Category: MxM JOURNALISM REVIEW

By Ranjona Banerji

Let us not be ungracious. Congratulations must be given to Times Now and to its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami for getting an interview with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This is no small achievement. Modi’s interaction with the press, since becoming Prime Minister, has been very scant and mainly limited to selfie-taking sessions. Goswami has also managed to pip other channels – for instance, Aaj-Tak – to the post here.

But did the nation get to know what it wanted to know? That is, would Goswami be as he is on his show – fire and brimstone and with an underlying tone of the panellists or interviewee “being thrown to the dogs” Ramsay Bolton style with Modi? Or was he the sweet, simpering, frankly terrified (like a Bolton victim?) who interviewed Raj Thackeray? Or was he like the schoolyard bully who tore into a lost and hapless Rahul Gandhi?

The answer should of course be obvious – he was gentle and considerate. He asked some pertinent and even tough questions but did press further when he did not get an answer. He allowed Modi to provide his bland answers and present himself as a reluctant politician who is only interested in the “development” of the country. The Prime Minister is a consummate public performer and given that Goswami was largely docile, he was never going to be a threat. People may remember that this was how Goswami interviewed Modi before he became PM, though arguably he was a little sweeter this time.

The media should note that it is to blame for making “heroes” out of the publicity seekers in Modi’s own party and parivar, according to the Prime Minister. One assumes that it would suit the BJP tremendously if we ignored all the communal hate-mongering that routinely emerges from BJP elected officials and members of Parliament.

As an aside, this is also Modi’s response to current problem within the BJP over Subramanian Swamy’s attacks on Arun Jaitley. Modi has honed in solely on Swamy’s need for “publicity” which is what drives him to attack people within his own party publicly. It does not take even half a degree in “entire” political science to know that Swamy’s game is a bit more devious than only looking for “publicity”. But if Goswami accepted that argument from the PM, reluctantly or otherwise, then it is an interesting way to see yourself as a journalist. Or look at it this way: Union finance minister Arun Jaitley has cut short his trip from China to deal with Swamy’s assaults on him and his team. Does that sound like Swamy is merely a misguided publicity-seeker?

But disingenuous answers to tepid questions apart what is the takeaway from this interview for the media? Undoubtedly that Goswami has proved that he is India’s top anchor and everyone else can weep! He got the elusive Prime Minister of India to agree to an interview. The fact that the interview is headline news for practically every newspaper in India tells you how important Goswami’s achievement is. He has also proved that fire and brimstone has to be used not indiscriminately but selectively. If Ramsay Bolton had figured that out, he might not have become dinner for hungry doggies!

I however will continue to watch Wimbledon, which started on Monday on Star Sports, rather than Times Now. And if you’re really interested, also the season six finale of Game of Thrones which airs tonight in India.

By Ranjona Banerji

So “The Interview” has not been as well-received by other news organisations as Times Now might have imagined (hoped?) it would. Before we get into the “jealousy” factor, which I gather has been raised by Times Now, its own sibling newspaper The Times of India was mildly critical of the Prime Minister’s contention that the media should not make “heroes” out of people within his party who make objectionable comments. As TOI pointed out, it is the media’s job to bring such comments to public notice. And it is the party’s job to correct those who step out of line.

Unless of course, the party imagine the line is elsewhere…

Most editorials pointed out that the “Interview” in fact achieved nothing and that the questions on Subramanian Swamy and the comments by other BJP leaders were not tackled strongly enough. You could add to that the NSG fiasco, the way the drought was dealt with, rising prices, the false election promises, rise in communal attacks, the condition of farmers, relations with Pakistan, terrorist attacks…

A little more homework and a little less self-preening may have led to a better job When you read the transcript of the interview between Arnab Goswami editor-in-chief of Times Now and Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, the flaws are even more apparent. The theatrics and optics – to use today’s jargon – are missing. And what you are left with is reality, stripped of all its makeup. The questions were either anodyne or leading or contained the answer within them. There was also all that mandatory sucking up (O, you have a lovely sense of humour) which unfortunately (for the interviewer) looks so obvious without tone and sound.

“The interview” now looks like a press release from the government-run Press Information Bureau. It may well have been a speech by a Prime Minister who is very good at giving speeches. This was an interview as a public relations exercise. Many PR companies today will in fact provide you with such an interview with a film star or a sports star if you want. You attend a press conference, pick up your goodies and the Q&A and get back to office, story in hand.

