It was a fascinating chat not only because it had (for me) a deep resonance, given the madness happening in India, but also because Luckhurst offered something few discussions within India offer these days - perspective. This comes from his position as an academic researcher on the history of journalism and his knowledge of journalism itself.
In India media freedom exists, but with several caveats that neutralise it. For one, self-censorship is rampant across media brands - largely because of weak laws, militant advertisers and editors and owners who don't care or are driven by their personal agenda. Second, there are the ethical googlies such as paid news, private treaties and media agencies on the take. Despite this, compared to many Asian and Latin American countries, the Indian news media is not in a bad space. There are restrictions on foreign investment, but otherwise it is largely - at least theoretically - free. One just wishes it focused more on quality and was less loud.
The corrupt practices of 'some' media brands and the tabloidisation of television have made all media and all journalists the subject of popular ridicule. One winces every time one reads the coined word 'presstitutes' -because it does not do justice to the thousands who do work hard at analysing, researching and coming out with the best possible information and analysis for readers. As the anti-media feeling gains ground, there are the usual threats of content regulation.
And therefore the question: Can a government and people decide to curtail the freedom of the media to ensure a stable boat while the country is sailing towards economic prosperity? Before you say no, look at China. It has become one of the largest economies in the world, not just without a free media but with one that operates as the propaganda arm of the government.
"I don't think China has invented an alternative to democracy, but a way to economic growth. Once people have what they want (materially) they will want freedom as well," says Luckhurst. The Indian model of free media in a yet-to-mature democracy and economy will work better because of the educated middle class, which could be the vanguard of liberal values, says Luckhurst. (I did not have the heart to tell him that the Indian middle class was largely conservative.)
"For free journalism to be tolerated, the government has to have a vested interest in it," says Luckhurst. In India, so far the only interest successive governments have shown is in letting an inept media tie itself up in knots. How on earth do both Conservative and Liberal governments in the UK tolerate its vocal press that gives most governments in that country a hard time, constantly exposing scandals?
Luckhurst goes back in history to tell you why. In 1926 when there was a national labour strike in the UK, there were worries of a revolution. Remember, it was just nine years after the Russian uprising. The then chancellor of the exchequer, Winston Churchill, suggested taking over the taxpayer-funded BBC and making it a propaganda arm. But the Conservative prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, refused, in the belief that if the Tories did it, Labour would do it too. So the BBC remains independent, despite its difficult relationship with almost every government. This has made it the institution it is. "It takes enormous vision and strength of leadership to build a liberal press," says Luckhurst. "It is very difficult to see its value unless it is tested in a crisis." So far, the only Indian prime minister to have shown such a vision for free speech has been Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
Luckhurst believes economic growth is sustainable only with the rule of law and a reliable honest government. And journalism is the antiseptic that keeps the government and the system clean. Well, the one in India is clearly not very effective. Can someone reinvent it please?
Twitter: @vanitakohlik