHP leaders being arrested in connection with the Malegaon blasts. It is interesting to see how BJP leaders are trying to hold their nerves together and putting up a brave face. “Let the law deliver justice; but let us not try and accuse someone when investigations are underway,” they say. But the Rudys, the Ravi Shankar Prasads and their ilk have no problem delivering ‘justice’ to those arrested from other communities, even before they being convicted by court.
Media, especially the English press, have given quite good coverage to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. However, media are in a piquant situation. Till now they used the terminology ‘Islamic terrorists’ or ‘suspected Islamic terrorist’, almost associating terrorism with Islam. But they have been slow to use the phrase ‘Hindu terrorist’ or not even ‘suspecting’ Hindu terrorists. Terrorists are terrorists, irrespective of their religion. Media seem not to be sure as regards Hindu terrorists and are waiting for the court to decide it. This only means that media are being very partisan as regards terrorists.

Politics of violence

It was indeed quite a sight to watch Navin Pathnaik, the Orissa Chief Minister, grilled mercilessly by Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN in the Devil’s Advocate programme. Only Thapar can do what he is best at: ask straight forward, relevant and challenging questions, without mincing words. Earlier, several leaders, including L. K. Adwani and Ram Jethmalani have walked out of Karan’s programmes, finding him impossible. Fortunately, Pathnaik withstood the ‘onslaught’, even as he fretted, frowned and almost sweated it out in the confines of the air-conditioned studio.
What one has to admire is Pathnaik’s resolve and consistency throughout the interview, denying allegations that not even the minimum was done to protect Christians when they were attacked in Orissa. He went on to say that everything possible was done to stop violence. However, one cannot still understand why Christians are living in such fear in Kandhamal and neighbouringdistricts. One even fails to reason why the government is shying away from acting tough on those who are out to destroy Christians in Orissa, even after such international pressures. There have been reports of hundreds being converted (not re-converted, for they were not Hindus but tribals before accepting Christianity) to Hinduism by force. And if conversion by force is a crime, why not punish these self-styled protectors of Hinduism? Why this double deal?
The answer lies not so much in the communal as the political angle of the development. Parties have realised that one of the best way to come to power and stay there is to polarise people on communal lines, kill some if you must and sow the seeds of hatred among the dominant class. Modi did it to near perfection in Gujarat . He is the model for most political parties, even as some of them do not wish to accept it openly. Raj Thakre is doing that in Mumbai. Unfortunately, the Congress and several other so called secular parites have their own agenda and hence are ambivalent as far as taking a clear stand on Hindutva politics is concerned.
We pride in calling ourselves the largest democracy. But I think we need to ask ourselves whether this democracy on which we have placed our trust is able to give all citizens security guaranteed by the Constitution. Why should some live in eternal fear while others roam about fearless terrorising and killing people? Why is that political parties, including the ‘secular’ ones, care little about people, especially the poor, when they call themselves public servants? The answer is very simple: altruism may be a pan-Indian virtue, propagated in our religious heritage; but that is not a virtue to be imitated as regards modern politics is concerned. Most of today’s political parties, including the Left, have compromised heavily on ideologies and are busy strengthening their base at any cost. While the Congress tries its traditional means of wooing subalterns and minorities, the BJP is anti-intellectual and playing, as usual, its Hindutva card. The Left are Marxists on paper. But their recent adventures in Singur and Nadigram only prove the fact that they are out to convert Marxism into neo Capitalism. Meantime, Media are content to maintain the status quo instead of critically evaluating such developments.

