MxMIndia

Tag: freaking news

  • It is to the point, the results are up-to-date and the anchors and panellists are not given to high drama, hi jinks or spouting meaningless hi-falutin hogwash, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Rajya Sabha TV is the channel to watch

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Should news channels have broadcast the BJP’s election manifesto as it was revealed on Monday? Unless the Election Commission issues a written embargo to all news publications or had banned the BJP from releasing its manifesto once voting was underway, this whole exercise becomes a little pointless. The media has to share news as it gets it unless it is illegal to do so and even then there are some grey areas. As we have seen so dramatically played out in the Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden cases. If the Election Commission wants its diktats to be heeded then it has to be stricter in the way it goes about it.

     

    **

     

    Meanwhile as the elections approach, it is time to start choosing which channel you are going to track the results on. Those looking for excitement and high drama must of course go to Times Now and watch Arnab Goswami run around like the Duracell bunny. Or if you want platitudes and placidity, you can watch CNN-IBN. If you are youth-obsessed, there’s Headlines Today. If you are confused, there’s NewsX. And if you are nostalgic by nature, there’s the Prannoy Roy-Dorab Sopariwalla double act on NDTV.

     

    As for me, through trial and error, I have found my haven in Rajya Sabha TV. It is to the point, the results are up-to-date and the anchors and panellists are not given to high drama, hi jinks or spouting meaningless hi-falutin hogwash.

     

    **

     

    While on the BJP manifesto, media reactions have been mixed. Some have applauded good economic sense and the focus on job-building and the “neo-middle class”, others have been struck by the manifesto’s mentions of the Ram Temple, Uniform Civil Code and Article 370 and there are those who are amused by the similarity to the Congress manifesto. The Times of India’s edit calls it “lacklustre” and perhaps that is closest to the truth.

     

    In fact, everything that has happened around the BJP manifesto brings up the question of whether a manifesto really matters to voters any more.

     

    **

     

    The big issue for the media remains the polarisation of society and opinion over Narendra Modi. The venerable Economist, the publication that looks like a magazine but calls itself a newspaper, decided against Modi in spite of the economic development he may bring to India as prime minister. Those who applauded the Economist for calling Manmohan Singh ineffectual were very upset with this leader: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600106-he-will-probably-become-indias-next-prime-minister-does-not-mean-he-should-be-can-anyone

     

    Which only proves once more that you can never trust any media organisation, ever.

     

    And The Guardian has not helped with this comment about whether Narendra Modi’s anointment as prime minister will be good for gender issues: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/narendra-modi-as-prime-minister-womens-rights-india

     

    **

     

    I was quite surprised to learn that Meenakshi Lekhi, now a BJP Lok Sabha candidate from Delhi and once a formidable BJP TV spokesperson, was allowed back on Times Now even after she accused star anchor Arnab Goswami of taking money during a discussion on LGBT rights. I really thought that she would never ever ever never ever never ever appear on Times Now again after that.

     

    **

     

    And if, like me, you find most Indian news channels very distressing, there is hope: Comedy Central India have brought back their anchors Ornob Musambi and Rajbeep Sardesai. You might never ever never ever ever want to watch anyone else again!

     

  • Does a journalist who comes by such red-hot material abide by the law and refuse to view it or write about, asks Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Is it right to watch the Tejpal tapes?

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    How seriously should journalists take the Supreme Court rulings on keeping secret the identity of a woman who has filed a rape complaint? And do journalists have to respect court and investigative procedures if they get hold of evidence that is material to a case? Is the search for a story more important than everything else?

     

    Tarun Tejpal is still in jail on rape charges (or sexual assault amounting to rape). The case had many sensational elements in it, was highly publicised and both the accused and the accusers were journalists. Issue of work place harassment, India’s new rape laws, the functioning of Tehelka, how seriously journalists take themselves, the role of Tehelka managing editor Shoma Chaudhury were all discussed. Tejpal is still in jail, bail pleas having been rejected.

     

    And now as the case comes to trial, we see defence for Tejpal being built in the media. Articles on blogs and in magazines claim to have seen the CCTV footage of Tejpal and his accuser leaving the lift where the incidents are supposed to have taken place. Now this footage is part of the evidence. It lies only with the defence and the prosecution: or that is how it should be. Those who are part of the young victim’s (or accuser if you prefer) support team have not seen the CCTV footage nor it seems has the young woman herself seen it, according to lawyer Vrinda Grover.

     

    Journalist Manu Joseph in Outlook first suggested that he had seen the footage in his article ‘What the elevator saw’ but is later quoted as saying that it is not “relevant” whether he has seen the footage or not. Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap says he has seen the footage which proves that no rape took place. Senior Seema Mustapha also says she has seen the footage and it proves that the young woman was lying.

     

    So does a journalist who comes by such red-hot material abide by the law and refuse to view it or write about? Or does a journalist see this as a massive scoop where journalistic ethics trumps the law? The Supreme Court ruling about keeping a rape accuser’s identity secret is precisely to avoid the sort of vilification that is taking place by the Tejpal defence. How seriously should journalists and editors take that? Is a journalist one might ask supposed to take sides and work for the defence of either an accused or an accuser?