When the Prime Minister says that it is a matter of concern that there is a lack of humour in public life, the interviewer needs to take it further. A “matter of concern” in what manner, one may ask, when it is people who are opposed to the BJP who pay the price for their humour. Instead, the PM made himself into the victim, where even he is afraid of using his remarkable sense of humour. Perhaps that would have been a good time to talk about rising intolerance in the country.

The answers about Raghuram Rajan and Subramanian Swamy’s attack on him were marginally higher than bland, about as gentle as the questions. Incidentally, soon after the interview was aired, Subramanian Swamy was back on Twitter attacking Arnab Goswami and calling all journalists “presstitutes”, which is the BJP’s favourite term. So much for being chided publicly on air.

Some commentators have postulated that Goswami was angling for the job of government spokesperson and they may well be right!

I can only add to that the idea that Seth Rogen would not be able to make a film out of this “Interview”.

By Ranjona Banerji

A friend in Bangladesh got understandably upset when, after the horrific terrorist attack in Dhaka on Friday, international news channels BBC World, CNN International and Al-Jazeera concentrated only on Italian and Japanese victims, as if no Bangladeshis had died in the attack.

This unsalutary practice is a form of what? – racism? tribalism? nationalism? nativism? – and is seen across all media organisations no matter how enlightened or how many times the word “behove” is used in edits. As a former edit writer myself, I posit that this tendency does not “behove” journalism. The Friday of the attacks, Indian news television for instance concentrated on the one Indian woman killed by the terrorists as if the others did not matter, as if 20 people had not been butchered.

For some years, the media has been told by those within it to “think global and act local”. However that is, as is evident, harder to practise than to preach. In an emergency, journalists tend to think of those closest to themselves or look for connections which they think will interest their readers.

Therefore, in the Indian subcontinent, the Dhaka attacks got front-page attention but the attacks in Baghdad where at least 90 were killed was on the world pages. We are perhaps inured to violence in Iraq since the beginning of this century. One more attack and you turn the page and check to see what happened at Wimbledon. That is our reality.

The excuse for international news channels however is harder to find. Both BBC World and CNN International supposedly cater to a larger audience than their home nations. And Al-Jazeera has positioned itself as local to the Gulf but in some sense larger in its understanding of our part of the world than its immediate competition. The logic therefore fails. Are the deaths of Italians and Japanese more important than those of Bangladeshis? How many Bangladeshis are equal to one white European? Does that sound needlessly harsh? Remember, this is not the first time this has happened. Whether by class or race, people are divided all the time.

As to my friend in Bangladesh, I can only apologise for this insensitive behaviour of fellow journalists.

**

Twitter’s role as a platform for abuse requires some thought from its administrators. Bollywood singer Abhijeet Bhattacharya is known for his foul language and somewhat questionable views. He crassly tweeted about how people who slept on pavements deserved to die like dogs, in a bid to support Bollywood star Salman Khan, for instance. He has also taken strong positions about Pakistani singers performed in India. And sent some very disgusting tweets to a woman who accused him of sexual assault.

His latest is an attack on journalist Swati Chaturvedi. Bhattacharya tweeted that the man who killed a woman at a Chennai station last week was a Muslim and that this was part of some “love jihad” plot. Chaturvedi responded by saying that the man arrested for the murder was a Hindu called Ram Kumar, accused Bhattacharya of “fomenting communal tension”. She also called him a mediocre singer.

Bhattacharya’s response was as usual filled with filthy language and sexual innuendo. Chaturvedi however is not easily cowed down and has reported his tweet to both the Mumbai police and to Twitter.

Not all journalists – especially women journalists who bear the brunt of such attacks – are as brave so more power to her.

The world of Twitter remains extremely misogynistic – many followers of Bhattacharya, most of whom proudly announce that they are “Hindu”, started a campaign to attack Chaturvedi even further, to either display their fragile masculinity or their even more fragile idea of spirituality.

This same glee at attacking women journalists was evident when the hashtag “Arnab Slaps Sagorika” – over some conversation between the two about Goswami’s interview with Narendra Modi – started trending, presumably to prove how manly TV anchor Arnab Goswami and his fans are when it comes to journalist Sagorika Ghose.

