When you read an article by a journalist who has worked long and hard at this profession, you don’t necessarily have to agree with his opinion, but it isn’t unreasonable to expect respect for independence in journalism itself. This piece by R Jagannathan, the Editorial Director of Swarajya magazine and former Editor in Chief of Firstpost, left me distressed, and for several reasons. One, it is by someone I am very fond of and have high regard for, but what Jagannathan has written has made me balk. Two, because it is written by a news professional who can safely be called accomplished and from whom one would assume a deep understanding of and respect for journalism and its role. Unfortunately, the article published in Swarajya betrays a lack of the latter and sadly, this is the case for too many in the profession.

Let me explain.

“Nothing destroys the media’s credibility more than such exaggerations.”

Yes, failure to stand up to gags does that, and far more effectively than any wolf-crying. No, “the Media” is not crying wolf and it is not baying at the wrong wolf. Government interference and gags is the single biggest – I repeat the single biggest threat – to journalism no matter where, when or by whom. Everything else is secondary. That is because governments have legitimacy, authority and mandate to make laws that must be followed for a society to remain orderly and civilised and to progress. Trolls, news organisations, armchair critics, Left-right or non-leaning journalists will never have that legitimacy. All they can do is throw up or amplify thoughts and concepts – good and bad.

The media’s role is to spread ideas, entertain new ones, discuss and debate. Through that engagement, better ideas evolve. That is only possible when governments do not strangle the pipelines of thought and communication, no matter how distasteful they are for any of us.

“The suspension (not a ban, as misreported far and wide) has since itself been suspended, thus giving the NDA a perfect self-goal.”

While the Swarajya piece tries to unsuccessfully negotiate the very narrow precipice of not calling out media gags (while pretending that’s not what it is doing), it ends up leaning heavily on non-issues. And gets even those wrong. For example, here’s one inaccuracy: Jagannathan claims what NDTV India has got is a “suspension (not a ban, as misreported far and wide)”. Actually it is a ban. Here I copy paste from the dictionary.

ban 1 |ban|

verb (bans, banning, banned) [ with obj. ]

Officially or legally prohibit: he was banned from driving for a year

So whether for one year, one day or forever – a prohibition is a ban. I could get into such semantics for time pass, but let me not go down that road lest I fall victim to the same affliction.

The main point is that as media professionals, an environment free of intimidation and gags is in all our interest; no matter which way we lean, who we love or who we hate. An uninhibited environment is our playground. How uninhibited it can be is a long, complex and separate discussion. A gag on any practitioner of this profession is an attack on us all.

I say ‘gag’ and not ‘attack’, and that is important. We may agree with some attacks, but never with gags. We don’t have to agree with an entity or individual to speak up against gags and censorship. Hartosh Singh Bal from The Caravan demonstrated that beautifully and ruthlessly at the Press Club of India on November 7, when media professionals had gathered to call the government out about clampdowns on news media. He let it rip, calling out NDTV for its many failings (including them not rising to the occasion when others are banned. Sound familiar?), much to the discomfort on the NDTV staff there. But he was basically there to stand up for media freedom and to oppose the government’s attempts to clamp down on dissent. This is the same person who broke the Radia tapes story that every lazy journalist conveniently uses to attack NDTV, but didn’t have the nuts to break themselves even though everyone was aware of it.

But as a news professional, one doesn’t display the pettiness of saying it’s okay to clamp down on someone because you dislike them. It is possible to believe some colleagues do bad work and yet stand up for their right to exist. It’s not a complex thought.

“…the nexus between journalists and power-brokers is simply too strong.” 

There is a bigger nexus between industry and power brokers too, but the writer did not have a problem taking salaries from the biggest of them all. He calls out NDTV for “funny money”, which, ironically, can be traced to the same source of his paychecks during his years at Firstpost. Does that mean he has forfeited his right to exist and any gag on his organisation is legit? How can one even go down that path of reasoning? I’m shocked.

The point I’m making is that this is an easy line to take, but it does not serve anyone, least of all someone of Jagannathan’s stature. Yes, there are unholy alliances and convenient arrangements. Cracking down on illegalities follows the course of law. There are sections for each violation of round-tripping money, benami or foreign exchange violations, and many more. Those have nothing to do with censorship or gagging a news outlet. If I have evaded taxes, there is a law and process for me to be tried for that. That doesn’t mean I forfeit my right to speak. To suggest as much is simply bizarre.

“But the media has been nothing if not selective in the way it defends freedom. It is happy to go along with curtailments on freedom on grounds of protecting secularism or something else, but is enraged when the same laws are used to curb its own freedoms.”

You don’t stand up for freedom because someone else did or did not. You stand up if you believe in the core value. Calling out hypocrisy is a troll’s pursuit and we should leave that to trolls. No one is un-guilty of it. It’s as ubiquitous as Delhi’s winter smog. Mixing up every issue – libel, incompetence, chummy relationships with power brokers/ politicians, ineffective self-regulation, “funny money” – into the issue of media gags is to hold up straw men.

It would be so easy to demolish Swarajya magazine’s credibility by using the same logic Jagannathan has used to discredit many media outlets. It’s not like Swarajya is not ideologically-aligned and more committed and reverential to its masters than anyone else. Their tagline is “Read India Right” and they don’t even carry the token dissenting voice to give an appearance of balance. Is there a connection between Swarajya doing a cover story with a beaming Vasundahra Raje – titled “Rani of Reform” – and the Global Rajasthan Agritech Meet advertising banner on Swarayja magazine’s portal? Is there a link between every fawning piece the magazine does for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and every government or corporate ad or access they get? Maybe, maybe not. There is no scientifically certain way to prove it, and that is fine (in the context of being able to publish and propagate whatever one wants). All one can say for certain is that Swarajya has a right to exist with any model they want.

This NDA government may not stay forever and in some election in the future, India may change to another administration. It will (eventually) happen, and when it does, the pettiness that is the hallmark of Indian politics may spark a gag on Swarajya. At that time, all one can hope for is the rest of the media will stand up for Swarajya’s right to exist and not instead gleefully point to its quality of content, biases, conflicts of interests and general pettiness. Why? Because, like I’ve said before, that would be too easy.