     

    After the Niira Radia tapes expose by Outlook and Open magazines, Joseph, then editor of Open, is supposed to have told Barkha Dutt, as I was reminded by a very senior journalist: “Sometimes the source is the story” or words to that effect. The implication was that Dutt had missed the fact that a telecom lobbyist was pushing for A Raja as telecom minister. So did Joseph ask himself why he had been given the tapes and whether he was being used as a stooge by Tejpal’s defence team?

     

    I am asking these questions because we are in a very grey area here. We all have our personal responses to the issues of rape and sexual harassment and mine is that the Supreme Court ruling as far as the identity of the accuser is concerned must be followed. Certainly, any journalist is free to argue for and against any person. But if he or she wants to take on the Supreme Court on the subject of keeping a rape accuser’s identity secret, then they should do it directly. By talking about the CCTV coverage, they have showed bad judgment and bias.

     

  • CNN-IBN editor-in-chief comment that 30 years ago journalists were stenographers rehashing press releases while today’s journalists are more assertive and questioning was gratuitous, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Were journalists of 30 years ago mere stenographers, as Rajdeep Sardesai said?

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    According to an article written in Hoot by senior journalist Seetha, editor-in-chief of CNN-IBN Rajdeep Sardesai commented at a CII panel discussion that 30 years ago journalists were stenographers rehashing press releases while today’s journalists are more assertive and questioning. The credit for this, he felt, was due to television.

     

    Seetha’s excellent piece demolishes the stenographer accusation. I found the supposition a bit strange and thanks to the logistics of Twitter, had a small conversation with Sardesai – whom I do not know – on the issue. The upshot of which was that Seetha had not quoted his whole contention and used his comments out of context, that 30 years ago journalists were stenographers but there were also some good journalists then and it was unfair to attack TV journalism which was a soft target and finally, “Let’s not glorify the past and damn the present.” (That’s a direct quote from Twitter by the way.)

     

    I am not going to venture into Seetha’s territory, since she has done an excellent job defending the “stenographers” of the past. (http://thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=7398&pg=1&mod=1&sectionId=10&sectionname=Columns)

     

    But I am going to look at the further discussion. Past and present. TV and print. My understanding is that there were good and bad journalists then as there are now – which is hardly rocket science. In which case the “stenographer” remark is gratuitous. The additional argument that TV has made journalists more assertive and questioning is intriguing. I suppose in one way, Sardesai is correct. TV journalists are forever asking all kinds of questions: How do you feel, why didn’t you do this or that, should X do this or that, are you a tomato or have you at any time been a tomato. Not to mention asking questions on behalf of the nation. Then there’s assertiveness. Which you have to be if you are going to stick a microphone in someone’s face.

     

    So let’s assume that Sardesai is correct. TV has made journalists more assertive and questioning. The problem is the quality or the need of the questions. And that’s when we feel old, like Father William. Even at the risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy stenographer of yore, TV journalism in India at least has failed at taking the profession further. Our primetime programmes have descended to chaos and melodrama. Decibel levels determine success. And if investigative and development journalism earn low dividends in print, you can rest assured they are meaningless on television.

     

    Obviously, there are good and bad TV journalists and good and bad print journalists. And there are better and worse as well. But on an average, the nature of TV journalism, in India at least, seems to have got stuck. The discourse has been lowered and like commercial cinema, the lowest common denominator always wins. Newspapers have also dipped in quality in some areas, but they have maintained them in others. That is the nature of the beast. Print will always find it easier to be all things to all people. It will also be able to fish in a larger pond of interests. And the time that print has to process and absorb “breaking news” gives it an edge.

     

    The biggest threat to both however comes from the internet. There will be good and bad websites (I am getting so tired of this meaningless chestnut) but on the whole, they will give both paper and TV a run for their money. News websites can be immediate, like television, but they can also be discerning like print. I am all for the future even if I am an old and grizzled stenographer. The present is what I find dubious. There was perhaps no golden age in journalism like there was no golden age in anything. But to damn the past is beyond my limited capabilities or understanding as also to demean my peers and forebears.

     

    Let’s put it this way then: one would only wish that today’s journalists, especially some of those on TV, would be a tad more intelligent and aware while they are being assertive and questioning? Is that a lot to ask? I am aware of today’s date, so am not holding my breath.

     

    And here’s from the genius BBC comedy series Broken News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRbihhHfTcQ

     

     

  • M S Dhoni is being accused of corruption of the highest order though the actual suspicion is not of the highest order. This is how reputations are destroyed based on whispers and journalists need to understand this better, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: When journalism pretends to not be tabloidy

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The Supreme Court’s scathing observations on the running of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, on the BCCI president N Srinivasan, on the Indian Premier League and on the general state of cricket have more or less ousted politics from headline news for at least one night and one day. Supreme Court advocate Harish Salve’s criticism of MS Dhoni’s deposition before Justice Mudgul meant that the India captain was also under scrutiny.

     

    NewsX had a debate on Thursday night with an extraordinary proposition: that Dhoni should be “barred” from Indian cricket. Not all the guests agreed with host Rahul Shivshankar which is hardly surprising. Once more, we see how journalists – I use the term loosely to include TV anchors – are unable to distinguish between allegations and proof and deliberately try to create sensations instead of reporting or commenting on the news. Nothing wrong with tabloid journalism: the problem is when you pretend not to be a tabloid or a TV equivalent of one.

