24.11.10

The Media as Middle Man

India's "Paid News" Scandal

The Media as Middle Man 
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, November 24

The sudden interest in the involvement of some Indian media persons in what appears to be lobbying has posed the question about ethics, but it has a lot more to do with the cult of icons. Readers and viewers tend to blindly believe in taglines about ‘truth’ prevailing and ‘we were the first to go there’ with high-profile columnists and anchors; the audience now feels let down and covertly awkward for having propped up these news-bearers.

There is also anger that the exposure was not covered by news channels and only by some print publications. The media is a tightly-knit incestuous lot in India. They know that if they allow one head to fall, theirs will be next on the chopping block.

The story appeared relatively simple. A lobbyist, Nira Radia, working for industrialist Mukesh Ambani called up journalists and discussed ministerial portfolios. The media people offered to set up meetings with ministers and even revealed what stories could be run. There was loads of money - $40 billion - involved in the 2G-spectrum deals that would benefit the corporate lobby. The question is: did it benefit the journalists and how? The newspapers/channels get ads, the political party gets election funds and the media can carry convenient stories along the election trail with staged ‘objective’ moments. The media is the new fiefdom of the politician and political power – from the front door or the back entrance – is the journalist’s reward.

There have been conjectures that these conversations were to make the lobbyist give away information, a snoopy journalistic tactic. But has it been taken to its logical conclusion? Has there been an expose of a nature that could compromise the government which is culpable in this case? No. The man A. Raja who was a cheat got the same portfolio to cheat again. Are the journalists to blame? The motives and ‘real’ reasons are a non-sequiter when facts stare us in the face.

No one can call acting as conduits between politicians and corporate lobbies as part of journalism, but in the past the arrangement was tacit. Press conferences by business houses that handed out goodies were major draws. Does anyone even know about news reports that are paid for and often written by the PR departments of business houses? Does anyone care that such PR people carry press passes and are members of the press clubs? When captains of industry write guest columns for publications, this is advertising passing off as editorial content.

Journalists have often got prime posts in social organisations or are sent on junkets; many of the hugely respected senior names conduct all their ‘investigations’ over the telephone, which means they are fed information by interested groups. While opinions are by nature subjective, reportage ought to be objective. What is reported and how clearly conveys which side the person is on or has been asked to be on. What about owners of channels who get elected and become MPs?

To push the envelope (no pun intended) further, what about freedom of speech? Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between? Great media stalwarts like Arun Shourie have played a role in bringing down politicians and governments. Why did they become heroes and why are today’s newsmakers considered unethical? The reason is that they appear to be co-opted, whereas a Shourie fought against the establishment. It is another matter that the fight could have been dictated by the opposition. This is the crux of the argument.

Sting operations get a whole lot of points by a gullible public that assumes those blurred video clips are done as an act of public good. No one bothers to check out the motives behind these moves. It is high time we made the mainstream media answerable, but the alternatives are not always as above-board as they appear simply because they too depend on the largesse of sponsors, advertising and benefactors.

Political stooges have always existed, only the level of subtlety has altered their persona. You just have to spend some time in any of the intellectual hubs in Delhi and you will see a journalist supping with a politician or a bureaucrat. There are TV channels that have given preference to young recruits merely due to their proximity to and sometimes family connections with such powerful people.

The recent revelations have become such a talking point, ironically, because they have been exposed with much flourish outside the mainstream media in India. Internationally, the Washington Post mentioned ‘paid news’ and reported that The Foundation for Media Professionals plans to host a conference on journalists as power brokers. The organisations’s spokesperson said, “We are actually happy that these practices have come out in the open. It forces us to address the problem. We as journalists sit in judgment of others all the time. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.”

Journalists are fallible and their standards should be decreed by ethics and not morality and most certainly must not become a ruse for nobility. The self-examination should also raise questions about the media conducting kangaroo courts and making a spectacle of helpless common people.

Prominent anchors and columnists are deified only because their visibility, especially during crises and calamities, immediately imbues them with a halo of legitimacy. This gets further sanctity when a scam uses the name of one individual. This does not, in fact, work as a “lynch mob” but serves to buffer the cult. We live in times of short attention spans and shorter memories. Today’s flawed Twitter hero is tomorrow’s Facebook martyr, for the truth may lie not in what was said in the tapes but what was left unsaid.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents and Khaleej Times

18 comments:

  1. Farzana,
    All this media incident is un-folding rather pathetically and hopelessly bad. We are looking and some columnists from HT being involved in this. A very very far deviation from the likes of Dr. Arvind. N. Das and Harish Khare (Persons I remember distinctly from my "impressionable age" period) or, for that matter, even Nikhil Wagles.
    All that comes to mid is - Manufacturing Consent - an idiom pioneered by Noam Chomsky.
    BTW, Please be careful when you speak about (I am not saying on behalf) of the "right of Corporates" , lest you be speaking for the terrible establishment.
    Cheers,
    Mahesh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mahesh:

    This is a quick and immediate response because I most certainly wish to know what you mean by:

    "BTW, Please be careful when you speak about (I am not saying on behalf) of the "right of Corporates" , lest you be speaking for the terrible establishment."

