Nervous government explores ways to 'manage' media

The efforts betray the nervousness of a government unable to sell its 'positive' governance narrative at home and abroad

The leaking of the alleged Report of Group of Ministers (GoM) on Government Communications is an exceptional event for a government that prides itself in being successfully opaque. Reminiscent of McCarthyism, the report suggests "neutralising" journalists who write against the government and spread "false narratives". An incredible proposal from an establishment journalist suggests that journalists should be colour-coded into Black (against the government), Green (fence sitters) and White (pro-government).

The report exceeds the media outreach efforts that most governments make by recommending tracking and countering of journalists who write critically, and promoting pro-government hacks. No previous government has suggested isolating, targeting and ‘neutralising’ critical media. The report also betrays the nervousness of a government unable to sell its ‘positive’ governance narrative at home and abroad.

The existence of the report has not as yet been denied by the government. Except for a few bald denials, the journalists who actively collaborated in the project of converting the media into a propaganda machine have been silent. There is little doubt that the storm raised by the report has blown away their fig leaf of neutrality.

The quest for a positive narrative is misguided because people tend to recognise government propaganda and find ways to go beyond it. Jettisoning official propaganda of once-credible newspaper and TV channels, a majority has already started sourcing news from social media and independent digital platforms.

Perhaps recognising this, one pro-government journalist apparently even suggested to the GoM that the government must, "stop op-eds by ministers and top bureaucrats" because they are not read. Newspapers opening their opinion columns to official propaganda has become so endemic that they were cautioned by the veteran journalist and one-time Bharatiya Janata Party minister Arun Shourie that while publishing ruling politicians may buy immediate peace, "when the assault comes, none of them will help you".

The involvement of External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who famously said that "my (India’s) reputation is not decided by a newspaper in New York" as well as former diplomat and minister Hardeep S Puri in the GoM, points to the government’s special concern that the world is not buying its ‘positive narrative’. Reeling from bad press globally, they suggested focused attention on influencing foreign media.

In the leaked report, the government has volunteered the information that it had limited foreign direct investment in digital media platforms to 26 per cent in December 2019, "to ensure that news reporting in digital media is not biased primarily due to its foreign investment component". Unsparingly, the so-called "supportive journalists" suggested drastic measures such as the government stopping all interaction with foreign media.

The rejection of the government’s narrative by the youth seems to be another cause for concern. This has been demonstrated by the protests they have led against the citizenship law amendments, the turmoil in universities, and the arrest of student leaders and youth on sedition charges. Witness the countrywide anger against the arrest of 22-year-old environmental activist Disha Ravi, of youngsters Nodeep Kaur and Shiv Kumar, the constant effort of the government to keep Umar Khalid, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and earlier a pregnant Shafoora Zargar in jail, for example. That none of them has either repented or been contrite and that Nodeep went straight to re-join farmers’ protest after getting bail suggests that fear tactics have not worked with the youngsters as easily as they may have with the media.

Since both audiences — international and the youth — rely relatively more on digital and social media, the government wants to especially target them. The problem they pose is severe enough for the government to have brought in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 to curb their freedom of expression. However, the government’s ongoing battles with Twitter, Facebook and YouTube show that it is searching for yet newer ways to control them.

Given the GoM’s scope and membership, this controversial exercise is clearly not a routine one. Yet it is in line with the government and the ruling party’s treatment of other critical voices like filing FIRs and harassment through the judicial process, government agencies and trolls.

Recall that more than a dozen government ministers, including the prime minister, had given a miss to a Global Business Summit organised by a leading media house in Mumbai in 2017 at the last minute, citing "security concerns". This led to widespread speculation whether this was to make official displeasure known over adverse reportage by the media group and a Modi spoof broadcast regularly on the FM radio station run by it. The editor of another leading newspaper was asked to leave as the government was ostensibly unhappy over running of an online "national database on crimes in the name of religion, caste, (and) race." Since 2014, several editors have been forced out of their jobs ostensibly under government pressure.

The limited imagination of the GoM exercise is evident in the repressive solutions it offers to improve media coverage. Not even one minister or complicit journalist seems to have suggested that the government’s communicator-in-chief, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, should put his shoulder to the wheel and start holding press conferences. He has not held one since coming to power in 2014.

The leaked report has damaged both the Modi government and its cheerleaders in the media. In democracies, governments thrive on critical public feedback. This allows an elected government to correct itself and lend it stability. Attenuating this in favour of a single official narrative is a step towards totalitarianism. Public opinion does not exist in totalitarian societies. Such states also become paranoiac and intolerant of anything but a ‘positive’ narrative. Setting up an architecture of surveillance technologies and punitive measures is then used to "neutralise" those with different views.

Could this be the path that the Modi government has embarked on? If that is indeed so, then the journalists who have put their shoulder to this effort are as guilty as those who lead the government. Twitter: @bharatitis