When INDIA gets angry

We must accept that the INDIA alliance has the right to boycott anybody it wishes. But the list of TV anchors is almost like painting a target on people's backs

Has the Opposition alliance, INDIA, made a brilliantly defiant move by announcing a boycott of 14 prominent news anchors, whom they accuse of “partisanship and hate-mongering”? Or is it an indefensible misstep, a shot fired in anger regardless of the justification? Will it help their cause or that of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the long run?

The first answer to all these and other such questions has to be another question: Who is a journalist? What is the definition of a journalist today, and who determines whether someone is truly a journalist or not?

This argument isn’t about the track record of any of these TV anchors. As far as I am concerned, I am among the growing number of Indians who no longer see the primetime TV “debate” as a news product. Many watch these. Some to see their favourite anchors bash the guests from the “other” side, some because the daily fracas is by now an addiction, but most others for their pure entertainment value.

This very Indian genre of TV debate has done more to harm journalism than any politician or political party. We are in a situation where the richest media groups no longer send out reporters to research stories on the ground, where nobody plays editor on a TV show, as the star anchors are themselves their own editors and the most powerful figures in their studios.

Who would dare to tell them, “Boss, this isn’t appropriate”. Or, “this is inaccurate”. To tell them whether something is fair or not. Forget it. That is all the stuff that the editor is supposed to do in a conventional newsroom. That institution has faded away in the past two decades into near extinction. The most perilous thing that can happen to a newsroom is having the creators of its prime content act as their own editors. This has been the norm on news TV. That’s why each show is such-and-such anchor’s show. Not such-and-such channel’s show. That’s probably why INDIA is naming and boycotting anchors but not their owners, or even the channels.

On any particular channel, for example, they will boycott Ms Y. But they have no problem appearing on the shows of Mr A or Ms B. This is a dangerous over-personalisation of journalism, for which the greatest responsibility lies on the shoulders of the owners who run editor-free newsrooms and the primetime stars themselves. Because they chose to keep it this way. They enjoy the limelight and the power, they also get targeted as individuals.

First of all, this isn’t a game being played for the first time, and INDIA has not cast the first stone with this boycott. The BJP has done it forever, just more cleverly and silently. At various points, boycotts of this channel or that has been announced on Twitter (renamed X) by its leading lights.

It is also known where its spokespersons and key functionaries will appear and where they won’t. For evidence, check out NDTV before and after Adani. As I write this, I see Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on my TV screen. That is some change from about five years ago, prior to the Adani takeover, when the channel was fully boycotted.

It is just that the BJP was more sophisticated about it. They didn’t make a formal announcement (barring one odd exception), nor did they say they wouldn’t appear on this or that anchor’s shows. But everybody knew what was going on. Denial — or grant — of access is a weapon newsmakers use across the board. It isn’t limited to politicians. Film and sport stars, corporate leaders and sometimes even civil society activists employ this.

As journalists, we will never endorse it. In an ideal world, all journalists would have fair access to newsmakers, both in the ruling party and the Opposition. But this isn’t the best of all worlds, and our wishing can’t change it. That’s why we must accept that the Opposition alliance is similarly within its “rights” to blackball anybody it wishes to.

They can instruct their leaders, members and spokespersons not to appear on certain shows. What takes this to a complicated and debatable level is the fact that they named these anchors and published a list as well. Those things often do not end well. This is almost like painting a target on people’s backs and publishing their names in a list. What is to stop the “other” side, or the many “other” sides, from doing something similar tomorrow? And what if those other sides do not stop at merely publishing these lists in press releases?

What if they start putting up hoardings in their states for better “exposure”? What if some “other” groups then say they are banning these people for being thieves, thugs, anti-national? There is no limit to stupidity once you’ve unleashed it. Remember that principle we repeat often: Never knowingly set a bad precedent. Because once you do it, it justifies the others’ actions as mere retaliation. And the others are invariably guaranteed to make it worse.

The argument, therefore, cannot be whether these anchors are good journalists or bad, or whether they are hate-mongers or true nationalists, pro-BJP or merely more market-friendly. The first argument has to be over the publication of lists like these. Because you can be sure that this will be the first, but not the last.

Who’s a journalist, what is journalism, what’s good or bad are eternal debates. And it is a good thing that we are still talking about it with such passion. Here is something there is no debate about: There is no government, irrespective of which party’s it is, that does not misuse power against journalists.

Some use less visible methods, like denial of advertising to those media institutions seen as “not friendly”. You and I know what that means. Every party, at this point, does it. This is combined with denial of access. Again, all parties do it. The third, and the most dangerous, is the misuse of the law, police and the “agencies”.

While we keep listing the excesses of BJP governments, others can’t claim to be holier-than-cow. The Mamata Banerjee government’s arrest of ABP News journalist Debmalya Bagchi is only the latest example. Almost all other state governments have some similar victimisation under their names. Filing police cases against journalists on the flimsiest grounds, ranging from sedition to threat to public order, has now become a Standard Operating Procedure for state governments. In this environment, how is INDIA trying to convince the uncommitted that it is any different from the BJP, which it accuses of communalism, high-handedness and even fascism?

Liberalism is INDIA’s brand proposition as opposed to what it describes as the BJP’s narrow-minded bigotry. This listing of its no-go anchors does not strengthen that claim.

Once again, this is not an argument for their “journalism”. That there is hate on many of our TV channels is a fact. That hate sells and is TRP/market-friendly, makes it even worse. That hate, hate-mongering, and the popularity of hate needs to be fought, is an imperative. The place to fight it is the world of ideas and ideologies, in public and political debate. Not by, and I repeat that line, painting a target on the backs of your selected few.

Since his Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul Gandhi has been repositioning his party (and by implication INDIA, the alliance it leads) as “Mohabbat ki Dukan”, a shop dispensing love. In the runup to the 2014 elections, he gave his first full length interview to Arnab Goswami. He said he wanted to reach out and open himself to questioning by his biggest critic first. Now, his party says it will do just the opposite.

Whether he was right then, or his party and its allies are wiser now, is something they need to debate internally. We can only say that this does not align with the Mohabbat ki Dukan proposition. More important, it doesn’t help their cause politically when all they needed to do was instruct their people internally not to appear on these channels. They’ve chosen to make a public spectacle instead. One thing it won’t change, unfortunately, is the type and quality of “journalism” these 14 do.

By special arrangement with ThePrint