Is that one point for mankind’s glorious future, would you say?

By Ranjona Banerji

The role of an ombudsman (woman/person?) is one of the most neglected in the media. In India, The Hindu is the only news organisation which has been consistent with this post. The Hindustan Times used to have a “readers’ editor” – a recent name for the same post – for its Mumbai edition but has now discontinued it.

The Wire (thewire.in) now becomes the first digital publication to have a readers’ editor, the very experienced, delightful and redoubtable Pamela Philipose.

This is from The Wire’s announcement:
“Despite the enormous value they bring to news organisations, public editors, readers editors or ombudsmen are still relatively rare in the media world. The concept was pioneered by the Asahi Shimbun in 1922 but has only gained traction in recent years. The New York Times, the Guardian and the Washington Post are some of the news organisations that have put in place public editors. In India, the office was first introduced by The Hindu in 2006, though The Times of India briefly flirted with the post of an ombudsman in the 1990s.”

Philipose will join The Wire in September and will work independently of the digital publication’s “editorial structure and her mandate will be to examine and, where appropriate, investigate complaints and concerns that readers may have about its coverage,” says the announcement.

It is difficult to understand why a media organisation would not want a public or readers’ editor. One can of course point out the obvious – that they do not want to be open to public scrutiny, that the media thinks too much of itself, that editors do not want to hand over control and so on.

However, these are childish, egotistical reasons. A news organisation that keeps its readers views in mind is a news organisation that is in touch with its main constituency. Readers always complain that editors are not interested in what they think and that their suggestions and letters do not get enough space. This is true, without a doubt. There is a distasteful contempt for the reader that runs through all newsrooms.

In the days before the internet, there was a distinct slump in letter-writing so one could make the excuse that enough people just do not bother to write to newspapers. Personally, I have handled letters in just about every newspaper organisation I have worked for and I have always found it a fascinating, exasperating, educational experience. But since the internet and social media, there is enough feedback at all times.

Many feel that Comments sections on websites are enough interaction with the public. But as any journalist knows, comments are often just a platform for vicious abuse. The Guardian’s former editor Alan Rusbridger was very firm that journalists must pay attention to comments but it is usually a thankless job of trawling through personal attacks. A readers’ editor – which The Guardian does have – provides a more workable interaction with readers.

There are also a number of misconceptions floating around about how a newsroom works. Television news, by bringing journalists into your home, has made everyone into a media commentator and expert, with neither knowledge nor experience.

A readers’ editor works both to dispel that ignorance as well as to make it clear to readers that they do matter.

The Hindu’s current readers’ editor AS Panneerselavan is a great example of how the post can work. He takes on readers’ complaints but he does not get caught up in the nitty-gritty. He explains the philosophy behind an article or a position or a newsroom angle. He draws distinct lines on how far a reader can accuse a newspaper but always with dignity and respect.

Television news as we can see need public or viewers’ editors really badly. One might argue that they need editors in general but I have decided not to be nasty.

Congratulations to The Wire and to Pamela and may all news organisations in India take a cue from this.

By Ranjona Banerji

Reading Atul Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto has put me in a nostalgic as well as interrogatory frame of mind, especially about how newsrooms operate. Dr Gawande’s contention is remarkable in its simplicity and its good sense: how having a checklist helps or hinders a process. He found, through research, trial and error that five minutes spent on checklists can save lives, prevent accidents and reduce human error. His main objective was to reduce deaths on the operating table. But it took him on a journey that included flight and construction checklists – two areas of human endeavour where checklists are the norm rather than the exception – and several others where so many simple mistakes should make checklists mandatory.

I have worked in a number of newsrooms, all different. Some totally chaotic, some regimented by years of experience, some bound by alchemy, some riven by professional antipathy. But all them I realise could have done with that simple checklist. In all of these newsrooms we were trapped in the fallacy of our own knowledge and experience in spite of all the mistakes being made around us.

Some newsrooms had some simple rules, some even put up on notice boards, mainly for sub-editors. Check headlines, captions, intros before releasing a page for instance. But that is now one of those customs more practised in the breach, as Shakespeare put it. One age-old practice was the post-mortem where the editor went through the previous day’s or week’s or month’s issue marking out all the errors. Over the years, even this vital input appears to have been abandoned. And this is evident to any close follower of the news media.

I can hear editors saying that they are too busy. But that is hogwash. For one, the editor’s role has been marginalised and diminished by managements and owners and today’s editors have played along with it just to keep their positions. For the other, it is just sheer laziness. Some newsrooms outsource the analysis, which sounds okay but is in fact a waste of time. The correction has to come from the top.

I have no knowledge of how news television operates. But this much is clear from the outside – it appears to be almost systemless in its breathless hysteria to get everywhere first. Often those in the studio have no idea what the reporters on the field are talking about, almost all the competitors try and mimic each other and when they get their collective teeth into one news bone, it is as if nothing else is happening in the Universe. I believe those in charge of news programming are called “producers” which seems apt because I doubt that they know what “editing” means.

As Gawande puts it, “We don’t study routine failures”. And that is the crux of the matter.

**

I did not watch Rajdeep Sardesai’s interview with tennis star Sania Mirza on India Today TV. But reading the transcript, it is clear that even a journalist of Sardesai’s experience can fall into a facile patriarchy trap. Or even just a facile trap. I don’t know if this is an intrinsic failing of the TV interview where you lose good sense in trying to be all chummy with the interviewee or just a massive error of judgment.

Sardesai asked Mirza if she is going to “settle down” and about motherhood.

Mirza had a sharp reply, asking “You don’t think I’m settled?” and then going on to talk about how she is asked this all the time as a woman: “No matter how many Wimbledons we win or world number ones we become, we don’t become settled.”

Sardesai apologised immediately.

But perhaps here’s a good reason for a checklist before you interview someone: Yvonne Goolagong Cawley and Kim Clijsters are only two female tennis players who won major titles after motherhood. And current male tennis stars like Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray are all fathers.

Of course, patriarchy is a blight that will possibly never be “settled” in my lifetime at least no matter how many checklists I make.

By Ranjona Banerji

Is it not ironic that a government full of people who fought against Indira Gandhi’s Emergency and its brutal attack on India’s fundamental rights should now be part of a media gag in Kashmir? LK Advani, BJP founder, had made that classic comment about the media crawling when it was asked to bend.

So if the media now protests this gag, is it anti-national or upholding the Constitution?

In fact, from all accounts, the State has used no constitutional methods to stop the production and distribution of newspapers in Kashmir. It was all apparently done “verbally”. Midnight raids were carried out at newspaper offices, newly printed papers seized, people intimidated. This forced newspaper owners to suspend publication.

Let us also remember that in times of crisis, every government in India, state or Centre, finds it necessary to suspend the flow of information. The ostensible reason is to stop troublemakers from either gaining access to information or to spread misinformation. This is not the first time that mobile, SMS and internet services have been stopped in Kashmir.

However, it is only common sense that if you stop legitimate sources of information from reaching the public what you will be left with is gossip, rumours and misinformation. This is a very “nanny” approach to people – as if they are not mature enough to understand or analyse what they read or hear. You may argue that some people are not but that is not your or mine decision to make.

I do know from personal experience that people did not behave any better when there was a gag on the flow of information. In 1984, India was not informed when Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Rumours flew around the country, even in the days before mobile phones, the internet and 24-hour news television and when very few even had access to landlines. There were stories about how Sikhs “celebrated”. Across India, Sikhs were targeted. Everyone knew that something had happened and rumours fanned those flames of half-baked facts, which seemed to justify attacking innocent people. I am not sure that that was a better situation to be in.

There are many such examples of misinformation ruling when legitimate sources are blocked. The recent coup in Turkey forced the president to “facetime” with the people after TV studios were closed down.

It is important to make it clear that the freedom of the press has nothing to do with TV shows, opinions and media outlets that you or I do not like or with allegations of terrible journalism or with bad judgment calls. The “media” is not one entity in the way it operates. But the “media” is one entity when it comes to its rights and privileges. The freedom of the press is an integral part of a democracy and any government which cannot show good faith with its people has failed to uphold democracy.

Most media associations had condemned this gag. The Editors’ Guild statement says, “We are also aghast to note that the media censorship will continue, for a minimum of three days if not more. This is a direct assault to the freedom of the press in India and the Guild strongly condemns this unwarranted muzzling of the media.”

