|
By Ranjona Banerji
 The decision not to speak to certain TV anchors by the opposition coalition, I.N.D.I.A., is not an easy one to parse. On the one hand, you might think it’s a good comeuppance for these anchors. In their less offensive – relatively speaking – avatars, these anchors have been propaganda voices for the BJP and for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In their more sinister personas, they have actively created social divisions and fanned the flames of hatred against Muslims, other religious minorities and Dalits.
In between they have consistently flayed the Opposition as one entity as well as their individual party components. While giving the BJP-led Government at the Centre, various BJP state governments and the BJP, the RSS and all its attendant organisations a free pass, the opposition has always been placed on the “losing” side of these so-called “debates”. They are not time to put forward their case, BJP spokespersons are allowed to speak over them and so on.
Several fans and followers of opposition parties have begged them not to appear on these channels, where night after night they are humiliated, their voices cut off and they are put under greater and nastier scrutiny than BJP participants.
It has taken more than nine years for the Opposition to become a cohesive coalition, and then to make this decision and make it public. According to their statement, they will not attend shows held by 14 anchors. They have not however refused to appear on the channels where these anchors work. So it is not a boycott of television so much as avoidance of certain people.
Should they have then made this list public?
They could have done the same thing behind the scenes. Refused to appear on X’s show but agreed to appear on Y’s and so on. Possibly they want to make a point.
Within the journalists’ communities, opinions are varied and contradictory. When I use the word journalists here, I mean journalists. Not TV anchors who are hate-mongers and BJP propagandists. Many of us – myself included – believe that these TV anchors have long surrendered the right to be called journalists. They do not even qualify as the worst of the ambulance-chasing bottom feeders our profession has specialised in. And any person has the right to decide who they want to speak to.
Other journalists take the high ground and feel that one should give everyone a fair chance. A boycott does nothing for democracy and the future of a free press. This is an honourable position, and one to be admired. Even if it does ignore the sort of nonsense that goes on in Indian television.
But most importantly, it ignores the massive elephant in the room when it comes to politicians and the Indian media. The refusal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take questions from the media.
The Indian PM does not interact with the Indian media. He does not take questions. He tries to avoid the media when he travels abroad. And at the recently concluded G20 Summit in New Delhi, he did not allow US President Joe Biden to address a press conference either.
In functioning democracies, press conferences are part of the process. As is media scrutiny of government actions and decisions. India is a rare democracy where all the questions are asked of opposition politicians but few, if any, of the party in power. You might consider than under such circumstances, India is not a democracy at all in the traditional sense.
In the light of Modi’s refusal to be held accountable for the actions of his government and his party, and his own actions as well, in the light of the sustained harassment of journalists and media houses who show truth to power, what is the weight exactly of a list of 14 anchors who have no connection to journalism?
Further, we have the defence of Modi’s position by these anchors and propagandists masquerading as journalists. The hypocrisy is stark: when Modi does it, we’re happy. If anyone else does it, how dare!!
In the end, here’s a “both sides” story, that bad journalists confuse with objectivity, to keep “both sides” happy. At the height of his career as “the angry young man” of Indian cinema, superstar Amitabh Bachchan boycotted the gossipy, spicy film media. It made no difference to his career, which reached amazing heights of stardom never seen until then. It made no difference to film magazines who wrote what they wanted anyway.
Make of that what you want!
Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She writes on MxMIndia on Tuesdays and Fridays. Her views here are personal.
|
By Pradyuman Maheshwari
 At the outset, we must admit that we are appalled that the I.N.D.I.A. alliance of Opposition political parties has decided to boycott shows and events hosted by certain journalists and anchors on Indian news television. Even though they may have enough reason to be peeved about the way they conduct themselves on television.
For a political grouping that aspires to be forming the next central government, this is unfortunate. There are ways and means to counter journalists who are biased, and we are certain that the various political parties have enough veterans in their fold who can take on even the most biased and toxic of anchors.
