Us, Scared? Hah!

This isn’t a new discussion or debate. It’s been speculated on, denied, accusations have been hurled and abuse has been heaped – all because many feel that news channels fear naming powerful ministers in scams or doing stories that involve formidable names in the government.

Most recently, this debate was sparked off by the Saradha group chit fund scam. The facts first – TV channels owned by Saradha group wind up laying off all staff. The promoter, Sudipta Sen, goes missing. He’s finally tracked down in Kashmir but not before an 18-page long letter which he writes to the CBI finds its way into reporters’ hands and is posted online. This is where the finger pointing begins.

In the letter, Sudipta Sen alleges intimidation, bribery and payoffs to various politicians and relatives of politicians.  On page 7, he accuses Trinamool MPs Kunal Ghosh and Srinjoy Bose of squeezing money out of him. On page 10 of the same letter, he names Finance Minister P Chidambaram’s wife Nalini Chidambaram, also Manoranjan Sinh and her husband Matang Sinh, a Congressman.

Predictably, all channels ran with the story that evening (April 24, 2013), with wall-to-wall coverage. Primetime was dominated by the chit fund scam across channels. The allegations about the involvement of TMC MPs (as per page 7 of prime accused Sudipta Sen’s letter) were discussed and dissected. Predictably too, for some, page 10 of the letter found no coverage or mention on any channel that evening.

It’s not unreasonable to wonder why while the TMC MPs names were thrown around with gay abandon (one of them came on air to defend himself that night), the closest any news channel came to revealing what page 10 of the letter said was a ticker on Headlines Today – “Wife of senior UPA minister named in Sudipta Sen’s letter”. That’s not the exact wording but pretty close. This ticker ran for less than 10 minutes before it was taken off, while the rest of the tickers ran uninterrupted for hours.

Predictably again, questions were raised by many on why the “senior UPA minister” was not named. Fear or favour? It’s a fair question.

The next day, some in the print media carried the chit fund story and several gave all pages of Sudipta Sen’s letter attention – page 7 (TMC names) and page 10 (Nalini Chidambraam & Congressman named) too. That’s the first time P Chidambaram’s wife’s name was mentioned by news media. It’s only the next day (April 25, 2013) that channels carried the story of the Chidambaram connection. Why the one-day delay. Was everyone waiting to see who’d have the courage to mention that name first and then followed suit? Does news tiptoe around stories involving the powerful?

On Twitter what should have been a reasonable debate predictably turned to name-calling and slander. Accusations were flung at the news channels and especially at NDTV for being soft on Chidambaram. Most doubts weren’t addressed as questions to various editors and anchors, but idiotically as abuse. It’s entirely justified for media personalities to ignore those rants and not engage. However, picking the attack by the loony fringe to get oneself in the clear (a much-used device on TV debates explained here) is too convenient. No doubt Twitter abuse is garbage but that does not make the issue garbage. The question of double standards because of fear or favour is entirely understandable. Not just because of this one case. It’s not unfair to ask that question. News channels and newspapers have given many opportunities for that doubt to be raised in viewers’ and readers’ minds. There is nothing wrong, in fact it’s desirable they go out of the way to clear that. It’s in everyone’s interest, most of all of the news media whose credibility isn’t exactly at its highest.

We did ask NDTV’s Sonia Singh and Headlines Today’s Rahul Kanwal questions regarding this. While Headlines Today has a policy of not allowing anyone to speak to the media (Ah! The irony), Sonia was kind enough to answer our questions.

In case you’re wondering what the NBSA is, it’s the News Broadcasting Standards Authority. Here is the list of do’s and don’ts from NBSA:

A news channel must:

1.   Ensure impartiality and objectivity in reporting

2.   Ensure neutrality

3.   Ensure that when reporting on crime, that crime and violence are not glorified

4.   Ensure utmost discretion while reporting on violence and crime against women and children

5.   Abhor sex and nudity

6.   Ensure privacy

7.   Ensure that national security is not endangered

8.   Refraining from advocating or encouraging superstition and occultism

9.   Ensure responsible sting operations

Number 5, abhor sex and nudity? Huh? Err? Excuse me if I don’t. And if any of you in TV news are following “editorial principle” number 5 in letter and spirit, you have my sympathy.

Coming back to allegations against channels, to an extent the explanation by Sonia Singh seems kind of logical but it is not convincing. And she speaks for NDTV alone. Do other channels (who have a policy of not speaking to the media!) have the same reason? I can rattle of case-after-case where the same channels have carried stories that do not have any representation from the accused. Stories that involve theft, fraud, rape, extortion and more. Archives are full of such stories. Without any prima facie evidence any story involving criminal activity is reported with names taken, faces flashed, even piece to camera tours of their homes and offices. Also I don’t get the logic behind a willingness to carry stories where there is a political or criminal allegation and a reluctance to carry stories about economic impropriety without the version of the accused parties. It seems random. Are economic offenses less serious than criminal offenses or allegations by a political rival? The logic isn’t clear. It’s not consistent.

Does that mean anyone accused in any crooked deal of economic nature can ensure the story or at least his or her name will be blacked out by simply not speaking to the media? Unlikely.

Is the censorship self-imposed? Without the powers-that-be having to “exert” pressure? As they say, “samajhdar ke liye ishara hi kaafi hai”.  They crawl before they are even asked to bend. Is intimidation real? I once heard someone say that the measure of how evolved a democracy is can be measured by how low the price of dissent is. Is the price of dissent in India low? From what I’ve observed – no! It’s not. It could be low, but it could just as well be high. It’s inconsistent – as inconsistent as the principles or rules followed by news media. It really depends on who you are.

Shankar Sharma (the then promoter of Tehelka during Operation Westend) paid a very heavy price for that sting, including imprisonment. Aniruddha Bahal and Tarun Tejpal have cases against them to this day. Even slight insolence is dealt with. Remember in 2002 Time magazine correspondent Alex Perry being summarily called to Raisina Hill and then receiving repeated summons to  the Foreigners Regional Registration Office which questioned his visa and passport for writing this unflattering piece that mentioned among other things Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s fondness for alcohol? Something that minor was “dealt with”. A message was sent out.

In today’s connected world, news media and news personalities are the first barometer of upholding the democratic principle of free speech. They’re the butterflies of this right. In any ecosystem that has them, when butterflies (among other sensitive species) start vanishing you know other species will follow. When the media starts tiptoeing and bending over it doesn’t auger well for the rest of us.

Also really bizarre is when a news organisation doesn’t have anyone authorised to speak on its behalf and will not answer questions. Does no one see the ridiculousness of the position where those who ask questions of everyone (as they should) have a policy of not giving any answers?

As far as the same answer we get either on or off the record from all channels worded almost exactly the same in all cases – “we are not aware of any political pressures, and if they exist we haven’t faced them” is just ostrich-like. I’ll stick my neck out and say it’s untrue. I have been in this space long enough to know that. I was alive and awake when Tehelka happened. I was alive and awake when the Alex Perry Time magazine case happened (even Time was “concerned” for his safety).

I can say with full confidence that pressures are applied directly or indirectly. Whether channels or newspapers give in to pressures or not can be debated. But anyone who says that no pressure from government powers exist in this space is from the same land of milk and honey where topnotch film stars say “I don’t think a casting couch exists in the film industry. I’ve never seen it happen”. Well I’ve never seen a Blue Whale but I do think there is sufficient evidence to suggest they exist, even if their numbers are a fraction of what they were 2 decades ago. I won’t be so naïve as to wait to see one to confirm their existence, unless their extinction is complete because no one paid attention when the butterflies started vanishing.

Image By: Swarnabha Bannerjee