A Wednesday - the arrival of the common man

Is anybody taking the common man seriously? R. K. Laxman’s common man in Times of India is merely a mute spectator to everything that happens around him. Perhaps he is wise as he knows that talking may not help much in easing uneasy situations.
But the common man in the film A Wednesday is not dumb. In fact, throughout the film he talks the most, and rightly so; because his only desire is that he be taken seriously. For long he has been kicked around like a soda can on the streets. No more! Now he has risen, with vengeance. So what if his means are unethical and too technical? His ultimate aim is quite clear, at least to him. And for that he is ready to take a risk. His worth is acknowledged at the end by the web hacker who accepts that this common man is ‘the best’.
A Wednesday raises many questions. Does not the common man have any other means to make his presence felt than hold the entire city to ransom? Does he require ‘blackmailing’ as his weapon to announce his arrival? Does he think he can thus clean up the mess around him? When Inspector Rathod tells him on his face that he is a coward, afraid to come in the open and fight, the common man has no issues. He quite plainly accepts that he is afraid. But more afraid is he to go to market, catch a suburban train; for he thinks he is not safe anymore. He does not know when the next bomb will go off. He is made to be resilient, not by choice but by force.
Is the common man taken seriously, at least in the film? For a while, yes. There is no other choice. One cannot take risk with situations where lives of thousands of people are involved. So he is taken seriously, not as a common man, but as a supposed terrorist. But whether he succeeds in representing all common people is a further intriguing question.
A Wednesday indeed is a good film with a simple but effective plot. Neeraj Pandey has done a commendable job; so have the actors, especially Naseeruddin Shah as the common man and Anupam Kher as the Inspector. The main plus point of the film is that it makes the audience think. The hapless common man among the audience who has witnessed the mindless terror attacks in the bylanes and subways will surely identify himself with the common man in the film. It will further give him a cathartic effect. For a while, the common man in the audience might as well think that the path chosen by the common man in the film to tackle terrorism could as well work, what with technology coming handy. But whether technology can be a solution for all evil in the world and whether an ordinary common man has the access to such sophisticated, almost out-of-reach, technology is even more difficult question.
One thing, though, is certain. The film makes a bold statement from the perspective of simple ordinary people – do not take us for a ride; take us seriously. Give us a sense of security which is what we are asking for, not your empty promises.

Media becoming communal?

“Journalists say a thing that they know isn't true, in the hope that if they keep on saying it long enough it will be true.” - Arnold Bennett

People being divided on communal lines, though unfortunate, is nevertheless acceptable. Political parties sadistically trying to get political mileage out of communal politics, though difficult to accept, is still understandable; for, at the end of the day a politician will only look for his survival in the political fray.
But how can we understand journalists and media professional openly declaring their communal ‘credentials’? This is exactly what has been happening in Mangalore in the last few weeks. Very many reporters were indirectly, if not directly, involved in some sort of communal tension. There were also reports of reporters actually abetting communal violence. However, greater violence was done through their reportage. At least a few of them had the audacity to put the entire blame on the Church. They were resistant to at least accept that violence on minorities, on whichever pretext, was not acceptable in a democracy.
Why is such a development taking place among media professional? Do these journalists also experience some sort of insecurity that they need to align to some political party or communal organisation? Or do they slavishly accept the order of their superiors? It could be both. But the question is how can we call all that journalism? Reporters are supposed to be objective, at least when it comes to reporting sensitive issues. They are not to show any leaning to any political party. All that is good wisdom; but in reality, there is nothing called objectivity in journalism anymore. If one has to be objective one has to give up all adjectives. If a reporter calls a murder ‘brutal’ he is already giving his opinion. Or if a reporter terms Bishop Moras’s interaction with the CM as ‘lambasting’, we cannot call it objective, as Bishop may not have lambasted the CM. He may have just voiced his concern, of course, with a little impatience and anger.
So objectivity is relative. Nevertheless, objectivity should necessary be the ultimate goal of a journalist and he/she should strive to be objective at every beat.
What we have seen in the reportage of Karnataka violence is a subjective approach by many reporters, increasingly adding subtle comments to their reports. There was this lady of a news channel. After covering the Mangalore incident on one of those days, she added an unsolicited comment, ‘Unless there is serious rethinking on conversion, such incidents can only repeat,’ (or to that effect). First of all, has she to add her ‘wise’ comments in a report that is so sensitive? Secondly, who has given her the authority to evaluate constitutional rights? Thirdly, has someone told her that such violence will continue? Or is she just making an assumption? Is she aware that a communal force viewing her ‘report’ could get carried away? This was not only poor reporting; it was irresponsible and disgusting, to say the least.
Swapandas Gupta of the Times of India has a strong BJP allegiance, which everybody knows. But at least as a journalist he has the moral obligation to commit himself first to good journalism. However, he had no qualms in wholeheartedly endorsing Modi, even when the whole nation knows that it was because of him that three thousand Muslims were lynched in Gujarat. Journalism is just getting murkier.
Channels and newspapers were full of such stuff, though they did give a wide coverage to communal turmoil in the country. It is not news today to know that communal elements are increasingly spreading their tentacles within the newsroom. This development is mainly due to the fact that people from lower strata of society and the minority communities are either not getting into journalism or they are not given freedom to do objective reporting. We do require many more journalists from these communities in today’s media. One cannot expect a dominant class to be objective, especially when it comes to issues of dalits and minorities. We need more dalits and those from minority communities to do that.