How does one build faith with people if your first reaction is to deny them their fundamental rights? It is a question which has unfortunately dogged us over and over again in India. To crawl or to bend or stand firm – what do our politicians and governments really want?

By Ranjona Banerji

Channel surfing on Monday evening, I came across some extraordinary teasers scrolling at the bottom of the screen. The channel was NewsX. “Pak turns Indians against India” and “#IndiansAgainstIndia” kept scrolling, even as the news was about some Hollywood love affair gone wrong.

So I waited. Turns out that CPM activist Kavitha Krishnan and writer Arundhati Roy had said that the killing of Kashmiri Burhan Wahi was “extrajudicial”. This made the two women traitors and presumably “agents” of Pakistan. They are of course usual targets for some of our pseudo-nationalist TV journalists because anyone with a contrary point of view has to be against the Indian State.

I went back to watching Wayward Pines. Because, frankly, the fight between humans 2000 years out of their time zone and the humans of the future who have become “aberrations” was more interesting and realistic than what passes for journalism on some Indian news channels.

The Indian Express for instance has a fascinating series by Praveen Swami on the covert battle between Indian security forces and the Hizbul-e-Mujahideen and the role of Burhan Wani therein. The tone is of a journalist not a hysterical news anchor waving an Indian flag to prove that he deserves the next Padma Shri. You can agree or disagree with Swami but at least he has done some work and is not just creating a Me versus You arguments for the fun of it.

The inference that Krishnan and Roy are attacking “India” because of some Pakistani influence is extremely dangerous. As it is we have a government at the Centre that wants the discourse in India to be on a binary level only: with us or against us. We are seeing an uprising by Dalits across India, because they have been targeted by this binary mindset. Surely that is a bigger problem than the possible statements of Krishnan and Roy? Or is it now mandatory for everyone to immediately agree with the GOI? In fact, are the PDP and BJP in Kashmir even in agreement on what’s happening there?

Even more telling is the fact that journalists seem to think that extrajudicial killings are either okay or that they do not happen. These are the same journalists by the way who will grovel at the feet of any Bollywood star regardless of his or her dodgy record.

Is the role of a journalist to support the government of the day? Is that what the media is for? Or is the role of the media to investigate claims made by the government of the day? Is it the media’s job to start a war with Pakistan? Can the media sustain this war effort if it succeeds in its idiotic objectives? Is the media also going to start a war with China to bolster its ratings?

If these questions sound absurd, try and watch news television in India when the issue gets close to India’s relations with its neighbours. Then you will know what absurd is!

Like I once thought that James Bond film, Tomorrow Never Dies, where a media tycoon starts a war to increase sales, was idiotic. Now I wonder…

By Ranjona Banerji

A friend, a real dedicated newswatcher, said to me yesterday that she cannot watch TV news nor read newspapers any more. “I just skim through the papers because they only seem to react to an agenda set by TV channels.”

That is a strong indictment but it is also true. More and more, it is TV which is setting the agenda and therefore the scrutiny on journalism as practised on television has to be more stringent. And we are, it seems, in the middle of a TV journalism flashpoint.

It’s been a week since one of India’s most prominent news anchors accused another prominent news anchor of being a traitor to India and being pro-Pakistani interests. And the reactions are still coming in from observers and commentators, including from this column last week. There is no doubt that television rules the news media stakes. Or that Arnab Goswami and Barkha Dutt are among TV’s most well-known faces. But how far does that power take you?

Obviously in Goswami’s case, as far as he likes. No apology had been forthcoming from him on his appalling diatribe. One of his targets was undoubtedly Dutt. But he also targeted all journalists and everyone who does not agree with him. This also includes, as it happens, the Government of India. We are not currently fighting a war with Pakistan, no matter how much Handle Bar Generals scream and yell at their Pakistani counterparts in TV studios.

The chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, a state under curfew since July 11, has talked of peace and compassion for the young people of Kashmir, even those who are agitating against Indian authority. Does Mehbooba Mufti qualify as a traitor for Goswami and his studio guests or is she beyond reproach because her party is in coalition with the Bharatiya Janata Party in Jammu and Kashmir?

