In Indian elections, Gaza violence, some misses and misfires by traditional media

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on November 16, 2023

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/11/16/in-indian-elections-gaza-violence-some-misses-and-misfires-by-traditional-media

Cricket and elections, in that order, have dominated the Indian news cycle for the last few weeks. The world media on the other hand is focussed on the war declared by Israel against Gaza following the October 7 attack by Hamas. The daily mounting toll of casualties reported from Gaza, especially of children, has resulted in a mounting cry across much of the world for a ceasefire, but so far to no effect.

Leaving aside cricket, reporting on Indian elections, and on the war on Gaza challenges journalists in a most essential way.

Election coverage in India consists mostly of reporting what she or he said and some reports on what the public perceives. Journalists are also expected to make a guess about which way the wind is blowing, in the direction of the incumbent, the opponent, or neither.

This format permits prominent political figures to get away with statements that are either inaccurate, or even outright lies. Yet, rarely does the media call them out. As a result, for the record, what a politician says, including the prime minister, is uncritically recorded, and reported. Without challenge, it gets accepted as fact.

As politics is essentially a battle of perception, this approach of the media contributes directly to popular perception about a personality or a political party. There is little doubt that the blanket and uncritical coverage by the Indian media, especially television, of everything Prime Minister Narendra Modi does or says, from the inauguration of a minor railway station, or highway, to a political rally, has contributed to the personality cult around him. We witness this again in the ongoing election campaigns in the five states that are holding elections – Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Mizoram, and Rajasthan. 

While reporting what politicians say during elections cannot be avoided, it ought not to be the bulk of coverage. There are, of course, reports of what voters think, with some kind of random sampling done by most reporters. Very few try to reach out to women, or to the most marginalised. Generally, the vox popconsists of people you bump into and who are willing to talk.

The opportunity that is missed during election coverage, which sends droves of reporters on the ground, is the chance to assess whether the declarations made by incumbent governments, boasting of far-reaching benefits given to the poorest communities, are true or not. Have various government schemes that are projected as successful benefitted the poorest? 

In this round of state elections, such reporting has largely been missing, barring a few exceptions. Thus, the rare report tells us that the much-touted Ujjwala scheme, for instance, that is supposed to have helped households switch from polluting biomass chulhas to LPG gas has been less than successful. The reasons remain the same as those documented in numerous studies. That after the first free gas cylinder, families simply have not been able to afford the replacement. Women are compelled to revert to using firewood that affects their own health directly and increases their workload. 

Doing such stories is not difficult if you have reporters already on the ground. Given that most media houses have drastically reduced investment in ground-based reporting, this is an opportunity missed. And especially so in these elections, where we have seen intense competition between opposing parties to announce ever more generous benefits to the poor.

Of course, in this age of social media, whether traditional media really affects voting choices is a moot point. Do what we report, or the way we tell our stories as journalists, really contribute to perceptions that affect political choices, or even an understanding of what’s happening in the country given the all-pervasive presence of social media? 

Take Manipur, for instance. It is now seven months since the state has been embroiled in a virtual civil war between two communities, the Meitei, and the Kuki-Zo. The conflict continues to fester without any serious intervention by the central government to find a solution. Just when you think things have quieted down, another incident is reported of killings or destruction.

For the people living in the state and in the region, the veracity of what circulates as “news” continues to be challenging. Increasingly, each side is convinced that what it has seen circulated on social media is the fact. Even journalists from the two opposing sides are caught in this battle of what really is “the truth” and what are facts.

Similarly, the current Israeli attack on Gaza has raised many questions in the international media on how to sift fact from fiction in the reporting. 

Take, for instance, this report in the New York Times on an attack on the Al Shifa hospital in Gaza on November 10.  The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) claimed that it was a misfired missile from Hamas. The New York Times went to some lengths to verify facts and has concluded that it was Israeli shells that hit the hospital.

However, it also adds, “The evidence reviewed by The Times from Al-Shifa points more directly to strikes by Israel – whether on purpose or by accident is unclear.” That caveat speaks to the lengths some in the Western media are going to prove that they are “balanced” in their reporting, even as they ignore the clear statements by numerous Israeli politicians about why their country has launched this devastating attack on Gaza. The politicians make no bones about the motive behind the bombardment.

Earlier, on October 17, a blast at the Al Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza also triggered a similar debate in the international media. While Palestinians claimed it was an Israeli rocket, the IDF insisted it was a misfired rocket by Hamas. In its report, the NYT concluded: 

“Using satellite imagery to triangulate the launch point in those videos, The Times determined that the projectile was fired toward Gaza from near the Israeli town of Nahal Oz shortly before the deadly hospital blast. The findings match the conclusion reached by some online researchers.”

The lengths to which media houses have gone to question versions put out by the warring sides illustrates the tremendous challenges in reporting on conflict in general, and this kind of conflict in particular. There are no easy answers. But apart from the individual incidents such as the two cited above, what informs readers and viewers is the choice of what is reported. Here the bias, stated or otherwise, of a publication or TV channel comes through even as they project themselves as being balanced. 