The price of communal politics

The pattern is continuing. First it was Gujarat in 2002. Madhya Pradesh and Orissa followed suit. Now the State sponsored violence has come to Karnataka. One does not require great reasoning to make sense of the developments. Various statements that our ‘great’ leaders are making are a good-enough proof to illustrate the point.
The Bhajrang Dal, the Vishwa Hindu Parishat and the RSS do not need any reason to carry out their hate campaign against minorities. For sometime, it was Muslims. Just now Muslims are given a break. Christians have obviously become their bête noir. Who knows? Once they are fed up with Christians, they may go to Dalits. (In fact, Dalits have long been their target anyway.) Fascists basically thrive on annihilating everyone else, except themselves. What they do not realise is what they will do when everyone is gone!
Coming to ‘conversion’ – an age old issue. In fact, this is not an issue for debate at all, even if the BJP claims it as important. The Constitution of India has clarified it quite clearly (A 25). So how can the Bhajrang Dal assume responsibility to be the custodian of anti-conversion process? How can a bunch of hooligans represent an entire Hindu religion, which in fact, is an umbrella religion, and which has a rich tradition of being a tolerant religion? One does not require a scientific analysis to judge the hidden, but political, agenda of the BJP.
The media have indeed given quite a bit of coverage to the hate campaign in the State. However, what media have rather failed to understand is the clear and pretty open political motifs behind the violence. The sole purpose of such aggressive and systematic violence against Christians is merely to communalise regions and communities and polarise voters on the basis of divisive politics, to be able to garner enough votes in the coming elections.
Barring a couple of newspapers, no media institution has given space and time to go behind the developments and bring out the truth. This may be either because they are scared or they do not care. Further, whatever coverage they have given looks stereotyped, with a couple of news channels even subscribing to the false allegation of the issue of conversion. What many newspapers and channels have failed to observe and strongly condemn is the fact that these attacks on Christians have been unleashed with the total support and encouragement of the ruling party. It is only because of this that the State chief of the Bhajrang Dal, Pramod Kumar, has the audacity to claim responsibility publicly and even encourage such violence, caring a hoot to the secular fabric of our Constitution, much less the legal system.
Again, after a few days media institutions will forget the whole issue, without carrying out a meaningful debate on the malicious, divisive politics of the State government. Media, in the long run, will, of course, be held responsible for not creating a meaningful and all-important public opinion on communal politics and brining about awareness among the public.

Channels have forgotten Orissa

Great writer Mark Twain was the one who said, “In the real world, nothing happens at the right place at the right time. It is the job of journalists and historians to correct that.”
But the question is, are the journalists seriously engaged in this social responsibility entrusted upon them by their very profession?
Take for example the Orissa episode. It has been nearly 15 days since the communal violence broke out in Kanadhmal and neighbouring districts of Orissa. And there are no signs of the violence coming to an end. Sporadic violence, burning of churches and houses is continuing unabated. According to a report, over 50,000 people, mostly tribals and dalits, are still hiding in the jungles, deeply scared to come out, fearing insecurity. The question is, even if they come out where will they go? Their houses are burnt to ashes. With houses their faith in the authorities, the government officials and the police is also shaken. So they seem to find nowhere to go.
It is indeed a mystery why the State is taking such a long time to address the situation head on. The Supreme Court had to order the State machinery to act, to be tough on those who disrupt law and order situation in the State and give protection to the minorities. Still the State seems to be going very slow, even as it is speaking ‘tough’.
Coming to the point, the Orissa violence seems to have suddenly disappeared from the media, especially the electronic media. Last four days the leading channels of the country had nothing to report on Orissa during prime time news bulletin. One got an impression that the situation in the State had come to normalcy. But sadly, that was not the case. News coming from ground zero said that the violence was still looming large and the situation was tense. But channels said nothing. This is a very sad development of modern mass media. Reporting is also about doing the follow up. No channel seemed to be serious in doing that. For a couple of days the channels did report from places most hit by violence. Then, of course, they were silent. One frantically searched the internet to see what was happening.
The newspapers did have some courtesy reporting to do every day, but buried in the inner pages, drawing less attention.
Indeed one becomes suspicious about the whole development in the media circles. Why is that even when things are not going right, they have nothing, or hardly anything, to say about such a grim reality as the threat to the secular fabric of our country? Is it because they are afraid? Or they do not care? Or is it because they think this is nothing unusual and that they have ‘better’ developments to cover?
At least the media have miserably failed in making the State accountable to the failure of law and order situation. The Navin Patnaik government is treading as though everything was normal. They are more concentrated on the coming elections and keen to exploit the volatile situation. In the real world, it is true that nothing is happening at the right place and at the right time. Sadly, though, the journalists and the media institutions are also scantly bothered to correct it. May be because, nothing right is happening for them these days.