    This is plain rubbish. I had prefixed the 'freedom' bit as pushing the envelope because everyone can be questioned. I do not believe in 'being careful' and feel it is important in these times to play devil's advocate.

    There is much to respect Nikhil Wagle for but he has been on many expert panels of these very media houses. And he has organisational backing.

    I speak for no one but myself. Hope that is clear.

    Cheers...

    ReplyDelete
  3. And talking of Chomsky's incisive coinage, there was a precedent in Marshall McLuhan's amazing analysis of the media years, years ago...'the medium is the message' being only the popular one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rock On, Farzana.

    -Al

    (Can't log in as myself for some reason -- maybe I have been banned from the internet for foul language :-))

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks, Al...maybe the internet has caught on to your multidimensional avtaars and is finding it tough to keep up?

    Just in case you disappear again, I kid of missed your second, third and fourth thought comments :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Farzana, here is some food for thought from Mudvayne:

    "We the People"

    I thought we people had a brain
    I thought we people has a say
    Could have sworn I read it somewhere
    Thought I'd seen it on a bumper sticker

    I thought we people had a right
    I guess we people were wrong
    We the people, always are
    let's go elect another God.

    The laws they make, I don't give a damn anyway
    Rules are to break, to bend, to beat, to buy
    The American dream or a bag of magic beans
    You can find it on TV, whatever you need

    send me your tired, your poor, and broken
    Send me your life so I can break you

    We the people can have a plan
    We the people can make a stand
    Could have sworn I read it somewhere
    Might have seen it in the funny papers
    You Money is made to take, to cheat, to steal, to rob,
    I can sell you a dream. fat is busting at the seams
    You can get it on TV whatever you need

    Send me your tired your hungry and broken
    Send me your life so I can break you
    Give me your trust, your faith, your wishes
    Give me your life, so I can own you, control you

    Own, buy, sell out
    Own, buy, sell out

    Every day there is something new to try
    Every day there is something new to buy"


    Love ya, Farzana.

    Al

    ReplyDelete
  7. Al:

    Thanks...and thanks for introducing me to the band...'beautiful and strange'...resonates!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Farzana, So you had a "I resemble those lyrics" moment with "beautiful and strange"? I had a hunch Mudvayne's lyrics would get you. :-) Now that I have apparently managed the singular feat of getting a Hindustani classical music buff like you to listen to Nu-Heavy-Metal, maybe I should push my luck and try converting the Pope to become a Presbytarian...should be a cinch.

    Al

    ReplyDelete
  9. Al:

    I thought your motives were honourable, but you are on a proselytising spree...first me, then the Pope :)

    Unlike the pontiff who is chary of the rubber, I am quite okay with heavy metal and some rock...rocks, too.

    Btw, lyrics aside, it was the vid that spoke to me!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Farzana, Thanks for introducing the video to me :-) Had not seen that before. BTW, there seems to be another part of the same story in the "Scream with me" official video, where the Angel gets the wings ripped off his back by a ghoulish being.

    I like the way you have added Rocks to Heavy Metal, seems only natural really :-) On that note, I have been looking to buy a glass house from which I plan to throw rocks at other people, just to be a traditional non-conformist (you know, as opposed to wild and crazy non-conformists).

    Geologically yours,
    Al

    ReplyDelete
  11. Farzana,
    You said :
    "This is plain rubbish. I had prefixed the 'freedom' bit as pushing the envelope because everyone can be questioned. I do not believe in 'being careful' and feel it is important in these times to play devil's advocate. "
    Here is what you said in your blogpost :
    " Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between? "
    IMHO, That hardly sounds to be playing "Devil's Advocate". But then , maybe, you are questioning the "conventional wisdom". We are looking at a strong dis-agreement here.
    And yes, in case my tone sounded patronising - it was purely un-intentional.
    Finally, about Wagle - I tend to agree with you about him having become part of several "expert panels" with backing media houses. Guess, this is the kind of "cultural change" one undergoes when moving from the "Startups" (Mahanagar eveninger , in this case) to "Established Enterprise".
    Cheers,
    Mahesh.
    p.s.: Have a Nice Weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mahesh:

    I should hope you have read the whole article. It isn’t a matter of you being patronising, but complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation on your part, all the more disappointing because you have been around here for a bit and seen the positions I take.

    The passage you quote is clearly extending an argument for the sake of ‘pushing the envelope’ and a few buttons. The sentences preceding and following them convey this. For me questioning conventional wisdom is a given in ANY field. Everything I have written in this piece and the other one in 2003 (linked to the earlier short post on the subject) suggests that I do not buy into the media’s meddling at all. However, I would at the same time not be blind to ‘warriors’ and their motives. My criticism of the media is for everyone to see at all times.

