Articles

Hypocrisy and opportunism are the dubious virtues of politicians. But rarely have journalists craved so intensely to acquire such padded principles to survive in their profession as now. I must confess that the press and politics are feverishly competing to outdo each other in partisanship and disseminating less of news and more of views. While politicians are using every trick in their trade to outsmart their adversaries, media personalities are flambeauing one another—not for stories missed, but for platforms misused for personal glorification.

In the name of defending freedom of expression and protecting national interests, a few popular pressarios have snatched the megaphones on behalf of the entire media, which surprisingly has not spoken at all. Are the number of followers on social media and TRPs the only parameters of national voice? In which case, most film stars are better placed than journos to represent India’s silent citizens who are not the preferred audience of the elitist English electronic media, which speaks only of itself, by itself and for itself. Purple prose or jackanapes jingoism doesn’t bestow on them the right to speak for us all. Sure, many of us hide more than what we reveal to our readers and viewers. But the narcissistic nature of the broadcast medium exposes the ideological and personal biases of those journalists masquerading as guardians of either liberalism or nationalism.

Titans like Ramnath Goenka took on the ruling party of the time by championing the institution of the free press and its right of expression without fear and favour. Now the perception that has gained credibility is that the Fourth Estate has subsumed by profit and publicity-led personalities, who  protect the freedom of a particular individual to spread fear or extend favours. Unbreakable nexus between a socially and economically compatible section of the media and unelectable power encroachers is much more ominous for press freedom.

There is no bigger tragedy than a media personality openly seeking a ban on the press and jail for those opposing the version of the establishment. The threat to a free press emanates more from within than outside. Many of us stay mum or take sides only on issues and individuals dear to our cause. Otherwise what explains the silence of media celebs over the rising cases of tapping journalists’ phones? A few years ago, not only did scribes who were invited to a nocturnal repast at a politician’s home hesitate to protest when copies of an illegally obtained transcript of a conversation—surprisingly emailed by a newspaper organisation—were distributed, but they also found pleasure in scandalous gossip. The same politician would have lost his preeminence had he committed a similar act a few decades ago. In 1982, Parliament was not allowed to function for over a week when a story written by me on postal censorship was published by India Today magazine. Then home minister Giani Zail Singh had to assure the House that such an invasion of privacy is impermissible. Agreed, there may be a few bad apples, but let the law take its course with them. Earlier the freedom of press gave sanction to unmask personalities who threatened institutions. Now the press protects individuals and destroys institutions.

The ruling establishment has inevitably used every institutional mechanism to curb the press by planting stories and isolating those who resist their allurements. Some in the media have yielded and now dance to the uneven tunes of the establishment’s flute. For example, few journalists can claim to have reported all sides of the Kashmir strife. Coverage is given selectively to human rights violations, but rarely focuses on the exile of the Kashmiri Pandits. How much space has liberal journalists given to illustrate the plight of the children of pandits who were killed? Why did the media self-censor the demolition of temples in the state? Why were the laments of the orphans of the army or police jawans denied prime time weep slots, unlike the teenage stone-pelters wounded while attacking security forces? On the other hand, why do those who support the current establishment not cry wolf over the opportunist alliance between the BJP and PDP?

Coverage of J&K is not the only issue, which exposes Indian journalism’s fatal fault lines. The views of some media mavens on cow slaughter, Dalit oppression, love jihad, academic freedom and inter-religion or inter-caste marriages are predictable. The response of a particular journalist on the death of a Muslim boy under mysterious circumstances after marrying a Hindu girl can be prognosticated easily. But the same journalist will skirt the issue were the opposite to happen. On one occasion, journalists took out marches after some of their brethren were attacked outside a court. But did they mention the name of the leader, whose supporters the attackers were? Coup de mains on the press in non-BJP states hardly get time on the tube.

Hence, their postures on the freedom of press demonstrate an eerie imbalance. They are specious enough to differentiate between leaders of the same party. Some hate PM Narendra Modi for his ideological singularity. They had harangued him for over a decade. They had dug out his genealogy and geography, and published stories aimed at sending him to jail. He survived them all. Today, they may be wary of attacking Modi directly, but never miss an opportunity to knock down salt-of-the-earth leaders like Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj and Nitin Gadkari. On the other hand, some select ministers can never in their eyes commit an error of judgment. Some chosen politicos in both the Congress and BJP are gods-who-can-do-no wrong for laptop liberals and studio savants of the press.

The English electronic media is a cosy club of me-and-my types. Only 40-odd know-all experts on everything, from potatoes to politics, decide the political, economic, social and cultural chatter of the entire country. Other opinion-makers or journalists are never asked for their views before being invited to participate in a panel discussion or write a column. Anyone who disagrees with the stance of the owner or anchor is simply blacked out. Journalists who are vociferating the threat to their freedom must introspect on the voices they have either suppressed or hyped to service their ideology and personal friendships. The current war of words on media credibility has little to do with freedom and much more to do with jealousy and personal rivalry.