Orissa violence, a threat to secularism

Christens have been targeted by communal forces in the State of Orissa like never before. One fails to understand how fundamentalists can stoop to such animalistic levels of barbarism perpetrating so much violence on innocent civilians – mostly tribals and poor villagers. Has humanity lost all its sense of judgement and discretion, one wonders. Fundamentalists in Orissa are just proving to be what famous political philosopher Thomas Hobbes termed the human being as: savage, barbaric and cruel.
For the media, of course, these are hay days. There is so much to cover and so little time and space. Jammu and Kashmir is burning, Bihar is flooded and now Orissa is communally divided. But ‘plenty’ can upset the balance at times. That is exactly what has happened if one closely follows the media coverage.
One might claim that the communal violence in Orissa is an attack on a minority community. Such a feeling is true to a certain extent. But I think it is much more than that. It is an assault on the secular and plural constitutional values of India. The violence is a symbolic of the intolerant and sinister designs of communal forces to perpetuate communal hatred among gullible people, thus seriously tarnishing the identity of a democratic country. In no way can such attacks be justified and perpetrators’ actions condoned. There is an agonising sense of insecurity and fear among minorities across States and one really wonders if the State is bearing any responsibility.
The Orissa developments have received quite a bit of coverage across media – both print and electronic. While some newspapers highlighted the violence on front pages, others treated it in the inner pages. Several dailies carried editorials condemning the attack on minorities. Such a stand of the print media was heartening.
Across electronic media, though, there was palpable lack of priority amply displayed. One news channel gave it a third priority in its prime-time news bulletin. JK hostage crisis received as much as 10-minute coverage, while Orissa violence less than three minutes. (Perhaps there was greater ‘news value’ in JK). In terms of importance and urgency, Orissa communal clashes should have received better coverage, as secularism was at stake.
Moreover, electronic media reporters looked cynical in their approach. There was this anchor who asked Fr Babu Joseph, CBCI spokesperson, whether closing down of educational institutions would not incite further violence. He called the closing of institutions as ‘unfortunate’. What is so unfortunate about a silent protest is indeed a mystery. Further, can mindless violence for any reason justified is for anyone to decide.
Priority, sadly, does not appear as a news value in Journalism books on news values. It is high time that we included it, so that the future media professionals learn to prioritise issues and send right messages among readers and viewers.