     

    Dhoni of course has gone from being a media darling to the equivalent of a major demon after some losses by India in the field. Now he is being accused of corruption of the highest order though the actual suspicion is not of the highest order. This is how reputations are destroyed based on whispers and journalists need to understand this better.

     

    It is no one’s case that journalists should not go after someone because they are popular or successful. But even journalists have to work on some kind of proof. It would help if all the news channels which are on this demonisation course would do some investigations of their own. Of course, it is another matter that many journalists do not know the difference between a judicial probe and a court of law or between an allegation and evidence and between an observation and a verdict. And if I might add in a non-related political aside, that so many actually believe that “clean chit” is some legal provision in the Indian Penal Code.

     

    The other tragedy as far as the media is concerned is that few of these arguments being made against cricket, the BCCI and the IPL are new. So if there are to be debated again and again, it would help to get some new names on their panels so that we can hear some fresh points of view. Otherwise, we might as well be on perpetual rewind.

     

    **

     

    The rest of the media’s time is spent trying to figure out whether Narendra Modi will be India’s next prime minister or not. The fact that no one knows except the Indian voter is no deterrent. Instead, the media has decided to do the BJP’s work for it. Please note I am not ascribing any allegations here but only pointing out that some journalists have sort of forgotten if they ever knew what their job is.

     

    **

     

    Having said that, The Indian Express has a very readable story on how the Aam Aadmi Party’s journalist-candidates are using their media experience. http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/from-reporting-news-to-being-the-news/

     

    Have to also thank Indian Express for explaining to readers the back story of Aditya Verma, the Cricket Association of Bihar man who filed the PIL that started the whole process against the BCCI. http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/little-known-aditya-verma-and-his-powerful-backers/

     

    **

     

    Indeed, if you read the sports pages of all the newspapers you get an excellent idea about what’s happening in the BCCI. One alone will not do.

     

  • If objectivity is a cornerstone of journalism, then joining a political party means that you are immediately disqualified, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: When editors get into party-mode

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    MJ Akbar, respected and well-known journalist, joins the Bharatiya Janata Party. There is applause at one side of the political spectrum and disquiet at the other. Akbar, like anyone else, is free to do what he wants. This is not the first time he has taken to politics – he was with the Congress in Rajiv Gandhi’s time.

     

    The question to be asked is not about Akbar himself – because he is one of many – but about journalists leaning towards political parties or being members of political parties or being outright supporters of particular politicians. If objectivity is a cornerstone of journalism, then joining a political party means that you are immediately disqualified.  But there are subtle arguments that lurk about that deny such an extremist position.

     

    A reporter and a sub-editor for instance need to be objective. But editors and columnists? They are allowed a little leeway. For instance, an opinion writer can be politically left or right – without necessarily being part of or approving of political parties that follow a similar ideology. But it’s a fine line and where should one draw it?If an editor or a columnist – who is a journalist, not an academic or analyst and so on – is openly supporting a politician or a political party, what happens then? In India, unfortunately, media houses do not openly declare their political leanings. They all claim to be all things to all people but in fact overtly or covertly support one party or another. The odd thing is, they can declare their political leanings without any damage to credibility. Everyone knows what The Guardian or what Fox News stands for.

     

    The essence of journalism is to criticise everyone and perhaps we need to be more stringent about that. Also, when newspapers invite non-journalists as columnists, they need to make their political leanings clear.

     

    And finally, it ought to be understood that once you join a political party, you are no longer an independent-thinking journalist. At best, you can edit the mouthpiece of the party to which you belong.

     

    **

     

    Some of the bluster against media houses however remains from disgruntled supporters of some political party or agenda who feel they’re not getting fair treatment from every single media house. However, since one can easily count people who are on some side, these accusations are easily debunked. I am amused though by fellow journalists who stridently object to editors who are seen as favouring one side but have ample excuses for those who favour another side. Double standards of course are a human failing and perhaps even a sound survival device.

     

    **

     

    Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN has discussed media responsibility in his column for Hindustan Times. His argument is partly about attacks on the media and the difficulty in starting an independent media house in India. I must however disagree when he makes a case for owners, saying that it is unfair to tag them as evil when responsibility must end with the editor. That is true in an ideal world. What is true in today’s media is that owners do play a role in determining how a TV channel or newspaper or website responds to news. And the phenomenon of “paid news” is a deal struck by the managements of media houses, not by journalists. Yes, journalists are not innocent but that does not mean that owners are not guilty.

     

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/rajdeepsardesai/time-for-media-to-turn-the-gaze-inwards/article1-1199548.aspx

     

    **

     

    I make this plea in vain to Star Sports India – for the umpteenth time. If it could please not bother to buy tennis tournaments that it does not want to show in their entirety. This week’s Miami Open coverage has been upstaged by football and motorcycles. Agreed, Star Sports is free to show what it wants. But tennis fans don’t really want to watch a tournament in between the requirements of other sports. So if your six channels are not enough and one channel is reserved for endless reruns of Jai Ho, leave tennis alone and let someone else show it. This dog in the manger attitude is winning you no fans.

     

    It might also be polite if whoever runs the @starsportsindia twitter handle would answer questions put to it now and then.

     

    This is not the first time I have discussed this and I am guessing it will not be the last…

     

  • The late journalist will be remembered for his irreverence and a refusal to take himself too seriously, writes Ranjona Banerji

    What young journos can learn from Khushwant Singh

     

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Khushwant Singh personified that one thing that all journalists ought to have: irreverence. Add to that a refusal to take oneself too seriously and you have a winning combination. And like the contradictions in journalism, these are lessons from a man who did not start life as a journalist. He was already a renowned author when he took over editorship of The Illustrated Weekly in 1969.

     

    Is it an exaggeration to say he defined or redefined what journalism and editorship has meant to us ever since? People may not always realise this, but the Khushwant Singh effect is still with us. He took a fuddy-duddy publication and gave it lightness and life and humour, which should not be mistaken for fluff. He encased himself in a light bulb – or was sentenced to it by cartoonist Mario Miranda – but by doing so he freed journalists from boring strangleholds of dead habit.

     

    Certainly, Singh increased sexy content in the Weekly and his witty but risqué jokes were looked forward to. He understood the influence of cricket and films on the Indian psyche – so I guess we can blame him for so much of the bilge that passes for journalism today? Kidding! But such was his hold over the reader that for decades after he left the Weekly his columns had to be carried in newspapers because of public demand. All those editors who dreamed of themselves captured for perpetuity in a light bulb had to bow down to the allure of Kushwant Singh and his wit. I know several people for whom he was still India’s foremost columnist long after his prime.

     

    Many of today’s young journalists (ah yes, here comes the old person’s lecture) would do well to emulate Singh. He was not afraid of taking on the high and mighty, he was not afraid of admitting his mistakes and he was not afraid of being contemptuous of hypocrisy. Indeed, he thrived on the last! His admiration of Sanjay Gandhi and the Emergency he would deeply regret but he did not hide it. One might argue that those who acknowledge their errors and transgressions are far more admirable than those who refuse to accept they ever made them. He objected to Operation Bluestar and made his objections public but he was no fan of Sikh extremism either.

     

    Singh was also a serious historian especially when it came to Sikh history and India’s Partition. His Train to Pakistan remains a seminal work on that painful subject. Singh was always intensely secular as well – regardless of how insulting that term is to rightwing India. He spared no punches when it came to communal elements either. His many novels are varying in excellence and his sex writing was somewhat tedious. But his autobiography and his books about himself and his writings though are must-reads for every young journalist and excellent examples of honest, scathing and witty writing. I would also suggest them for all our older journalists as well – especially those dripping with self-importance.

     

    Singh’s life in journalism leaves behind a rich legacy. We can immediately pick up that if you get too close to any political dispensation, you will pay the price for it or regret it or both – as happened with Singh and the Gandhis. And you cannot under any circumstances take yourself and any passing pomposities too seriously. What a lot of balloons to puncture when you look at all the fat-headed pundits around.

     

    I suppose the third lesson is that journalists who make plenty of jokes and drink a little single malt everyday live long and fulfilling lives? Khushwant Singh lived a life to be celebrated and we need to raise a glass to that!

     

    **

     

    Understandably, today’s newspapers have devoted pages to the Grand Old Man. Bachi Karkaria’s piece in The Times of India speaks from the heart and personal experience – she and Singh joined The Illustrated Weekly the same year; indeed she is one of Singh’s many protégés.  TOI also had Rahul Singh, son and journalist himself, writing on his father. TOI’s institutional memory remains dominant, whatever other criticisms can be chucked its way. Vikram Seth’s poem in Hindustan Times – written some years ago – is apt. Though one wishes Hindustan Times had collected all the Singh recollections on one page rather than scattering them around. Indian Express got LK Advani to talk about him – a change from all the seat woes for the political veteran. Mid-Day pulled out relevant extracts from Singh’s writings about Mumbai people like Dom Moraes and Protima Bedi. DNA had photographs and recollections. Economic Times went with Shobhaa De.

     

    Fitting tributes all. But none more so than Singh’s own epitaph for himself:

    “Here lies one who spared neither man nor God

    Waste not your tears on him, he was a sod

    Writing nasty things he regarded as great fun

    Thank the lord he is dead, this son of a gun.”

    Unlikely though that too many will agree with that last line.

    We need to raise a glass to that!

     

  • Views from Ranjona Banerji and Pradyuman Maheshwari on the media's new found hate for Arvind Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party

    Kejriwal and the Media: Ranjona Banerji & Pradyuman Maheshwari

     

     

     

    Ranjona Banerji: Kejriwal’s threat to democracy?

     

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The media, willy-nilly, has become part of these elections. Not as the “fourth estate” of democracy but more like a “fifth column” which is out to destroy institutions – that is, if you listen to our politicians of all colours and persuasions and try to assess the anger on social media. But why blame politicians or Twitter and trolls alone? The media itself – and here most fingers will have to point to television – has behaved in extremely irrational and even unprofessional ways when it comes to bread and butter journalism.

     

    Starting from the extraordinary coverage of the India Against Corruption movement in 2011, television decided to become a player rather than an observer. Even I got taken in by the exhortations of TV anchors in 2011 when they talked about millions of people taking to the streets in support of the Anna Hazare-led movement to clean up public life. Alas, when I arrived at Azad Maidan, there were less than 500 people present. Not the hundreds of thousands promised by well-positioned TV cameras.