I am sure a Sanjay Raut of the Uddhav Thackeray wing of the Shiv Sena or Mani Shankar Aiyer can take on the mightiest. Or the DMK former finance, now IT minister. Or a variety of other Congresspersons. Or Derek O’brien or Mahua Moitra. Why not field them?
There’s also the judiciary, and the Supreme Court under Chief Justice DY Chandrachud can be trusted to be, well, provide justice.
Also to be noted is that the ban is only on anchors and editors, and not the entire channel or network. Obviously it would’ve been a bit much to ban an entire channel, but why isn’t I.N.D.I.A. doing that? For, the fact is that if Channel X accords a primetime/prominent slot to a Anchor Y, then it is equally responsible for the views that are aired. Unless of course it has an equally unbiased show or anchor leaning against the other side just before or after the journalist who the Opposition considers biased..
But let’s leave the argument of questioning the I.N.D.I.A. alliance’s decision for now. The vote-casting masses are not as uninformed as some people may think. Else, the people of Karnataka and West Bengal wouldn’t have voted for Congress and TMC respectively. The anchors named by the I.N.D.I.A. alliance (and their ways) existed even when these states went to the polls.
What has triggered this comment from me, and pulled Mediaah! out of its slumber is the statement issued by the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA).
Let’s read the statement first:
“News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA) is deeply anguished and concerned by the decision taken by the I.N.D.I.A. Media Committee not to send their representatives on the shows and events hosted by certain journalists/anchors. The decision taken by the I.N.D.I.A. Media Committee sets a dangerous precedent.
“The ban on representatives of the opposition alliance from participating in TV news shows anchored by some of India’s top TV news personalities goes against the ethos of democracy. It betokens intolerance and imperils press freedom. The opposition alliance claims to be the champion of pluralism and a free press, but its decision betrays callous disregard for democracy’s most fundamental tenet – the inalienable right to openly express ideas and opinions.
“The boycott of certain journalists/anchors takes the nation back to the Emergency era, when the press was gagged, and independent opinions and voices were crushed. NBDA urges the opposition alliance to withdraw its decision of boycotting certain journalists and anchors as such a decision would amount to browbeating journalists and stifling freedom of speech and expression of the media.”
I am not sure that the comment “The boycott of certain journalists/anchors takes the nation back to the Emergency era, when the press was gagged, and independent opinions and voices were crushed” is correct. The I~~ alliance isn’t doing that. There is no censorship being imposed here.
My issue with the NBDA is that why doesn’t it issue similar statements against biases that exist in some of the news channels. Why doesn’t it call out the toxicity amongst its member channels. Why doesn’t it damn the fake news dished out?
Also, why doesn’t it make a statement on the reluctance of the Prime Minister to address a press conference, as most Prime Ministers have done in the past.
Why is the NBDA shying away from all of this?
Some of the ‘banned’ anchors listed are leading lights of the NBDA member channels. Am sure they will not be impacted with this boycott. They may even put an empty chair there for effect, as has been done in the past by one or more channels.
But there is a larger problem which the channels could face. There is a fresh move to campaign against toxicity of news channels, and this may find a shrill in states ruled by I.N.D.I.A.-affiliated parties.
I must also add here that the ruling BJP too has a reluctance of some of its top leaders being interviewed by senior editors like Rajdeep Sardesai. It may not be a boycott, but when was the last time you saw Sardesai interviewing the two Big Boys, one-on-one for television or for the various India Today/Aaj Tak conclaves? It’s not a ban for sure, but there is a clear hesitation to be subjected to an interaction.
While I am glad that the NBDA has issued a statement on the I.N.D.I.A. boycott, it must also look at issues on bias, toxicity and the like with enough speed, even if it is nothing new and needs to done retrospectively.
Pradyuman Maheshwari is Editor-in-Chief, MxMIndia. His views here are personal.
|