    This response is only to explain the argument and not a defensive reaction. I don’t need to be. I don’t have yapping supporters or an establishment to back me. Any kind of establishment.

    As I see it, there is no disagreement here, but a case of misinterpretation. Or maybe you are playing devil’s advocate?

    PS: You too have a nice weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Al:

    If you really wish to be a traditional non-conformist, try chucking some serious solitaires...erm, let me know where your glass pad is...I'll be just a shard away...

    ReplyDelete
  14. "If you really wish to be a traditional non-conformist, try chucking some serious solitaires.."

    Farzana, the only value to being a non-conformist is to take on worst aspects of conformism in society. However, Conformists in society have in-built guards against non-conformists, so being a conformist overtly and a non-conformist covertly is the right way to challenge conformism from within. I am sure you have other ideas on that :-)

    The way I see it if something catches mice, I am willing to consider it a nominal mousetrap and work with it.

    Al

    ReplyDelete
  15. Al:

    Cheese catches mice, so you'd call that a mousetrap even though it is only a bait? Is a bait a trap? Isn't cheese a conformist edible thing; not only conformist but sometimes elitist conformist...as in wine and cheese, post dinner cheese platter, fine cheeses?

    Of course, we are just talking but this analogy can be applied to the media discussion as well. There are conformist ideas in every stripe of thought depending on where you are - the mouse, the cheese, the trapbox, the house-owner, the tenant or the scientist, the student, the outsider...hope that helps :)

    PS: You did say I might have different ideas, so there...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Cheese catches mice, so you'd call that a mousetrap even though it is only a bait? Is a bait a trap?"

    But the Cheese only part of the trap -- the nasty steel spring is the other part of the trap, without which I would only be providing dinner to the mice, as opposed to feeding the mice as dinner to a friendly feline.

    " Isn't cheese a conformist edible thing; not only conformist but sometimes elitist conformist...as in wine and cheese, post dinner cheese platter, fine cheeses? "

    I knew we would have to deconstruct "conformism" before the next step :-) The simple answer is that "conformism is relative". People can be considered some sort of a non-conformist according to one set of people, and conformist-establishment-dillweed to another set of people...at the same time... speaking from experience.

    In the above case, the universe of food and drink is much larger than just wine or cheese, and just focussing on one set of foods means focussing on a small set of people, as opposed to the wider world.

    So the end results of breaking down conformism by focussing only on Wine and Cheese as nominal mousetraps, ends up changing the mindsets of a small number of wine-and-cheese-loving people.

    Analytically, this cries out for a more efficient way for challenging conformism without encountering the barriers placed by conformists in anticipation.
    But in order to figure out what the barriers are, it is easier to do so as a faux-conformist to draw out the ideas and thoughts of the conformists and to recognize the flaws in them, and then constructing a way to challenge those flaws without them realizing it.

    Takes time and effort, and has no promise of guts, glory or recognition, and everyone is likely to hate you after that even if you have proven your point...some rewards for one's efforts, eh? :-)

    "There are conformist ideas in every stripe of thought depending on where you are"

    Of course, but the key is that not all conformist ideas are bad, and deciding what conformist ideas to challenge itself requires some thought. E.g., It would be silly to fight the conformist idea of "putting pants over underpants" but if one does fight that "conformist idea", no one other than comic book superheroes are going to support such a fight against conformism.

    PS: I always assume you have different ideas than I do, so there :-)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Al:


    1. You said anything that catches mice…a tarp without a bait may not work either.
    2. I think I did allude that conformism is relative. I focused on cheese as food because we were discussing cheese as bait. Food is often bait even at high table. Or the whole idea behind gourmet experience. Its availability in low cost packages is a further idea.
    Conformism IS about precedents and mental barriers. Your ‘faux conformism’ would naturally make you a faux insider. Therefore, you could be any kind of cheese and the mice would not know :)

    Once trapped, how would it matter how you are viewed?

    Of course, but the key is that not all conformist ideas are bad, and deciding what conformist ideas to challenge itself requires some thought. E.g., It would be silly to fight the conformist idea of "putting pants over underpants" but if one does fight that "conformist idea", no one other than comic book superheroes are going to support such a fight against conformism.

    Agreed to the first bit. Re the rest, one might question the need for underpants when there are pants. Also, what if the dress code isn’t pants? What about the beach? What about the female gender? And comic book heroes are conformist in many other ways.

    Laterz…it’s been inneresting…but I might end up thinking I am a cross between Agatha Christie and Kafka!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Once trapped, how would it matter how you are viewed? "

    You can't be trapped when your mind is free of constraints. :-) But this requires clarity of thought and constant introspection of one's actions...pretty much impossible unless you are alone and do not have to take care of anyone else....and no one is usually that fortunate (or "unfortunate", depending on how that glass of water looks in one's hands).

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.