     

    But once India Against Corruption transformed itself into a political party – the Aam Aadmi Party – and Anna Hazare was replaced as the movement’s leader by Arvind Kejriwal, TV started to change its tune. The tide was now against the movement. None of the surveys running up to the Delhi state elections could predict what AAP would do. The Congress would be struck down and the BJP would win is what we were told. Instead, we had the AAP forming a very close second. So much for election surveys, psephology and astrology.

     

    Once the AAP formed the government, the wrath of television knew no bounds. Of the English channels, Headlines Today and Times Now were the angriest. Every hand gesture of AAP members was dissected and denigrated. This is not to suggest that the AAP had a perfect month in power – far from it. Indeed, their law minister Somnath Bharti’s unconscionable midnight raid looking for sex workers in Khirki Extension deserved the strong condemnation it received. But the poor AAP did not even have the short “honeymoon” period accorded to everyone else by the media.

     

    Since then, some TV news channels of all languages have abandoned all objectivity and decided that the AAP has to be their primary target. The fact that some journalists have joined this party has enraged them even further. The AAP has reacted with matching bile and Kejriwal has decided that he will arrest mediapersons if he comes to power. What a wonderful circus of democracy. Enter the clowns, exit all good sense.

     

    Some mediapersons have now had additional tantrums about the threat to democracy promised by Kejriwal. All this is sans irony, especially of the threat to journalism as practised by them. Never mind.

     

    Here are some other media views:

    Senior journalists question the overreaction to Kejriwal: http://www.thehindu.com/news/ national/why-overreact-to-kejriwals-criticism-ask-journalists/article5789153.ece

     

    And Shekhar Gupta speaks as an “aam patrakar” in The Indian Express: http://indianexpress.com/article /opinion /columns/national-interest- main-hoon-aam-patrakar/

     

    **

     

    The upshot is that the AAP has to be treated as one more political party. Neither angel nor devil. And that ought to hold true for all of them.

     

    Ranjona Banerji, senior journalist and columnist, is Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. The views expressed here are her own. Twitter: @ranjona

     

    		  

    Mediaah!: Time media shows Kejriwal his place

     

    By Pradyuman Maheshwari

     

    Not many moons ago, Arnab Goswami could be seen screaming at anyone who didn’t agree with him that there was an Arvind Kejriwal wave sweeping the country.

     

    Arnab isn’t too kind with anyone who disagrees with him. His body language changes and his head shakes in denial the moment the guest with an opposing view opens his or her mouth.

     

    In fact, even before a guest finishes his first two or three words, Arnab opens his mouth and the two can be seen to be talking together. But that’s his style, and people love the Times Now editor-in-chief for that.

     

    The problem for Kejriwal is that soon after his party’s great showing at the Delhi elections, he started negating the highfalutin statements he made before the polls and after them.

     

    Many in the media – and this writer included – had then regarded Kejriwal as the messiah who God had sent to cleanse the country’s political system. And as it often happens, it propelled him to dizzying heights.

     

    Some of my friends and colleagues in the profession didn’t think too much of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal. I thought they would come around the man and his ways soon enough. After all, weren’t there many who thought a certain Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was nuts with his satyagraha and non-violence movement?

     

    I was proved wrong and to my dismay – quite like the disillusionment I had with the BJP post L K Advani’s Rath Yatra and the Babri Masjid desecration in 1992 – Kejriwal made a mockery of himself and all that he stood for.

     

    In fact things have gotten so bad now that even though the AAP leader could well be speaking the truth, no one really trusts him.  The media at least doesn’t.

     

    We know the media isn’t above board. There is corruption in many newsrooms.  Paid news is rampant, and despite all of the Election Commission’s efforts, the smart ones still get away. There is paid news even for non-political content, but I don’t think Kejriwal will be too bothered about the other kind of parties.

     

    But is it right for him to question the integrity of news channels just because they are now treating him the way they treat all others? Just because they are questioning every act of his, which they wouldn’t just six months back?

     

    I have found Arnab Goswami unduly harsh on Kejriwal (see: Is Arnab being too harsh on Kejriwal, mid-day, March 13:  http://www.mid-day.com/articles/is-arnab- being-too-harsh-on-kejriwal/15156104), but that’s no reason for anyone to rubbish him (Arnab) and suggest that he and other newsroom bosses are on the take from Narendra Modi or Rahul Gandhi.

     

    The News Broadcasters Association acted on it a few days after the utterance and his issued a warning to the AAP leader. The message from the NBA: stop the trash, Mr Kejriwal, or our members will stop covering you.

     

    While Arnab Goswami was pretty scathing on his News Hour, the real blow came from Rajat Sharma on his show ‘Aaj Ki Baat’ on Times Now. Coming on air when he was down with fever and a bad throat, Mr Sharma was scathing in his criticism of Kejriwal and exposed his doublespeak in a one-hour show.

     

    Meanwhile, Arvind Kejriwal and AAP would’ve been taught a lesson not to subject the media to their loose talk.  Damn the media, and be ready to get damned.

