Before he Indian democracy readies itself to weather from the shocks and storms of having failed to understand the gravity of scandals unearthed about ‘Paid News’ cancered around the country and further from the “Radia tape leak controversy”, another great leak has come to uncloak The USA Diplomatic cables through “Wikileaks”. When I recently watched “All The President`s Men, the great epic narrative on the exposing of “Watergate Scandal”, I could not stop myself from watching that movie again and again. The kind of exemplary courage and outstanding determination with which Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have worked relentlessly to fight the mighty Richard Nixon administration`s effort to defeat the journalistic spirits is unmatchable in contemporary history. It is significant to remember that entire Washington Post management stood behind “Bernstein” so as to result in the perseverant pursuit of the investigation culminating in resignation of USA President.
When thought in the Indian context, what ails Indian media? Where is the investigative spirit? Has it vaporized in the LPG atmosphere post 1991? Or has it lost the steam due to the buoyancy it received from the “corporate-politics revolving doors” which are famous in western countries? To understand the appropriation of the Public Opinion the world renowned term has been “Manufacturing Consent.” Originally invented by American reporter and intellectual Walter Lippman. This term has been the hallmark of the characterization of the ‘Collusion between vested interests hosted by the powerful rulers across the world’ since then. To understand the intricacies of this phenomenon can we understand how the media engages with the problems of defining and by how ownership patterns of the media houses are entangled with multiple stakeholders? Can we understand this by analyzing the content comprehensively by carrying out content analysis, rigorous discourse analysis or any kind of other proven methodology; statistical or qualitative? Can we evolve the sound methodology to do that? These are the questions to which the research being done by Centre For Culture, Media & Governance (CCMG) Jamia Milia Islamia.
Lippman first identified the tendency of journalists to generalize about other people based on fixed ideas. He argued that people—including journalists—are more apt to believe "the pictures in their heads" than come to judgment by critical thinking. Humans condense ideas into symbols, he wrote, and journalism, a force quickly becoming the mass media, is an ineffective method of educating the public. Even if journalists did better jobs of informing the public about important issues, Lippmann believed "the mass of the reading public is not interested in learning and assimilating the results of accurate investigation." Citizens, he wrote, were too self-centered to care about public policy except as pertaining to pressing local issues. Lippmann saw the purpose of journalism as "intelligence work". Within this role, journalists are a link between policymakers and the public. A journalist seeks facts from policymakers which he then transmits to citizens who form a public opinion. In this model, the information may be used to hold policymakers accountable to citizens. This theory was spawned by the industrial era and some critics argue the model needs rethinking in post-industrial societies.”
Editorial bias: five filters
Herman and Chomsky's "propaganda model" describes five editorially-distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:
1. Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners - often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.
2. The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de-facto licensing authority". Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working-class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
3. Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”
4. Flak and the Enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.
5. Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the "War on Terror", as the major social control mechanism.
Objectivity of Journalists & Independence and Diversity of news sources
If journalists are merely the link between the people and policy makers, then the line between the being journalistic about gathering information and lobbying for particular interest becomes very very blur. In the context of recent uproar about 2G Spectrum scam tapes leaks, it is worthwhile to note what Senior Journalist Swapan Dasgupta has to say, ““The relationship (between journalists and politicians), however, is based on understandings. The 'source' may tell you everything that has transpired in a crucial, closed-door meeting. The price of violating the understanding is future exclusion. To survive in political journalism you can't spit and run. Every political journalist develops a cosy relationship with sources. The relationship, however, is symbiotic. Politicians often ask us for information about developments in which they are not players. If you can't enlighten them without compromising your other sources, don't mislead them. Also sometimes it helps to say: "I don't know." Many journalists find this very difficult. (We should not be in illusion about)
A) Journalists are habitually accustomed to boast about their contacts and their easy access to the homes of the high and mighty. This is plain vanity. Many of the Radia tapes are replete with boasts.
B) Journalists often play courier between politicians. This isn't necessary but sometimes it helps to gather additional info. Equally, it may be a labour of love. It may suggest political bias/preference. But it doesn't necessarily imply corruption.
C) Being in touch with lobbyists, PR companies and advocacy groups is part of the news gathering game. No one can be tarred for just being in touch with Radia who, after all, represented two big corporations. What, after all, is the difference between Radia and some NGOs. Aren't they all lobbyists?
D) Arranging pre-scripted interviews of anyone breaks all media code of ethics. I know journos who tempt their subjects with assurances of a "soft" interview. But a pre-scripted interview with a dress rehearsal takes the biscuit.