Some people have called Goswami a bully, others have said he is tied down by the demands of the advertising which subsidises news, still others have informed us that he is very sweet in real life and something strange happens to him when a TV camera is turned on him. In his early days in the same news channels that Dutt worked in, he seemed to me at least a journalist who did not think it necessary to do his homework. In an interview with former Maharashtra chief minister, the late Manohar Joshi, he casually asked Joshi, “So when were you chief minister?”

It’s not that Goswami is the only journalist who does not do his homework. But if one extrapolates that that is his foundation, then he is not really convincing when he waves papers around because we cannot see what they prove. Or when he allows the spokesperson of a party he approves of to air false videos on his channel. Or when he ignores the attack on an Air Force base in India but is very bothered about what a Booker prizewinning author has to say. Or that cow protection squads which are affiliated to the party he approves of beat up and kill people. I can understand that attacking Pakistan proves that Goswami is a good Indian. But does he then consider that Dalits are not Indians?

I can only conclude as I did last week that while Goswami ticks his own boxes of patriotism, he does not tick any known boxes on journalism.

**

I did not quite believe it when people on Twitter claimed that no English news channels covered the massive Dalit rally in Ahmedabad on Sunday. But when I checked I found to my horror that this accusation seemed to be correct. All evening I waited for some report on this rally but as ever had to wait for the next day’s papers. One more downtick in my TV news dossier.

By Ranjona Banerji

Outlook magazine has published a long investigative report on 31 young Tribal girls being taken from Assam to Gujarat and Punjab to be educated. The parents send their children off knowingly. But what they do not know is that they will not see their daughters again for years and when they return, they have forgotten their language, their culture and appear to be indoctrinated.

The Assam State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights filed a report on July 15 that girls were being “trafficked”. The protection of child rights got an extra fillip when the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that children from Assam and Manipur, under the age of12, were not to be sent to other states for education. This directive followed a probe that 76 children from these states had been “trafficked” mainly to schools in Tamil Nadu run by Christian missionaries.

The reaction to the Outlook story has been strong and angry; and not for reasons that you might imagine. The problem it appears is not that the girls were taken from their homes and not allowed to see their parents for years. The anger is because they were taken to RSS-run organisations and how dare anyone criticise the RSS. One cannot recall RSS supporters standing up for the rights of Christian missionaries in 2010, however. The other point of outrage is that Outlook has used the word “trafficking”.

Therefore the question of child rights, of parents either mislead or callous, of being taken away from your home and family, these are not issues which must move us. Our only concern is that the RSS has been mentioned in a bad light. However, if the story was about children being forcibly taken to madrasas, you can imagine how overjoyed the RSS and its supporters would be.

Outlook has an investigative report. It has interviewed the people concerned. It has spoken to the official agencies involved. It has listed the various laws that have been broken – and they have.

The RSS and its affiliates are within their rights to counter these by legal means. It can take on the government of Assam. It can sue the parents of the children. It can take issue with the Assam Commission for Protection of Child Rights. But it is pointless to attack the messenger. Outlook has told you what has happened. Attacking Outlook will neither solve the problem nor your reputation.

This is the chairperson of the Assam State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights on how she is being pressured to change her report:

http://thewire.in/55891/assam-child-rights-commission-chief-allegedly-pressurised-change-report-trafficked-minor-girls/

And this is the writer of the article, Neha Dixit, on allegations made against her and her work by the RSS and its organisations:

http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/operation-babylift-why-sangh-parivar-not-countering-facts-facts-asks-neha-dixit-47512

**

There has been much outrage on social media that the “mainstream media” has not made as much noise on Peepli Live director Mohammed Farooqui’s rape case as it did about similar allegations against Tarun Tejpal. The implication seems to be that Farooqui has friends in high places and this has helped him.

However, there are some differences in this case. For one, Farooqui, as far as I recall, has been convicted. I have read several newspaper articles about this which puts paid to the “mainstream media has ignored Farooqui” argument. Secondly, Tejpal’s case had special interest for the media since it was about sexual assault in the workplace by an editor. Tejpal himself added dramatic content to proceedings by a bombastic letter of apology. Had he not written that letter and had supporters of the woman he assaulted not made her case public, Tejpal would probably have got away with it. As it is, he is still out on bail. He has taken back his apology and his friends in high places have continued to defend him.

I would contend also that Tejpal was better known within and without the media than Farooqui, no matter how well known the latter was in Delhi. The real question for outragers should be perhaps: when will the Tejpal case see any justice?