Abhinav strikes gold and media glitters

So finally India has won a gold medal in Olympics. The whole country is in such a jubilant mood that hardly anyone noticed India’s series loss to Sri Lanka in cricket. The gold that Abhinav Bindra has won has not only created history but has turned the mood of the country. At least for the time being, people, including Abhinav’s parents are not complaining about India’s dismal training facilities and politics in sports. All are celebrating India’s first ever individual gold in Olympics.
As expected, media went berserk giving more than due importance to the event. There were copious reports and photographs dotting the front pages of most newspapers with dramatic layouts and designs. Most news channels covered the event the whole day and more. Most part of the prime time news was devoted to Abhinav, with reports of his hard training, state-of-the-art facilities provided to him by his father, the unassuming nature of the gold medalist himself and so on.
Why not? Media were doing the right thing. Even if they were going overboard, for the time being, at least, they could definitely be excused. No one is really complaining about the media this time, as every one wants to know about Abhinav.
Granted that media normally are falls in love with winners. Losers have very little space and time devoted to them. Even that can be accepted as well. But it is sad and a difficult matter to accept that media do not have space and time even for the fighters. It is only now, after he has won the gold that the whole country has come to know who Bindra is. It is only now that we know the efforts that he has put in. Media had no time or space to tell us the fighting sprit in such people.
Winning or losing is part of the game. But what makes the difference is the fighting sprit of the athletes, the hard work that they put in and the amount of sacrifices they make. Such efforts sure have to be given their due place by the media. It is only through such ways that the younger generation can be inspired and motivated. Sadly, media do this only for the winners. Losers and fighters are rarely noticed by them. No wonder, India Today magazine once made a rather ‘candid’ acknowledgement as regards its inability to put Vishwanathan Anand on their covers when he failed to win the World Chess Championship. The editor said, “Only winners make covers”. Perhaps Anand took serious notice of that statement. The very next year he won the same championship in style and he was on India Today’s covers. When fighters also make covers India can expect more medals in the years to come.

Bombs and media blast

Last week was a week of panic and terror for the whole country. There seemed to be bombs everywhere. Suddenly people felt they were not safe anywhere. Bombs exploded in buses, bus-shelters, near shopping malls, in parks and, sadly, even in hospitals. So which was the safe place? No place was safe, no one was safe. That was the message picked up by the people after the bomb blasts occurred in Bangalore and Ahmedabad.
Media were, as usual, agog with wide coverage of the twin blasts. News channels had no other news, except the terror news in two states, for several days. Further, they were also quick to make equations and draw conclusions on the pattern of terror – that it happened only in BJP-ruled states. So a high alert was sounded by the Media, to start with. Accordingly, other BJP-ruled states went dizzy beefing up security measures.
Such equations seemed far too pre-matured. In fact, the two blasts that happened may not have had any immediate connection with each other. When all attention is concentrated somewhere else, terrorists have their job easy. That is how the strategy may have worked.
But there was another issue; that was media’s carelessness exposed abundantly those days. On the first day most channels were in a way responsible in creating panic among people by airing all the while only the blasts in Bangalore. They had no other news. Though the blasts were of low intensity, the channels made them look really serious and enormous. Because they aired only that news, the whole city was in panic. Everything came to a standstill, at least for sometime, when terror struck Bangalore.
The next day, however, when there were blasts in Ahmedabad, Bangalore was totally forgotten, left to fend for itself. Channels spared not even a few minutes doing a follow up. That was not their concern, at least on that day, as they had a bigger pie to savour. It is unfortunate; but it is a fact that media always look for stories to ‘appease’ their audience and keep themselves afloat in the market of cutthroat competition. In the bargain, of course, audience is left to wonder at the media dynamics that are at work.
A couple of days later, however, channels came up showing the resilience of the people of both cities. They had high praise for these people. They said that in general people in all metros were highly resilient. What else can those people do? Can they lock themselves inside their houses for days? Life in a metro is tough for common people. Unless they work hard everyday they have to worry about their next meal. Media may call it resilience; but people would rather term it their fate; their daily struggle.

The deal and the ‘deal’

