Though
Team Kejriwal (TK) is fighting an anti-corruption battle and therefore it is
expected that they themselves are answerable for any wrongdoing, the team does
not hold any public office and therefore any comparison with the existing
political system would want that the accountability of the latter needs to be
much higher.
A
lot has been going on in the media regarding this fight against corruption,
especially in the last two years when high profile cases have come to light and
the courts have begun to take an active role in the governance. In media, the
debates that are aired on primetime have adopted a new role where justice (in
the realm of perception) is meted out in few hours. As an observer and a citizen,
these debates have begun to turn farcical in my perspective. In some (or many)
cases, these debates have become a tool of propaganda to fool people who are
‘thought’ to be of low intellect. Though psychology teaches us that many a
times people make decisions –sometimes important- without much thinking (termed
as peripheral processing), it is hoped that in case of debates people don’t
make the same mistake. When courts in India take years (or even decades)
to give judgments, most of the fight is fought on perception and therefore
these primetime debates assume importance. In the following paragraphs, I have
discussed few instances where I feel that media is behaving irresponsibly.
- Recently, TK came
out with documents showing how there is a strong prima facie case (later
media investigations confirmed it) of holding an independent inquiry into
some of the cases. The media responded by saying that how can someone hold
press conferences and make ‘wild allegations’. Some even pronounced
it as ‘Hit and Run politics’ or ‘OB van
politics’ etc. But when Mr Khurshid held a press conference, the media
responded by saying that he gave point by point rebuttal, though he
could not give convincing answers to the specific questions.
- In debates the
time allotted to various participants can be easily manipulated. If the
total time allotted is given more to one side, the overall impression that
a viewer gets is that one side is able to convince comparatively better
that the other. More time obviously means that one side has been able to
make more arguments.
- Allowing
rebuttals to one side more often is also a problem. If one side has been
allowed to rebut every counter argument made by the other side, it gives
an edge to that side and this can also give an impression of fairness to the
side which has more rebuttals in its pocket.
- In any debate, broadly
speaking, there are 4 sets of people – the two parties holding opposite
views, neutral experts and the anchor. The issue of ‘unofficial
spokespersons’ is well known to people who regularly watch debates.
There are a set of people, who are categorized variously as ‘Senior
Journalists’, ‘Analysts’, ‘Senior Lawyers’ etc who are expected to give an
unbiased view on the issue at hand because they don’t belong to any party.
But the problem is that many of these neutral observers are not so neutral
in their affiliations. Therefore, it is self-evident that they would be
able to tilt the public opinion because viewers tend to believe more what
the person has to say when he is perceived to be independent.
- It has been
observed that media indulges into intense scrutiny into what TK has to
say. They are pinned for every argument made by them. (It is already iterated
that they don’t yet hold public office.) They are asked to provide all the
documents that will prove specifically all the charges made. If that is
the precedent that media is setting, then what is the need for an
investigating agency? There is something called as prima facie case which
the media deliberately chooses to ignore. On the other hand, it is now
well known that some of the questions and documents that were part of the
press conferences of TK were already in public domain. But media chose to
ignore it. No scrutiny here, leave alone intense scrutiny.
- Low knowledge
level of the anchors – Many a times, it is seen that anchors don’t do
adequate homework before coming for the debate. Therefore, they end up
asking general questions. This was explicitly seen during Lokpal agitation
where it had become increasingly difficult for the proponents of Lokpal to
convince these anchors that ‘independent CBI’ is the need of the hour. Now
this does not mean ‘no accountablity’. Independence and accountability are separate
parameters. The idea is to tire people out so that they get discouraged
and demoralized. Similary in the debate on Mr Ashok Khemka, firstly some
participants accepted that they have not read the court order on the posts
held by Mr Khemka. Some participants chose to indulge into selective
reading of the court orders. Now if there is no clarity in the order, then
what is the need to have a debate on this specific issue and that too when
the person himself is not present to explain it. (http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/left-right-centre/was-ias-officer-shunted-for-taking-on-robert-vadra/250998)
- The issue of
lawyer spokespersons also needs some consideration. They tend to focus on
technicalities (sometimes flawed or one-sided). This confuses viewers who
don’t have adequate knowledge about the subject at hand. The objective
itself is to confuse people. Fluent English and usage of well crafted
sentences does not mean that person is telling the truth. This is the
reason why there is often no answer in straight ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
- Topics of debates
are so chosen as to put a particular side in bad light for no reason.
Sometime back Anna Hazare talked of flogging those who drink after they
don’t listen. This was created into a debate in one of the channels. But
the same anchor forgot that Nehru had said that the corrupt should be
hanged to the nearest lamppost. Besides this, topics such as ‘Has TK lost
its credibility?’; ‘Has TK or Team Anna lost its steam?’ ; ‘Is TK or Team
Anna a media creation?’; ‘Is politics of hit and run sustainable?’; ‘Is TK
playing OB van politics?’; ‘Press conference of TK a damp squib?’ throw
some light on how things can be downplayed in the eyes of public.
- It is quite
strange that media has never focused adequately on Subramanian Swamy. He
has been fighting some cases in the Supreme Court which are of national
importance – Ram Setu, EVMs etc - but he has not been given his share of
coverage.
- Sometime back Mr
Kejriwal challenged in Devil’s Advocate to call one of the accused parties
in the expose done by them. The challenge is still open. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJcQQxwjwQ)
The
net result is that social media has come to reflect the real views of the
people and act as a counter to the mainstream media.
From
the above arguments, it is clear that some (or many) of these debates are
conducted to fulfill certain objectives that speak contrary to the fact that
Media is the Fourth Pillar of the Democracy. There is still a belief that there
are some people in Media who know that they have a responsibility towards the
society and therefore there is no attempt to paint everyone with the same
brush. Now when the country is changing, it is high time that all the pillars
of democracy stand up to fulfill the aspirations enshrined in the Constitution.
(Argument should not be made that the article wants to convey that all debates that are aired come in the above category.There are debates and debates.)
