By Ranjona Banerji
A fortnight since the attack by Pakistani terrorists on the army camp at Uri and we have not changed the discourse in television media. The calls for war are not just getting louder but are also careering from outrage to outrage in way that makes a mockery not just of journalism but also of good sense.
A good number of our TV news anchors are now wearing a permanent expression of almost mystified fury: how dare anyone criticise their cries for war? Does no one want to avenge the deaths of Indian soldiers? Unfortunately for them, two words come to mind: Cynical and Disingenuous. It is evident that their war hysteria is carefully calibrated and aimed at increasing viewership. Their pain is bogus. Therefore, Cynical and therefore, Disingenuous.
For how long people are going to fooled by this strategy is another question. There are other issues that would ordinarily interest journalists but not apparently the Patriots in news television. The deaths of the entire Bansal family after AK Bansal was jailed during a corruption investigation contains many levels of interest: top of the pile is Bansal’s accusation that he was tortured by a CBI officer who boasted of his closeness to BJP president Amit Shah. There is also the human interest story of four people in one family committing suicide. How many prime time TV discussions have we had on this?
You may point out that it is unfair to ask such a question. Each media outlet has the right to make a judgment call and decide which issue it wants to highlight. That is 100 per cent correct. But this is a branch of the media which headlines the same sort of question to just about anyone: “Why has X not spoken out against Pakistan?â€, “Why has this Pakistani person not condemned his own country†and such.
Any journalist who wants an answer to those questions needs to go and ask the persons concerned what they think. It is easier however for an anchor to rant and rave, then call up a few people who also rant and rave, to go on Twitter and report on anyone else is ranting and raving or not ranting and raving.
This is in fact the normal tactic of an internet troll, to accuse someone you follow of not speaking on this subject or that. The accusation is made without research or reference. A troll though is looking to annoy and provoke. What is a TV anchor purporting to be at the forefront of news trying to do? Further the cause of the Fourth Estate by inventing issues?
The monsoon in India has been destructive and inconsistent across the country. Do we perhaps need a primetime debate on environmental degradation and water and the future? If you want a further “pegâ€, you can try the Paris climate deal. How many discussions on reworking the Indus water treaty with Pakistan focused on the diminishing reserves in the Indus basin aquifers – something that will affect not just the subcontinent but also the planet?
How many primetime discussions have we seen on all the claims being made by various regions across India that they are now “open defecation-free� All of us who live in India usually don’t have to do more than look out of the window to know the truth. How about the continued abuse of Tribals in Chhatisgarh or is that too anti-national a subject to discuss? Farmers? Have they magically become better off since we last discussed them? Black money? Defence deals to friends of the government? The state of telecom? Jayalalitha’s health? What went wrong at Uri?
No. Evidently, the invented absurd is all we are interested in.