     

    Although Pradyuman Maheshwari is Editor-in-Chief and co-founder of MxMIndia.com, the views expressed here are his own. Twitter: @pmahesh

     

     

  • The anger against the media is only going to get worse in what is one of our most polarising elections in recent times, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Vicious anger against the media

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The media is now well and truly in the middle of the general elections in India. And it is the Aam Aadmi Party which has stirred up the pot. For one, the fact that journalists are joining the party has riled both politicians and other journalists. There are questions being raised of fair play and objectivity – how far should one trust a journalist’s work just prior to his or her joining a political party? And it is the Bharatiya Janata Party and its supporters which are most upset. Yet this is not the first time journalists have jumped into politics in India and it won’t be the last. And as for the BJP, from the top of the head let’s count Arun Shourie, Chandan Mitra and Swapan Dasgupta who all are or were journalists but are still part of the BJP.

     

    There are enough other names and being part of the PMO or the Prime Minister’s press office – Sanjaya Baru, Suman Dubey, MJ Akbar (who even stood for elections for the Congress before he fell out with Rajiv Gandhi and turned against the party), Sudheendra Kulkarni who was part of LK Advani’s office, Rajeev Shukla of the Congress was once a journalist apparently, thus stretching the meaning of the word. Madhu Kishwar, once the flagbearer of feminism in India and editor of Manushi now appears to have become Narendra Modi’s main cheer leader, whether self-appointed or not it is still unclear.

     

    Therefore, this phenomenon is not new and it is not unusual. The anger against AAP of course is that this new party has threatened the status quo. And also, perhaps as significantly, is that television has now made the media accessible to everyone and the internet has given everyone a voice. As has been observed many times before, anyone with a weblog or a twitter account and a camera phone considers himself or herself no different from a reporter or even a columnist. It is another matter that very few outside the media can comprehend that a print newsroom is not populated only with reporters. And very few of those who watch news on television can envisage that there is anyone in the Times Now newsroom except Arnab Goswami.

     

    The anger against the media is vicious and it appears that the situation is only going to get worse in what is one of our most polarising elections in recent times. Of course lay allegations about media biases are usually unsubstantiated and sometimes even amusing in how gigantically they get it wrong. It is a bit sad that a lot of the anger against the news media on social media comes from former journalists, especially those who have joined PR. I am not sure that our sisters and brothers in public relations are following a wise course here. After these elections are over, life might a little difficult for those in PR who need the “mainstream media” to further their clients’ interests.

     

    **

     

    The general elections in India are of course big news. And the mammoth personalities of Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal make for compelling stories. But the biggest story of the week has been the missing Malaysian Airlines plane. Has the Indian media done it justice? Perhaps to the extent of being suitably insular and informing the Indian public about how many Indians were on the passenger manifest. But there is more to this story and we have missed the boat on this one. And the plane.

     

  • The attack on former Hindu editor-in-chief Siddharth Varadarajan's caretaker is disturbing and must be condemned, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Journalists under attack

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Three Al-Jazeera journalists have been jailed in Cairo and are being tried as “terrorists” for apparently supported the now ousted government that was run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Jazeera’s Egypt bureau chief, Mohammed Fahmy, Australian journalist Peter Greste and producer Bahir Mohammed have been charged with “joining a terrorist group, aiding a terrorist group and endangering national security”. They were brought into court in a cage. The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated as a terrorist organisation, although whether you agree with its politics or not, it did win an election after Hosni Mobarak was removed from power after the protests in Tahir Square in 2011.

    (http://www.news.com.au/world/australian-aljazeera-journalist-peter-greste-charged-with-supporting-terrorism-appears-in-cairo-court-locked-in-a-cage/story-fndir2ev-1226846598771)

     

    The Al-Jazeera case certainly needs more condemnation from the world’s journalists and definitely from the fraternity in India, insular as we are. It could well be that we are spinning into an Egypt-like situation. Day after day, journalists in India are being accused of being agents of one political party or the other. As long as these were snide remarks on social media, the allegations were harmless.

     

    But what happened to former Hindu editor-in-chief Siddharth Varadarajan is far more disturbing. He put up a post on his Facebook page which stated that the caretaker of his flat in Delhi was beaten up by four men and warned that his “sahib”, that is Varadarajan, should “watch what he says on TV”. They also threatened Varadarajan’s wife Nandini Sundar, who is a sociologist and has been studying the state of Naxals and tribals in Chattisgarh. Neither Varadarajan nor Sundar were at home when this attack took place.

     

    Varadarajan says he has no idea who these goons reported to and is also unsure which of his TV comments caused offence. As he pointed out on twitter, he is on TV every other day. However some people have decided that it was Varadarajan’s criticism of Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. Others, sadly many of them journalists themselves, have decided that the best response is to make fun of Varadarajan, especially for having a “caretaker”.

     

    Now I’m all for a good joke but I feel humour is not going to alleviate the situation we as journalists may find ourselves in. The political atmosphere in this country is getting more and more divisive and corrosive. The street fights between the Aam Aadmi Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party, the constant attacks on Ashutosh for giving up journalism and IBN7 to get into politics and the Aam Aadmi Party, the sense that everyone has (including me) of several journalists abandoning the pretence of objectivity to support politicians are not good omens.