E) Hinting about the ability to 'fix' the judiciary suggests criminality. It is not journalism. It is as despicable as those business journalists who deliberately manipulate news to play the stock markets. Or those who use their police contacts to run a lucrative private practice.
F) There are rotten eggs in the media basket. They must be discarded, if necessary through public pressure because the owners often wilfully turn a blind eye to their criminality in return for collateral favours.”
There is another scathing attack by senior sociologist Dipankar Gupta about the increasing trend in the media to rush towards unauthentic sources to retrieve information when other credible means are present around. He says, “Really, do politicians know more than experts on almost everything? On a few things, yes; but everything? Yet, judging from the proliferation of political hitmen on TV, it would appear that knowledge resides primarily in them. This not only politicizes matters unnecessarily, but, what is worse, viewers get a plethora of half-baked, calculated political opinions which are packaged as debate.” (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267564)
Senior journalist Shoma Chaudhary, Editor (Features) Tehelka affirms that “In a sense, the Radia tapes are as much a window into a sociological phenomenon born out of the peculiar power leavened corridors of Delhi as an exposé on the state of Indian media. The conversations in the tapes show a kind of moral flaccidity, a clouded vision born out of too much proximity, a kind of loose-tongued insincerity. The list of these serious issues is legion. One of the most damaging symptoms in Indian media today is its slavish relationship with corporate power. Political misconduct is often brought to book, corporate crime almost never. There are crippling structural reasons for this. In print, media must be the only business in the world that loses money on its selling price. Indians are willing to pay 50 for a packet of chips or a coffee but they baulk at paying that for a magazine or newspaper. Unless consumers of news train themselves to pay for truth-telling, they will always be hostaged to advertisers and vested corporate interests.”
So where does the ownership issue hurts most. Sir Harold Evans, more than decade long Editor of The Sunday Times says, “There are any number of reasons to worry that the media is in crisis.
A) There are ownerships that twist the news to fit their own political prejudices or commercial interests. No one can reasonably object to ownership expressing opinions in columns clearly designated as opinion, but reporters bring shame on themselves when they are accessories to the pollution of news columns. The governor of Louisiana in the ’30s had a colourful way of ridiculing the way the media moghul, Henry Luce, did this in his successful Time magazine. “He’s like a shoe store owner who stocks only the shoes to fit hisself.”
B) There are laws conceived for good purposes that end up prohibiting disclosure in the public interest. Editors have a duty to resist, as world press hero Arun Shourie did in fighting all the way to India’s Supreme Court to defend The Indian Express report on the Bhagalpur blinding, winning a victory for all Indian journalism.
C) There is understandable concern in print media about the way the internet is eating into core print revenues, which newspapers and magazines need to cover foreign news and undertake risky and expensive investigations. It is a serious issue, particularly when websites have not yet achieved the revenues to fill the gap. There are some excellent websites (disclosure: my wife edits The Daily Beast), but the internet is also a vehicle for an unverified flow of messages, with falsehood masquerading as fact in cyberspace.” (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267583)
Ultimately, is the access to truth is so easy? Noam Chomsky has been articulating since decades that so called liberal media are busy in covering up the establishment. Same goes with the subtle and delicate analysis by Pankaj Mishra. He says, “The misty idealism that surrounds the word ‘democracy’ can make it as much an ideological smokescreen as ‘free trade’ was in the 19th century, covering up a host of cruel but institutionalized imbalances of power and opportunities. Unlike authoritarianism, its grand formal structures—parliaments, a ‘free’ press and the judiciary—help prevent any thorough examination of systemic corruption and violence. Special interpretative tools are needed to go beyond the obvious, and cut through cliches. But they seem beyond the reach of the average foreign correspondent in India.” (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267569)
So, to use the popular parlance, “Where does the buck stops?”
A recent interview Doyen of Indian investigative journalism, Mr. Arun Shaouri gave to Karan Thapar throws sunlight on many of the complex issues discussed above. (http://ibnlive.in.com/shows/Devil%27s+Advocate.html) He says that, “The challenge is to protect the independence of the media in the times when media has no longer remained the sacred fourth estate. But, he says, we have to do without letting the atrocities and invasions of other institutions to do themselves. So way forward is more liberal debate, interaction, information exchange about the allegations being leveled about the allegations, grey areas and the seamless web of the greed journalist are vulnerable to. So, challenge is we have to keep going consistently commenting on each other`s performances. Print on electronic, electronic on internet and internet on both of them.” My take is this kind of self regulatory watch will be real revolving door of enlightenment for Indian media and press at large; rather than allowing extra-media authorities to strangulate the proud neck of “Journalism of Courage.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment