By Shailesh Kapoor
Politics is in the air (though that may be true for any given day of the year). We are in election season again, and the build-up to the 2024 General Elections has well and truly started, even though there remains speculation on the dates, even the possibility of an early election, before the stipulated May timeline.
It’s only natural then that the media scene heats up too. Last month, the I.N.D.I.A alliance announced a ‘boycott’ of 14 news anchors across channels. The news has met with various reactions, depending on which side of the political spectrum one is aligned to. Some have called it a violation of press freedom, while others have endorsed the move as a message against hate speech and biased media coverage.
The decision to not engage with certain sections of the media is an age-old tactic followed by politicians and celebrities frequently, and to call it a violation of freedom of press is quite a stretch. It’s not so much the move that has caused the debate, but the public announcement of it. If I.N.D.I.A would have silently decided to not send their spokespersons to the shows hosted by the said anchors, no one would have cared much. But by making their decision very public, they have stirred up a hornet’s nest.
The decision itself carries limited practical value. Many of the anchors listed don’t even have programs that have spokespersons on them. In any case, debate shows on Indian news channels do not need official spokespersons. There is a long list of unofficial supporters and sympathizers who are willing to come on debate shows on short notice. Many even get paid for it, from what one gathers.
The only pertinent question that is more important than the short-term controversy is: How did we reach here? The Indian media and polity were in a symbiotic relationship for decades, and incidents of friction, some dating back to the times of Indira Gandhi, if not earlier, were more aberrations than norm. But over the last few years, there has been a gradual decline in the health of this relationship. It is no secret that the current Government at the Centre does not give press the kind of access earlier Governments did. Cabinet reshuffles, for example, are rarely known to the media till they are formally announced. This seems a part of a well-considered media strategy, where engaging with the voters directly, via social media for example, is a preferred option.
But there has also been a gradual decline in the quality of political representation on news channels. Till about a decade ago, it would not be unusual to see faces like Arun Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj, Jairam Ramesh, Ravi Shankar Prasad, et al on various TV news debates, often every night. That is almost unthinkable today. People of stature and experience do not want to be associated with the cacophonic mess TV debates have degenerated into, over the years. They would rather give one-on-ones when they something specific to say.
But these occasional one-on-ones cannot fuel four hours of prime-time programming every night. So, news channels must manufacture topics, and ‘spokespersons’, to keep their ship running. The viewer may see it as news or entertainment, but that’s not something anyone is losing sleep over. Not anymore.
The ‘fourth estate’ role of the media seems like an age-old idea in today’s Indian context. Boycott or no boycott, the Hindu-Muslim debates and the thin-on-facts coverage will continue. Because if there are eyeballs, no one is really complaining.