The corporate push towards 'one nation, one media'

In a sense, then, corporates are entering the media business for the same reason that political parties and political families own media houses - to influence public opinion

The Adani Group's imminent takeover of NDTV is not the first corporate foray into the media – in 2014, Reliance Industries took ownership of Network18 – and it will not be the last. Accusations of an attempt to muzzle voices critical of the government may not be entirely wrong. Nor the apprehension of shrinking pluralism in the media.

It must be asked, however, why would any sensible businessman invest in the media business if corporates, by their nature, must pursue profits? The advertisement-driven revenue model that sustained the media has now run out of steam – more demonstrable earlier in the print media and now increasingly in television. Digital news platforms still lack a viable revenue model.

Market leaders in legacy media are struggling with bottom lines and have been in search of alternative and additional revenue streams. Their efforts have ranged from creating priced premium digital content, monetising archives, creating spin-off branded products and exploring paid new media or app-based distribution platforms. Revenue is sought to be raised from broadcasting and narrowcasting by targeting individual media consumers.

Surprisingly, the most lucrative source of revenue are the so-called media events fancifully termed "power conclave", "leadership summit", "governance/business awards", etc. Editors and senior journalists, besides ad executives, are pressed into finding corporate sponsors for such events and to ensure the participation of government representatives, from the prime minister and cabinet ministers to secretaries of government departments. Often glamour is added by inviting international "has-beens" to the event who are paid a hefty speaker's fee.

By virtue of their branding as "free and independent media", newspapers and TV channels facilitate dialogue and bonhomie between the political class and the corporates at these events. Media plays the "honest broker", projecting itself as a channel for servicing or furthering close understanding between the government and business leadership. The event is presented as an opportunity for focused interaction between two of the biggest stakeholders in the economy. These events are underwritten by an unseen handshake between media owners, the government and big business to ensure revenue generation for the media house.

The revenue comes from the sponsorship and tickets for the event. Corporates love the opportunity because it sustains the illusion that they are actually influencing the political-economic environment in which business functions. This illusion is necessary to understand why the corporate takeover of media is but a short step from here.

Corporates are vying to take over media houses because they want to directly control and shape the discourse on political economy. By now owning the media, they eliminate brokers and facilitators. Any businessman who is ambitious and his business interests large enough would want a direct role in structuring the environment that determines the outcome of the interaction between state actors, businesses and the people.

In a country with a relatively poor population, steering the nation towards economically right-leaning policies is not an easy task -- 80 crore Indians, or nearly 60 per cent of the total population, are still receiving free foodgrains to survive in the post-Covid era. Under these circumstances, without steering the political economy, how does one legitimise concessions to big business, low taxes on luxury goods and price decontrol of goods and services or argue that the state should get out of the big industry and that reduction of the wealth gap should be left to market forces? The negotiating agenda of the dialogue between businesses and decision-makers can be shaped effectively only by controlling the public platforms where the political economy is discussed and shaped.

Suppose it was only political leaders that corporates wanted to control. In that case, that could be done in many other ways -- by underwriting their careers and their expenses, both public (elections, travel, public meetings, for example) and private (rents, cars and other expenses to keep up appearances and lifestyle, when out of power). However, increasingly, corporates need to control the third factor shaping the discourse on political economy besides business and the state – public opinion.

Adverse public opinion can come in the way of the state allotting common resources for free to its favourite businessmen--- coal and iron ore mines, other mineral resources, public land, forests, rivers and underground water, land along sea shores, fishing areas, airwaves. In a democracy, public opinion can overturn the applecart of even those who appear to have a divine lease on political power. Therefore, it becomes necessary to condition public opinion in favour of capital by shaping and piloting it in desired directions through the media.

In a sense, corporates are entering the media business for the same reason that political parties and political families own media houses – to influence public opinion. Before the Supreme Court stepped in, the Sahara group's rise is a classic example of how media ownership can be used to legitimise businesses and business ideologies. Other fly-by-night chit-fund companies, Ponzi-scheme operators and real estate businessmen also invested in newspapers to TV channels to gain credibility. Media ownership gave them a branding that their shady businesses would never have been able to do – so a small-time confidence trickster would be emboldened to organise even bigger heists and still be seen as a respectable pillar of society.

The big boys have now replaced the small-time shysters of yesteryears. Direct control of media would allow them to influence reportage, prioritise news, select experts who would not question corporate ideology and, in fact, normalise it (e.g., "legitimate experts" vs "jholawalas"), universalise certain explanations that favour corporate capitalism over others (e.g., legitimacy of loan write-offs for big business vs farm loan waivers) and marginalise news that the corporates and their crony politicians consider hostile.

By controlling the production, dissemination and exchange of political ideas, spin and hyperbole can win over substance and swing the public mood in their favour. It could normalise a communal and divisive discourse or challenge it, depending on how it affects profits.