The Indian media has been a hot topic of discussion because of its coverage of the general elections and surprisingly, it has also been doing some self-introspection. There have been differing views on whether the media fulfilled its responsibility as the Fourth Estate, with some harsh criticism that said it is no more the Fourth Estate and has become just an estate.
For me, who has the insider’s knowledge being an Indian and an outsider’s perspective because of my 33- year long journalistic journey overseas, there is one basic problem with Indian reporters and that is that they generally accept the “dope” given to them by the politicians. They behave as if their job is just to report “who said what” without questioning the veracity of the statements. This could be because of a lack of proper training. Or is it because of a general trait among us Indians, which I observed soon after I returned after more than three decades. An Indian, though described as an “argumentative Indian” by some, generally accepts things as they are.
In fact, the first phrase that came to my mind during the first week of my return was “acceptance, without asking any questions”. On the street, when I saw some homeless people sheltered under a highway, it was apparent that they had accepted their fate and were not bothered when they saw prosperous people whiz by on scooters, motor bikes and fancy cars. In fact, it seemed as if the person rushing to work on foot has accepted the guy going on bicycle, and the guy on a bike has accepted quietly the fortunes of those who are passing by on motor bikes and cars. Poor people are not angry enough at their own plight to cause a revolution.
The person who sleeps on the footpath has no questions to ask from a rich person who with a family of three occupies a 4-acre bungalow in Lutyen’s Delhi. Maybe the root cause of this is a “deep-rooted fatalism” with a regular dose of religion in temples and on TV, or the karma theory or simply because we were ruled by outsiders for so many centuries that it became our habit not to question authority.
Indian journalists have forgotten that their job in a democracy is to bring accountability among the politicians. In fact, the reporter is paid so less and given so little training that he or she feels genuinely overawed by the politicians and have no guts to question them. At the same time, the editors on TV channels are so highly paid that they also become insecure and faithfully toe the owner’s line because they know they cannot get that kind of money elsewhere. The net result is that Indian journalism has come down to “He said, she said” journalism.
In developed countries like the US, on the other hand, journalism is all about asking questions until you find out the truth. That is why their democratic traditions are so strong and that is why we have seen so many scandals being exposed during the past 40 odd years in America. It all began with the Pentagon Papers under the president Richard Nixon who was paranoid about the press, then came Watergate, then Iran-Contra scandal, Monica Lewinsky scandal, Weapons of Mass destruction scandal and then came the latest Snooping-gate – which is about the US government snooping on people by reading their emails and listening to their telephonic conversations. All this happened because the reporters in those countries have been properly trained to not be overawed by powerful leaders but ask them questions upon questions even if the leader tries to ridicule and intimidate them.
It is not that some of the senior Indian journalists don’t realize this weakness, but the problem is that, just like the other Indians, they have also, by and large, accepted the situation. The only ray of hope for me came from Rajdeep Sardesai who recently raised this question during a discussion about the media coverage of 2014 elections at the Press Club in Mumbai. He did not call it “acceptance” but described it is “arrogance” on the part of journalists. He said, “Some channels have abandoned the basic role of media.
They are now cheerleading or doing ‘supari journalism’ to get more viewers and ratings.” He added that during the election campaign, Narendra Modi was not subject to the intense scrutiny in the last two years that others like Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal were subject to. To use his exact words, “Some channels elevated Modi to God. He is a good politician and communicator but not a messiah.” Some journalists need to ask themselves, he added, if they want to do journalism or hagiography. “We need to introspect,” Sardesai said, “and ask ourselves some serious questions.”
Author/news analyst Ravi M Khanna is a former South Asia bureau chief of Voice of America who now does free lance reporting from New Delhi.
Feedback: ravimohankhanna@gmail.com