The nuclear deal is not only causing tremors in government circles, it is also having its aftereffects on the media as well. Expectedly, most media organisations have stopped discussing anything else except the ‘deal’. Hence channel after channel is inviting the same leaders to discus, debate and fight it out (literally).
We sometimes fail to understand as to why several channels are fond only a few politicians. Abhishek Singhvi (Congress), Rajiv Pratap Rudy (BJP), Ravi Shankar Prasad (BJP), A. Raja (CPI), Jayanti Natarajan (Congress), Shahid Siddiqui (formerly SP, now BSP) are all favourite of many a channel. But there is no guessing. Their oratory and argumentative skills apart, these leaders can argue their cases well, even against their convictions. A classical case was that of Shahid Siddiqui. He defended the deal tooth and nail in several news channels, only to oppose it a few days later. He thus went to the extent of deserting the party by joining hands with BSP.
Channels like NDTV and Times Now know very well that whenever there is Pratap Rudy, the debate heats up. Rudy is known for his abrasive acumen, where he lacks immensely the decency to allow others to speak. He can argue his case only with certain concocted ‘facts’ which he can present with utmost rhetoric. He further has the uncanny knack to silence the opponent with his curt but illogical remarks. His very presence can stimulate heated discussions, simply because he speaks more from the pigment of his imagination. And with another argumentative Indian like Abhishek Singhvi around the place, there is assurance of sensational debates – whether they are worth all the time and money is a further debatable issue.
So here are media institutions, falling head over heels to urge leaders to come to their studios to discuss the deal. No one, of course, is introspecting as to the ultimate usefulness of such an important debate. That the media, in general, are in favour of the deal is a fact well known. But brining in leaders with vitriolic oratory can add up rich dividends in terms of advertisements and TRP ratings. So no channel wants to forego the ‘deal’ with politicians.
Meantime audience, of course, is fed up seeing the same faces time and again, listening to same arguments from more or less the same people. The issue is the same; unfortunately, those debating the issue also are the same. What does the common man feel about the whole debate, we hardly know. I think to know that we need to wait for the next elections, which may be just round the corner.

Reality show is not so real

Sometimes it is indeed a wonder and a mystery as to how these kids are able to withstand so much pressure of this modern cruel world of reality shows. Children are made to behave like adults. They are asked to perform like adults by the show-men (and women, of course). In the bargain precious childhood which is supposed to be so much fun is lost for good.

The 16-year old Shinjini Sengupta is just one of such many teenagers who today are lured by their parents and relatives into becoming celebrities. She was allegedly reprimanded for poor dance by one of the judges of a reality show hosted by a Bengali channel for . Consequently she fell ill, taking the remarks seriously. They have affected her psychologically.
Shinjini may not even have had any freedom to say a firm ‘No’ to the demands. Perhaps, she was made to believe that becoming a celebrity at her age was the best thing that could have happened to her. So she was caught in the trap of illusions and over-ambitions even before she could realise. Now it is a bit too late to introspect as she is battling for her life in the NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore.
There is nothing real about reality shows that every channel is airing at will these days. Reality show is another name for making life miserable. We know what had happened to Shipla Shetty in UK. Some might call it racism; but it is much more than that. Reality shows, in general, demand that you be a superhuman, possessing extra thick skin and a strong heart to be free of any emotions and feelings. To be more precise, I do not think the demands of reality shows are fair enough for ordinary mortals, especially children.
Indian channels are famous for doing a copy-cat of Western channels, especially of USA and UK. There seems to be very little original in terms of programming and creativity. Any show that gains popularity in the West is immediately re-made in Indian channels. ‘Who wants to be a millionaire’ ‘Are you smarter than a 5th grader’ are some of the many reality shows that have been ‘lifted’ into Indian channels. In the last few years there have been sporadic increase in the number of dancing and music reality shows on many entertainment channels. Many of them are children-centred and have become popular, but at a very costly price.
It is a big question whether children have the wherewithal to withstand the demands of their studies on the one hand and the reality show on the other. Shinjini’s case has grabbed media attention because she has been affected psychologically and physically; but media do not report anything about all those scores of children who are silently suffering the demands and over-ambitions of their parents who cajole them to become ‘famous’. We also do not get to know what happens to their studies and their childhood owing to reality shows. Media are too busy with trivial things that they have little time to address these issues. The ‘shows’ will continue unhindered until another Shinjini falls prey and then media will wake up, at least for a while.