     

    Interestingly, I find the same journalists who attack Ashutosh are big supporters of Arun Shourie, who also gave up journalism for politics. But then Shourie did join the BJP, which only makes the schisms in journalism in India clear. I remember when a colleague in Mid-Day decided to stand for elections in the 1990s, we all helped in whatever way we could financially regardless of what we thought of his politics. But we did not make a public joke out of him. Different times?

     

    It is however disturbing that we cannot understand that threat that we are under from all quarters. Journalists have some rare moments when they can come together. Members of our fraternity or sorority if you like (tomorrow is International Women’s Day after all) have been under attack before and we have banded together better than we have now.

     

    I do not know if this is the influence of television journalism where the personality cult is so carefully cultivated and where it is easier to believe in your own importance and where personal rivalries are played out in nightly programming decisions. Print journalists appear to have a stronger camaraderie. But whatever the reason, we are pulling apart when we should be pulling together. This will only be to our own detriment. Even a rookie journalist ought to know that politicians and political parties will support you only as long as you are useful to them. After they’re gone all you have left is us. If you don’t feel like a journalist or one of us, it’s better to just join that political party you love and get it over with.

     

    Okay, end of lecture. Cue bugles.

     

  • Rather than reporting on the news and commenting on outcomes, our TV news channels have opted for a paparazzi predatory mode

    Ranjona Banerji: Endless political coverage on TV can be tedious

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Rather than reporting on the news and commenting on outcomes, our TV news channels have opted for a paparazzi predatory mode. They’re all out to get someone – anyone – and then turn the screws on them. Headlines Today is watching every sneeze and wheeze made by Arvind Kejriwal in case they signify that he is making tall promises he cannot possibly keep. Times Now is looking under every pebble for a new UPA scam: don’t be surprised if you hear Arnab Goswami thundering about whether Sonia Gandhi knew that the gardener at 10 Janpath had requisitioned for 10 rose bushes and planted only eight.

     

    CNN-IBN continues to waffle between supporting Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party, attacking the Congress and other parties as well as keeping up the pretence of objectivity. And NDTV, although it is often seen as a Congress voice, is attempting to sidestep this game completely.

     

    It was foolish of me to have expected more TV play on the sting operation on opinion poll companies by the Hindi channel News Express. But how could they, since most new channels pump up excitement by commissioning endless opinion polls on electoral results? You could find out, said one channel breathlessly, how Maharashtra would vote if the elections were held this minute. Needless to say, if Maharashtra voted in another minute, another result would be possible.

     

    **

     

    While political rallies are important, endless coverage can be tedious and lead to viewer fatigue. News television might think about having special two hour shows dedicated to political rallies and leave the rest of the time to real news like whether Koffee with Karan should have pushed itself back to 11 pm last Sunday because of its “steamy” content. Or whatever else they see fit.

     

    **

     

    Twitter just saw another ridiculous battle between Madhu Kishwar, still Narendra Modi’s most tireless cheerleader and Sagarika Ghose of CNN-IBN. Kishwar tweeted to Ghose: “CNN\IBN coverage of Gujarat & hype ard AAP likely 2b be used in journalism schools as example of devious,unethical journalism”

     

    I am not sure what “ard AAP” means but Ghose responded about “differing brands of journalism”. Upon which Kishwar said that she was fond of Ghose personally but they were far apart. Amusing as these little insights into people you don’t know are, there is also the fact that as Caravan reported and observers (including me) have pointed out TV18 which owns CNN-IBN has gone very clearly rightwing and pro-Modi. But obviously that is not enough for Kishwar. Perhaps total obeisance is the correct response.

     

    **

     

    Narendra Modi, who wants to be prime minister of India, was scheduled to appear on a live show organised by Facebook, Newslaundry and NDTV. Modi cancelled at the last minute – promos were running for days on FB and NDTV – and according to a Hindustan Times story, he did not want to share the platform with Arvind Kejriwal and others. Hindustan Times quotes NitiCentral, the pro-BJP website on this. I am unaware if Modi’s other unofficial mouthpiece, firstpost.com, had any explanation on this withdrawal. Madhu Trehan of Newslaundry’s tweets suggested that anyone has the right to change their mind. Indeed.

     

    However, as far as one can tell, Kejriwal, Mamata Banerjee and Lalu Yadav were not appearing at the same time as Modi but on other days. Whatever the reasons, speculation that Modi is unwilling to answer questions that may show him in a bad light continues. Propaganda is easier to manage when you are the one in control.

     

  • Ranjona Banerji on the News Express sting, the story on the junketeering Karnataka MLA and why Scroll.in is a must-read

    Ranjona Banerji: Survey results are not gospel

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The TV channel News Express did a sting operation on market research companies to discuss poll surveys. They posed as members of political parties and asked if polls could be tweaked to favour them. The channel approached several agencies, of which some refused to take on any jobs on the grounds that they were too busy while others agreed to varying degrees.

     

    There is a serious need for market research companies and opinion poll companies to relook at their methodology and strategy. The fact that the last quarter results of the Indian Readership survey have been suspended points to some dire flaws in the system. It was apparent from the IRS results that either the surveys were faulty or that they were manipulated to favour some companies. Political surveys especially for election results have been so wrong for so long, that it is surprising that anyone pays attention to them at all.