By Ranjona Banerji

Is it remarkable that once the BJP and the Prime Minister realised that attacking Dalits on the excuse of “cow protection” can be an electoral disaster our “patriotic” news channels have suddenly started “exposes” on cow vigilantes? I would guess, the answer is, “No, it is not remarkable, rather it is only to be expected.”

The Una incident happened on July 11. The Prime Minister spoke on August 6 and 7. Our exposes started around the same time. It is interesting to see how our differently our patriotic news channels covered the Dadri incident last year where Mohammed Ikhlak was murdered by a mob on the suspicion that he and his family had eaten beef.

What happens when powerful journalists take cues from government on how to cover stories or indeed what stories to cover? The Dalit anger has been simmering in Gujarat for a while. A massive Dalit rally in Ahmedabad a few days ago was completely ignored by television news, but not by news websites or newspapers. How long does it take a powerful journalist who speaks for the nation to understand this? Only when the Prime Minister speaks?

Intriguingly, the Prime Minister spoke of most cow vigilantes as “anti-social” elements. However, many of these cow vigilantes belong to Hindutva-related organisations, most affiliated in some way with the RSS and the BJP, both of which the prime minister belongs to. Therefore, “exposes” by our patriotic news channels ought perhaps to concentrate on these organisations, not just thugs and goons.

The other interesting fact – and this I have learnt from The Indian Express and not from television news – is that barring Himachal Pradesh, most cow vigilantes operate in states run by the BJP or BJP coalition governments. The attacks on Dalits and Muslims – who either eat beef or deal with dead cattle – have increased since the BJP came to power at the Centre. These are co-relations that our patriotic news channels may not appreciate but in a normal world, they would tickle the journalistic nose.

**

What is happening in Kashmir is the other issue for journalists. Times Now went over the top accusing Shah Faesal, an IAS officer from Kashmir, of something a little less than treason for a Facebook post where he asked what sort of a government shoots its own people. The patriotic news channel world is run by the George W Bush maxim: “you are either with us or against us”.

Journalists who have a little brain may be interested to read Wajahat Habibullah, former Chief Information Commissioner, in The Hindu, on Kashmir, on Kashmiris who work for the government and on the lost youth of that state.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/wajahat-habibullah-on-kashmir-unrest-after-the-killing-of-burhan-wani/article8955946.ece?utm_source=MostPopular&utm_medium=Opinion&utm_campaign=WidgetPromo

**

Friend, former colleague and senior sports commentator Sharda Ugra had brought up some serious points in this piece for The Hoot, written in 2012, during the London Olympics:

http://www.thehoot.org/media-watch/opinion/unfair-inaccurate-disparaging-6166

And almost all of what she said then still stands today. There is a portion of the journalistic community whose only role seems to be to disparage any sort of sporting achievement. There is an enormous effort that takes an athlete to the world’s arena. In some ways, just being an Olympian is a massive achievement.

Can it be that only journalists and fans want athletes to do their best, to win medals and the athletes themselves do not?

My observation in this is that journalists too often behave like fans. And they either idolise someone to impossible heights or bring them down to despicable lows. You see this all the time with the Indian cricket team. One win and it is the best team in the world with the best and greatest caption and best and greatest players. One loss and it is the worst team in the world with third-grade players led by a fourth-grade caption. The same team, mind you. This attitude gets extrapolated to all sport.

Sport is supposed to be a contest between two people or teams but to listen and to read most of the Indian sports media, it appears that only one team competes and the other is there to kowtow to India’s current needs.

With the Olympics and other such sporting meets though, Indian has a very real problem. Historically, our performance has not been good barring our run in hockey. Therefore, we are without context. We are also not a very good sporting nation in the sense that we are always stuck in “win-loss”, not in the appreciation of the game, the form, the style, the method. This makes the pressure on the few athletes we have impossible. We are also largely concerned with sport as a nationalistic device.

Sadly, journalists appear to be no different here and add to that the need for sensational headlines. Therefore, an Indian athlete who qualifies for the last 8 in a tough field where the world’s best have gathered and comes 8^th  is seen as a “loser”.

Perhaps the more appropriate reaction is that this athlete did not win a medal not that he or she “crashed out”.