The glamour of price rise

There have been several major issues that have taken place during the last few months over which the Government had very little control. The whopping inflation though was mainly due to the hike in petrol and diesel prices, was a global phenomenon. The impasse of Indo-American Nuclear Deal was due to because of the unrelenting behaviour of the Left parties.
Take for example the rise in crude oil prices; it was an international development and was caused by the stalemate between OPEC and the developed countries, USA in particular. It was a foregone conclusion that with fuel prices going up, prices of most commodities too would rise, as transport takes a toll on both retail and wholesale pricing. So what could the Government really do?
The Media, however, showed scant sympathy for the Government. They made it look like a political issue, having hardly anything to do with bad economics. The Media instantly began talking about the impending general elections instead of suggesting ways and means to curb the price rise and the inflation. Electronic media gave graphic presentations of how price rise had put pressures on common man and woman. So the camera tilted and panned in the kitchen presenting close up shots of less pappads and puris being fried in the boiling oil. But common man and woman for the media were those living in sky-rise apartments and bungalows and not people living in subways and slums.
Thus, we got very little to know as to how the price rise had affected over 30 per cent of people living with one dollar a day. Or, has it affected them at all? They were in penury anyway. So there was hardly any ‘glamour’ in focusing on the misery already existing. There was better ‘sense’ in brining apartments on to TV screens, as that is where you will find most commodities whose prices have risen steeply – LPG, edible oil and basmati rice – and not in god-forsaken villages where they are a rarity. Villages do not have cable connection. So news channels do not find the ‘usefulness’ of rural coverage as that will not fetch them TRP ratings.
One TV channel, though, said that the poor were not really affected as prices of essential commodities such as some vegetables, daal and some other pulses had, in fact, come down. That was indeed a grave misconception. The most essential commodities for the poor are rice, wheat and millet whose prices have gone up by over 15 per cent in the last one year. Perhaps there is some glamour in distorting reality and make it look normal or more than satisfactory. Remember India Shining?

Dying for media glare

Two unnatural deaths – one a murder, the other a suicide – rocked the media in the last one month. Not all murders and suicides attract media attention. Hundreds of farmers have committed suicide in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra in the last few years and the media have rendered minimum attention to them. But Arushi Talwar’s murder in Noida and Karnataka MLA Raghupati Bhat’s wife Padmapriya’s suicide in a Delhi Apartment grabbed far too much media glare.
Media thrives on crime and sensational stories. They have, unfortunately, become the staple of media institutions. In fact, many of them thrive on such stories; and when there aren’t any happening, media have no qualms in creating something sensational out of nothing.
It is over a month since the murder of Arushi Talwar took place. But the whole episode refuses to cool down - at least in the media. There was not a single day since that fateful occurrence when news channels did not telecast some ‘twist’ and given some different ‘angle’ to the story. A couple of channels even crossed the limit by conducting their own hypothetical investigations, putting the police into ‘shame’. One channel conducted an interview with Nupur Talwar, mother of Arushi. The anchor grilled her into making some controversial statements, but to no avail.
Solving murder mysteries these days seem to be a Herculean task for the police department and the CBI. The media are making their job that much tougher by following them everywhere to get some ‘bytes’. In the bargain the whole issue becomes more complex than they can ever imagine. But for the overemphasis and the sensational twist given by the media, the police would have at least reached somewhere. Now they are only groping with lose ends.
Another difficulty is that everyone, including the police, wants to be in the limelight these days. Hence for the police speaking to the media has become a prestigious and worthwhile affair. So the audience listens to a different story from different officials appearing on TV.
That is exactly what happened in Padmapriya’s suicide case. While the police and the Home Minister said she was somewhere in Kolar and would be brought back to Udupi soon, she was found dead in Delhi the next day (15th June). After this, the Home Minister, Mr Acharya struck a totally different pose before the media, observing that Ms Padmapriya’s whereabouts were kept secret for security reasons. Unfortunately, though, such security reasons were not of much use as they could not save the life of Padmapriya. In the meantime the whole issue thus was blown out of proportion by the media, mainly because there were far too many unanswered questions.
Both these crime stories attracted media attention for different reasons. However, the media converted them into glamour and sensation, giving scant respect for the sentiments of the close relatives of the deceased. It is true that emotions and reportage do not go together as the media are supposed to be ‘objective’; but the media, especially the electronic media, can at least allow the police and those responsible to carry out their responsibility with ease so that mysteries are solved and tranquility is arrived at.

