That's why all this recent talk of the Indian press coming under the shadow of vested political and corporate interests is highly disturbing. Of course, one rotten egg doesn't condemn the entire lot, but it certainly raises doubts. That's not good for the image we've so zealously built up and guarded over the years, and the problem could get worse unless we take it as a warning and call to action since the media field is now wide open with all kinds of new players joining in.
When I took up journalism as a profession some 60 years ago, of course, one heard of news editors and chief reporters receiving favours like gift hampers from corporate houses on special occasions. Some would accept them as a matter of courtesy, some wouldn't. There was free booze at press conferences and consulate parties. One top business house in Kolkata was known to gift suit lengths to favoured reporters every puja, and from time to time journalists went on junkets organised by corporate houses. But by and large, the field remained clean and journalists weren't considered by parents as rich enough a breed of professionals, like lawyers, doctors or engineers, to marry their daughters to.
The cleanliness had also to do with the fact that journalists in those days were an ideologically-fired breed, news and marketing remained at arm's length, and editors and news editors resisted publishers' interference to the utmost extent possible. They had the last word on what should go in the next day's edition. Chief-subs wielded their scissors mercilessly whenever they came across bias in a reporter's copy. In the newspaper where I worked, I'd see the publisher come down once in a while to talk to the news editor and the conversation would often become louder and louder. If the publisher remained too insistent on pleading his case, the news editor would bluntly tell him: "Then, you run the paper yourself." The publisher had no option but to beat a hasty retreat.
By no means, I must emphasise, are favours and freebies a typically Indian phenomenon, and have never been reasons enough to call the integrity of its media into question. But, as the media field widens, audio-visual media proliferate, and commercial interests grow deeper, the lines between news and marketing might begin to blur. Commercial breaks on TV are fine, but sponsored programmes and advertisements have been seen lately to invade even main newscasts, while make-believe front pages have been appearing in newspapers at an increasing frequency. Could there be a better example of the commercial tidal wave threatening to swamp the news in the fast-changing Indian media scene?
Such intrusions are irritating, to say the least, and something could, and should, surely be done about them. But there are other subtler ways by which commercial and political messages often get into news streams and other programmes, influencing viewers without even their realising it. These often have the look of sponsored programmes and will only increase as competition and rating wars intensify, and the interests of media owners change.
In the circumstances, all one can do is be careful and not lower the guards in any conscious manner. I know the rules of the game are different for electronic media, but even so, there's plenty of room to improve things and make the lines of objectivity clearer. For example, why should commercial brands be presenters of straight newscasts, and even talk shows? Why should news channels even appear to be overly dependent on commercial incomes to run what's in their normal line of business? Why shouldn't invasive commercial clips be eliminated from the screen while the news is on? Why can't grandstanding by political leaders be handled with more prudence and care since their performances and remarks are often nothing but boring, inane propaganda? Leaders surely enjoy the exposure they get, but why should the media oblige?
Besides, why should talk shows invariably turn into loud-mouthed slanging matches panelled by political spokespersons whose views are too well known? Surely, one could think of reforming the format, so that there's more sensible debate and less shouting. This one reform, where passions and feelings won't be allowed to run away and the focus will be on more fundamental issues, alone could give the character of the visual media a significant positive lift.
rbarun@gmail.com