By Ranjona Banerji
Has anything changed? Arnab Goswami is no longer fronting The News Hour on Times Now but his legacy remains. So the editors at the news channel – I use the word editors loosely and without conviction here – decide that the best way to handle “debates†at prime time is by spinning the current demonetisation crisis into the fault of the opposition parties. Anything to keep the current government off the hook as far as the suffering of the people is concerned.
Meanwhile the grapevine says that Rahul Shivshankar formerly of Times Now and currently of NewsX will soon be formerly of NewsX and currently of Times Now. Since Shivshankar has carefully mimicked Goswami and steered NewsX in Times Now’s direction. So if the rumours are true, expect more of the same. However, I would think more of Times Now if Navika Kumar, who is bravely carrying on with Goswami’s agenda, gets the top job.
With Goswami’s departure, the fight for “Which is the best channel†has got fiercer, with everyone claiming a piece of the viewers’ pie. CNN-News18 seems to be the winner but then you have to stand with your nose inside your TV screen to actually read the fine print of which demographic and which time slot and which week and so on to try and validate these claims.
Newspaper claims of readership over circulation over print run were so much easier to decipher, until everyone started mistrusting every agency!
**
And where are we with #Demonetisation, media-wise? The divide between print/web and TV is starker than ever. News channels remain by and large caught in their trap of being “fair†to the government. Incidentally, no such “fairness†was shown to the last government over the 2G and coal scams, and rightly not. But with the Modi government, news anchors – not so much reporters on the ground however – are falling over themselves to give government toadies more airtime than they deserve. Some circumspection with the choice of panellists may be a good idea. Why not just call official BJP spokespersons to speak for the government instead of retired corporate types who are clearly scrounging for favours from the government? That would at least give these “debates†some credibility and save these channels from helping charlatans desperate for attention and contracts.
Most economists who write for newspapers and websites (and even some who appear on TV if they are given a chance to speak) have been scathing of this move. Some have criticised it for the lack of implementation and planning, others for the claim that black money would be flushed out and many have questioned this policy on both counts. Several former government officials have also talked about how difficult it is to end institutionalised corruption and demonetisation will have little effect there.
The Opposition has also been very strong, with some excellent speeches by former prime minister, former finance minister, former RBI governor Manmohan Singh of the Congress, Derek O’Brien of the Trinamool Congress, Mayawati of the BSP, Naresh Agarwal of the SP, among others. However for most news channels – as with the example of Times Now above – the fact that the Opposition demanded the prime minister’s presence in Parliament was more significant and neatly spun as “obstructionistâ€.
However, as ever, out of Nutty Anchor land, TV reporters did fine jobs of telling stories from the ground, even when they got cut off by the studio.
**
Catch News has this damning expose of how the BJP bought land worth crores before November 8. How many of our brave TV news editors are going to pick this up? None of them played up the earlier evidence of bribes paid to four BJP and one Congress chief ministers, remember?
http://www.catchnews.com/india-news/bjp-bought-land-worth-crores-just-before-note-ban-1480019920.html/fullview