Freedom of siege

It was C. P. Scott who said, “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” Unfortunately, though, what he has not said is whether it is safe to state the facts and how free one is to voice his/her comments.
The recent attack on the house of the resident editor of Loksatta, a Marathi daily, by Shivasangram sainiks raises many such questions. What was Kumar Ketkar’s sin? An editorial that he wrote criticising the Maharashtra government’s move to construct a 309-ft statue off Marine Drive in Mumbai. And the attackers, it is alleged, has strong connections with Nationalist Congress Party.
Freedom of speech has been guaranteed to every citizen by the State’s constitutions. But the reality seems just the opposite. Though the Constitutions guarantee freedom of speech, the State, on its part, seems to be unwilling to guarantee the same to anyone who opposes or criticises its fanciful projects. Recently Ahmedabad police filed a case of sedition against the resident editor of Times of India and a reporter and photographer of another daily. Their crime was that they had carried an article criticising the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner. Such incidents only corroborate the State’s refusal to ensure freedom of speech to everyone, including those who need it the most, the journalists and the media practitioners who are supposed to be the watchdog of the State.
Coming back to the issue: What was wrong with Mr Ketkar’s comments? Is it not ridiculous that the government has crores of rupees to spend on a whimsical project and no money to give as subsidies or as support price for the produce of the distressing Vidarbha farmers? The region has the dubious distinction of having one of the largest suicide rates in the whole country. According to a survey, every eight hours a farmer commits suicide in that region (DNA Aug 24, 2006). Nearly 30,000 farmers have ended their lives in the whole of Maharashtra between 1997 and 2005. (The Hindu Nov 14, 2007). Even after the Central Government’s loan waiver scheme to the tune of over 60,000 crore rupees during this year’s Budget, the rate of suicides does not seem to come down in that region just like the rate of inflation these days.
Helping the Vidarbha region farmers may not win the government many votes; but appeasing the cultural sentiments of the larger Marathi population will definitely bring them greater dividends in terms of votes and popularity, especially as the state is going for polls next year. Hence, Shivaji, the great Marathi warrior, unfortunately, has been made a scapegoat.
Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.” The State needs to realise this and defend citizens’ right to expression and not terrorise them for being critical.

The Pug as the Alternative

One little girl and a pug! Both small – but make a great pair. The pug is ‘ready to help’ – anytime. It searches her lost sock. It helps her in fishing. The girl seems to forget many things. But no problem! The pug is there to redeem her memory, that is. It even catches up with the school van.
The pug in Vodafone advertisements (earlier Hutch) has succeeded in catching the fancy of the consumers. There are reports that the breed has become one of the most sought-after pets. Most people did not even know the breed existed before the ads were launched. Now everyone associates the pug with the brand. The breed is almost patented.
Very many questions crop up even as we watch the creative pug-girl-combination ads. You see only the two of them – mostly. No trace of the girl’s parents or siblings. She seems to be all alone in the house. Where are the others? Have they gone on a holiday leaving the girl ‘home alone’ to fend for herself with the ‘ready to help’ canine? Have they abandoned her or something? Or do they have such a great faith in the pug? Where are they?
It may appear like reading too much into the ads; but that seems to be the message: ‘You buy our product (read Vodafone network) and you can be independent. You can even do away with what you hitherto thought as the most essential in life. Our product has it all. It will cater to all your needs, including parenting. So don’t you worry!’
Every advertisement is persuasive. That is why it is called advertisement. But today ads are going beyond their ordinary purview of persuasion. They are cajoling consumers with a new brand of values. They are asking them to be independent. Individualism is glorified. You are made to feel that being independent is the next best thing that can happen to you.
The little girl in the Vodafone ad seems to be comfortable and happy-go-lucky in the company of the pug (the network, that is!). She does not seem to miss her parents or siblings. She is all alone in the house and she is at ease, going about doing her work in the company of the ‘ready to help’ saviour. So the network is the 'formidable' replacement for parents. Hence when you have the network you do not need parents and other people. Sounds cynical? But the harmless pug does not come across cynical at all. He (or is it she?) is as caring, if not more, than any parents.
The message driven home is definitely not as pleasing as the creativity and the imagination that has gone behind the creation of the ads. One may say ads are not to be taken seriously. If it was true there should have been less of them in the media. Media are full of ads and the space and the time they occupy are just increasing by the day. That means ads are taken ‘seriously’, in the sense that none till date has denied the effect they have on the subconscious of gullible mortals, especially the children.
So the pug in the Vodafone ads is as lovable as it is disturbing!
- Melwyn Pinto SJ
melwynsj@jesuits.net