Despite their acumen to gauge public opinion and a long association with coverage of electoral campaigns, the news media’s failure to correctly assess the mood of the public during the State Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh has come into focus after Bharatiya Janata Party’s historic victory. A large number of reporters – including many known faces from the national and regional press – made claims on the basis of what they’d witnessed during their journey from the western to eastern corners of the state as polling progressed. The political situation prevailing on the ground, issues on people’s minds, social equations, caste and communal prejudices – all this was examined in depth and efforts were made to predict the outcome of the elections on this basis.

Final results, however, differed widely from the assessments made by various sections of the media and even exit polls. Therefore, a question naturally arises as to the reason for this failure. There have been sharp attacks on those known for their chronic aversion to BJP’s ideology.  There were references to “echo chambers” while speaking of journalists who criticised for listening to their own voices, instead of talking to others while making predictions. Were all the assessments subjective? If there were mistakes in making observations, what were they?

The answer does not seem to be simple. Ideological biases, professional incompetence, absence of sufficient homework before making ground observations, deliberate efforts to influence public opinion in lieu of financial considerations (both by media owners and journalists) have all contributed to the general deterioration of professional standards. Error in judgment is thus both subjective and objective.

That there are sharp differences among journalists on ideological grounds is well known. Biases exist on both sides. When such biases are allowed reflect in the reportage, reporters themselves become campaigners. Deliberate attempts to distort observations to help the party of choice is thus quite natural.

“While media persons opposed to the ideology of BJP failed to observe the obvious pro-BJP wind, those sympathetic to BJP were over-cautious in making their assessments, lest their observations should be counter productive,” said journalist K Vikram Rao. That is why assessments made by both sides were coloured, Rao added.

However, it would be wrong to attribute all the mistakes to prejudices. There exists a heterophilous relationship between city-based journalists – “imported journalists” as Rao terms them – who come to report elections and the village people with whom they interact. An urbanite has his own standards of thinking, values and belief systems, which influence how the reporter judges people and their circumstances. This lack of empathy naturally results in errors of judgment.

“Ground reporting during elections requires some serious homework to be done in advance to understand its dynamics,” said Rao. “Instead of doing that, there is a tendency among imported journalists to make fashionable caste calculations and their likes and dislikes.“

Newslaundry contributor and veteran journalist Sharat Pradhan elaborated with the example of how the issue of demonetisation had been taken up by those reporting elections. That people had to undergo severe problems standing in long queues in the wake of demonetisation was taken as an important reason for them to go against the BJP. However, for the rural folk, the problems caused by demonetisation were severe, but associated with a good cause. Reporters making such assessments seemed to be totally oblivious to the conditions under which workers from UP travel to places like Mumbai, Surat or Punjab, in crowded general compartments of trains. Deaths of workers due to falling from trains are never highlighted by the same persons talking of deaths caused by demonetisation, for instance.

Another reason for the failure of credible reporting by media has been proprietors seeking favours from governments for their commercial ventures.

Pradhan cited the example of a national daily whose proprietor wanted a certain plot of land to be acquired in order to set up a university near the national capital. The Uttar Pradesh government obliged and the newspaper became naturally sympathetic to the political cause of Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav. This sympathetic attitude could be observed all through the electioneering process, giving a misleading impression of Yadav’s popularity to even the chief minister, according to Pradhan.

Even after the elections were over and there was buzz that BJP would win, this newspaper published an interview with Yadav, declaring he was ready to cooperate with Bahujan Samaj Party’s supremo, Mayawati, to thwart the attempts of the communal forces to capture power in UP.

In hindsight, the entire exercise looks to be ridiculous.

Seeking favours from governments converts professional into sycophants. Instead of telling the truth in such circumstances, reporters try to write only palatable reports. Ultimately the practice damages the causes of both. The journalistic organisation loses credibility and the patron doesn’t get a realistic perspective.

Journalist Ram Dutt Tripathi agreed that elections are considered earning season for some sections of the media, particularly regional TV channels and newspapers. They approach political parties and even candidates in specific constituencies with their own packages of advertisements. If the package is accepted, newspapers and channels get required advertisements; the parties and candidates, favourable coverage. The system itself becomes responsible for the malaise and would continue till financial considerations dominate the functioning of news media, said Tripathi.

This practice has compelled journalists to function as advertisement seekers on behalf of their organisations. And they accept these conditions, if only to hold on to their jobs.

The author can be contacted on Twitter @jpshuklaji