     

    Many have pointed fingers at the media over poll surveys saying since it is the media which commissions these surveys, the onus is on them to ensure that the results are clean and correct. But that is an impossible burden on the person paying the bill. The media in that case would be better off sending its own journalists to track popular moods – which many newsrooms do anyway.

     

    The problem is – and this is especially true of television news – when the survey results are presented, they are done as gospel. Critical analysis is in short supply and empirical evidence, experience and sometimes common sense are abandoned in breathless declarations of these miraculous results. And when the surveys go wrong – as they most often do – no one takes responsibility.

     

    However, saying all that, banning such surveys infringes on the idea of freedom expression. People have the right to be foolish and believe foolish things. All one can hope for is for newsrooms to look at survey results with a more stringent eye before broadcasting them.

     

    Shivam Vij has done an analysis for scroll.in on this issue and it is well worth reading: http://scroll.in/article/the-case-for-banning-pre-election-opinion-polls?id=657211

     

    **

     

    While on the subject, many congratulations are due to Naresh Fernandes, Sumana Ramanan and the team at Scroll.in for their research-filled journalism which covers a number of issues that mainstream publications, television news and other websites ignore or forget about. Scroll.in needs to become a must-read for media professionals especially.

     

    **

     

    Pradyuman Maheshwari, editor-in-chief of mxmindia.com has started a column on primetime news for Mid-Day. I wish him all the best in this endeavour and welcome him to the horrendous task of watching the Yellers and Screamers on Indian news television, which some of us are forced to suffer. I keep an extra supply of blood pressure tablets, just in case, which I am willing to share.

     

    **

     

    I almost felt sorry for the Karnataka MLA who went on a junket to Australia, New Zealand and the Fiji Islands and came back to file a report on how cows and sheep grazed on grass there which should be followed in India and how more public toilets were necessary. He was grilled incessantly by Shiv Aroor of Headlines Today, who could barely contain his own laughter at the inanity of the report.

     

    The hapless MLA was seemingly unable to understand what he had done wrong. Sometimes Indian TV news can beat a comedy show.

     

  • General criticism of the media and of journalists has to be accepted as par for the course, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: How the media is everyone’s whipping boy

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The media is now everyone’s whipping boy and there is no need for the media to get defensive about this. As long as everyone thinks you’re doing everything wrong, it is clear that you are doing everything right. The expression “paid media” is now indiscriminately used to describe journalists who do not subscribe to your political point of view, when the term within the media is used to describe managements who sell editorial space to political parties or politicians without informing readers or viewers.

     

    Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party has accused the media of being pro-Bharatiya Janata Party and pro-Congress and also said that some of the media is dancing to the diktats of Mukesh Ambani and Reliance. More specifically, the media he says is either pro-Narendra Modi or pro-Rahul Gandhi; the unspoken implication being that the media is anti-him. However, through 2011 the media was extremely pro-Kejriwal and the India Against Corruption movement headed by Anna Hazare. One might wager that without media support, the IAC movement would have gone nowhere. Non-stop coverage of every IAC event, gross exaggeration of public participation figures all ensured that IAC, Hazare, Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Kumar Vishwas, Kiran  Bedi, Prashant Bhushan and others became household names.

     

    India’s controversial former chief of army staff VK Singh has also jumped into the fray, calling journalists “presstitutes”. This is how urbandictionary.com describes “presstitute”: “A term coined by Gerald Celente and often used by independent journalists and writers in the alternative media in reference to journalists and talking heads in the mainstream media who give biased and predetermined views in favour of the government and corporations, thus neglecting their fundamental duty of reporting news impartially. It is a portmanteau of press and prostitute.”

     

    In fact, I would question Celente’s (an American “trend forecaster) wisdom and political correctness in damning commercial sex workers (the now accepted term for prostitutes) by associating them with the media and with journalists.

     

    Jokes aside, Singh has been angry for a number of reasons – his various dates of birth did not sit well with either the Indian Army, the GOI or the Supreme Court, his various PR efforts sometimes backfired and Indian Express published a story last year about how some troop movements during his tenure were looked at suspiciously by the Government.

     

    The Editors Guild has taken exception to all this media-bashing and issued a strong statement: “Ironically, leaders who built up reputations and support by engaging the public through the media are now turning on the very media when they come under critical scrutiny…

     

    “The media that question and criticise political leaders and indeed every section of society should of course be open to criticism, even if it is harsh, of its functioning and to its flaws being exposed. The problem arises, however, when abuse and vague, unsubstantiated accusations of corrupt motives take the place of reasoned refutation and debate. An additional danger is that some of the followers could take their cue from the statements of leaders and may not stop with verbal attacks. Both print and television journalists have been subject to physical violence as well by political party workers.”

     

    Physical attacks on journalists are reprehensible and have to be tackled strongly by law and order. But general criticism of the media and of journalists has to be accepted as par for the course. As we have pointed out in these columns, there are clear instances of media bias on display at times and criticism of political parties, politicians and big business is sometimes a carefully calibrated exercise.

     

    The spread of the tentacles of lobbyists and PR people is well-known when it comes to film and business journalism for instance. And the Niira Radia tapes exposed the susceptibility of some of India’s biggest names. These are problems which the media must discuss more stringently, or criticism from those we criticise will only get stronger.

     

    If we don’t guard ourselves, someone else is going to try and do it for us. And that would be the real disaster.