There isn’t such a thing as an unbiased media; there has never been one. All reputed media houses in every part of the world have a history of ideological slants. To begin with, there is an important distinction between editorial bias and the bias in covering the news: this was especially true of the print-only era, but also applies to electronic and digital media. But even when the two merge, as they often do, the fundamentals don’t change: the role of the press is to ask uneasy questions to everyone, its loyalty notwithstanding.

On September 22, India TV aired a show on the upcoming Bihar assembly elections from Patna, called “Chunav Manch”. The show featured conversations, by turns, with all the major leaders of Bihar: Nitish Kumar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan and Sushil Kumar Modi. As it often happens in such conclaves, politicians were grilled by India TV anchors — as well as audience in the Q&A session — on their parties’ strategies, strengths and weaknesses, et cetera.

But one interview that stood out at the Chunav Manch was Bharatiya Janata Party President Amit Shah’s. Initially, Shah smilingly dodged tricky questions — like why his party hadn’t declared its chief ministerial candidate, or why did the BJP go on the back foot after the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s remarks on reservation erupted into a controversy.

Half an hour into the interview, though, Shah lost his cool, almost suddenly, and at a seemingly unimportant question. This was when India TV’s Managing Editor Ajit Anjum — who was sitting among the audience — asked him about difficulties the BJP had in convincing the former Nitish lieutenant, and now BJP’s coalition partner, Jitan Ram Manjhi, to agree on the seat distribution. (Manjhi was asking for 35-40 seats, in the end he agreed on 20.)

“But despite everything we declared our seats,” Shah said, beginning to sound irritated. “Lalu and Nitish are yet to declare their list. My question to you is: why didn’t you ask the two of them this question?”

Ajit Anjum: “Unse bahut sawaal pooche. (I asked them many questions.)”

Amit Shah:  “Anjum jee, aapke paas hamare liye hi sawaal hain? (Do you only have questions for the BJP?)”

Ajit Anjum: “Unse maine do-do ghante sawaal pooche. (I grilled both of them for two hours.)”

Amit Shah:  “Par ye kyon nahi poocha, poochne jaise sawaal. Kal mil jaayein toh pooch lijiyega. (But you didn’t ask them the real questions. Ask when you meet them the next time.)”

Ajit Anjum: “Aap kehte hain toh ye bhi poochenge (If you insist, I will.)”

Amit Shah:  “Bhaiya, aapke sawaal aapki side bhi dikhaate hain aur aapki mansa bhi dikhaate hain; itna expose mat hoiye. (Your questions show which side you belong to, and what you wish. Avoid exposing yourself so much.)”

Now, India TV, if not avidly right-wing, is an old supporter of the BJP. (In fact, Rajat Sharma, the owner of the channel, won the Delhi University Students Union secretary election in 1977 on an Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad ticket.) And yet, the BJP president hurls an accusation of bias like an insult, at one of the channel’s senior-most editors.

Around the same time on September 22, on another channel, NDTV India, another journalist was accused of taking sides. Ravish Kumar’s prime-time show that evening focused on superstition and orthodoxy in religious matters. The background was controversy surrounding the “spiritual” organisation Sanatan Sanstha, one of whose members, Samir Gaikwad, has been recently arrested by Maharashtra police for his alleged role in the murder of rationalist and communist leader Govind Pansare.

The panelists consisted of spokespersons Sambit Patra of BJP and Sanjay Jha of Congress, journalists Rana Ayyub and Nikhil Wagle, and Abhay Vartak of Sanatan Sanstha. The show focused on the hostile past that the two journalists on the panel share with Sanatan Sanstha.

Ayyub, who has earlier reported on Sanatan Sanstha’s alleged involvement in terrorist activities, said she had been dragged to court by the Sanstha after she interviewed the 26/11 blast accused Ajmal Kasab’s lawyer: the Sanstha dubbed her anti-Hindu, a dharmadrohi.

As for Wagle, in a talk show he hosted in 2011, he had a spat with a Sanstha spokesperson over Maharashtra’s proposed anti-superstition Bill. NDTV recently reported that according to police, in Gaikwad’s phone transcripts, Wagle was the next target after Pansare.

Unsurprisingly, the debate moved on to which party was to be blamed for not heeding the warnings about Sanatan Sanstha’s alleged role in terrorist activities. This has been the most convenient escape route for the Congress and the BJP for years now, accusing the other of doing (or not doing) the same as them. Patra blamed the UPA government for not acting on the ban proposal made by the previous Maharashtra government; Jha said the home secretary back then was R K Singh, now a BJP Member of Parliament, and therefore babudom was the real reason the previous government couldn’t do much.

Wagle said Maharashtra’s former home minister had something else to say: “Maine R R Patil ka interview liya tha, unhone kaha hum Sanatan ka ashram par raid isliye nahi sakte ki uske khilaf  BJP aur Sena apna political faayda legi. (I had interviewed R R Patil, he said we can’t raid Sanstha because BJP and Shivsena will take political mileage out of it.)”

[See 31:40 – 34:50]

This angered Patra, who accused journalist Wagle for his anti-BJP stand: “Mujhe kaafi achambha ho raha hai ki kuch logon ke sar par Congress ka danda baras raha hota hai, lekin unke mooh se BJP-BJP nikal raha hota hai. (I’m quite surprised how some people keep blaming BJP even when they get beaten up by Congress.)”

The usually cool and calm Ravish Kumar was visibly irritated by this statement of Patra. Kumar, who is also often, to his great displeasure, charged of taking sides, said: “Sambit saab, is se mera objection hai. Ye line waapas lijiye. Ab tarazu lekar hisaab karna hoga ki kaun se patrakaar BJP ke dande se reporting karte hain, aur kaun se patrakaar Congress ke dande se reporting karte hain. (I object to this language, take this line back. Do we need to account as to which journalists get beaten up by BJP, and which ones by Congress?)”

Patra said he was only talking about Nikhil Wagle: “Nikhil jee ko tang Congress ne kiya, BJP ka naam kyon le rahe hain? (Nikhil jee was harassed by Congress, why is he blaming the BJP?)”

Wagle mumbled something saying Patra was shameless. And so it went on…

The above are but two examples when journalists are accused by politicians of siding with a particular political party or ideology, the accusation flung like an insult and as a substitute for answering the specific question asked. In 2012, when Salman Khurshid was charged of misappropriation of funds by a trust run by him and his wife, he famously lost his temper at a press conference at Aaj Tak journalist Deepak Sharma: “Now I want to tell you why I didn’t want India Today (group) here. Marta kya nahi karta!” Khurshid said, alleging Sharma of being motivated.

Biases, associations and ideological positions are irrelevant when specifics of stories are being discussed. The Organiser has as much a right to ask questions of a UPA government as Janayugam has of asking an NDA government. Calling them or anyone else out for their loyalty is a childish substitute for informed debate. Such tricks for avoiding giving answers have become depressingly common on TV. In doing so, politicians not only fail to understand the role of the press in a democracy, but also their own roles.