In any case, irrespective of what major news outlets in the West such as NYT or others report, people are getting their information about the war from other sources. The thousands of young people on the streets of western capitals, demonstrating every weekend demanding a ceasefire in this war even as their own governments continue to support and arm Israel, are not depending on these traditional sources for their information.  

There are dozens of independent platforms streaming on social media that provide anyone interested with the realities that Gazans live with every single day since Israel began the bombardment followed by the land invasion. These images and video clips are a record that cannot be erased even if mainstream media chooses to downplay the reality. 

Meanwhile, a sobering side of the Israeli war on Gaza is that an estimated 41 journalists covering it have been killed, according to this report by Reporters without Borders.  That number has increased since that report was published and is now thought to be touching 50. 

Even as some in the media debate what are the real “facts” in this terrible war, those trying to do their job in recording events face dangers that far exceed anything we have witnessed in other conflicts.  

Mainstream TV tattered the flag of press freedom. It can’t use it for a cover-up amid INDIA boycott

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on September 21, 2023

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/09/21/mainstream-tv-tattered-the-flag-of-press-freedom-it-cant-use-it-for-a-cover-up-amid-india-boycott

A new parliament building and the passage of a 27-year-old law have pushed to the background what had the potential of becoming a raging controversy. I am referring to the decision taken by the opposition alliance to boycott 14 TV anchors and not appear on the shows they host.

On September 20, the daylong Lok Sabha session on the Women’s Reservation Bill – the Constitution (128th Amendment) Bill 2023 – brought back memories of a parliament that once existed, where we heard both sides put forward their views. In the past, this kind of debate allowed the public to be informed about the pros and the cons of a law or a policy. Today, such debates are conspicuous by their absence.

Another takeaway from that day was to see the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, sitting through the discussion and ultimate passage of the bill. He has a record of the lowest attendance in parliament of any prime minister so far.

But whether this special session in its spanking new building will inform the way future sessions are conducted remains to be seen. Old habits die hard, and it is likely, as we enter election season, that we will once again witness little real debate and more walkouts and grandstanding even as important laws are rushed through.

The controversy around the boycott of 14 anchors has also been useful in some ways. It has brought into focus the state of mainstream television media in India. Irrespective of what people think of the opposition’s strategy of naming specific anchors, there is little doubt that this move has compelled viewers to look again at the channels where these anchors appear, and to ask whether what they see each night at prime time is even journalism.

Ideally, we need a forum to debate the state of mainstream media. But as the latter will certainly not provide space for a fair and reasoned debate, once again it is the independent platforms where the issue has been discussed. 

There have been several well-argued articles such as by Anjali Mody in Scroll and by Ravish Kumar in Wire. The lawyer Apar Gupta has written about why he chose not to appear on certain channels and suggests that “broken news will only be fixed by collective action”.

And Aakar Patel, in this article in Wire, argues that the opposition has every right to refuse to be part of what he calls “a rigged game by large sections of the media”.

On the other side, those against the opposition’s move, including the BJP, have conjured up scenarios about the freedom of the press being threatened and comparing what is a voluntary boycott to the Emergency. They also interchangeably use the term “ban” and “boycott” even though they must know that governments impose bans – individuals and groups can voluntarily boycott.

Furthermore, it is laughable that a political party that has allowed freedom of expression and the press to deteriorate under its watch until India is ranked amongst the lowest in the world in press freedom ranking, should talk about press freedom being threatened by a voluntary boycott.

Also, while we debate this issue, we cannot forget that the prime “boycotter” of the media is none other than the prime minister. In the last 10 years, he has made his disdain for media amply clear, cherry-picking a few journalists for ‘exclusive’ staged interviews and otherwise refusing to engage or answer questions.

Most of the mainstream media is not troubled by this “boycott”, and Modi knows this. Hence, every day, anything the prime minister says, or does, is reported uncritically in print media, and telecast on TV channels. There is not a whisper of criticism barring an occasional op-ed or an edit, questioning what he proclaims from various platforms. And this in a country that claims there is press freedom. 

While the opposition rightly blames some TV channels for spreading hate, and cutting out other viewpoints, there is little doubt that the same media is also responsible for perpetuating and building up the Modi cult.

But coming back to the opposition boycott, the listing of specific anchors has deflected attention from the principal reason the mainstream media, especially TV news, has declined so precipitously in its content and credibility. And that is the ownership of these channels and media houses. 

We tend to forget that the corporatisation of the media began in the 1990s and coincided with the growth of private television channels. The media became a “brand” and a profit centre for the owners of these media houses. The job of the media was not just to report all the news but to highlight the news that would sell the brand.

This is also when “celebrities” (film stars, models, the ultra-rich) entered the picture. What they did, or did not, became “news”. It attracted readers and viewers in a changing consumerist-oriented India. And once it was clear that the strategy worked, it was monetised. Soon we had the advent of “paid news” masquerading as reportage by journalists. 

On television, Arnab Goswami, when he was with Times Now, can be credited for taking the combative nature of TV debates that had already begun on other channels to another level. His “brand” sold the channel. Soon it became the norm in TV discussions across channels. Goswami moved on to Republic TV, but his style is visible each time you switch on any news channel.

A book worth revisiting at this time is Amrita Shah’s excellent 2019 take on mainstream media, ‘Telly-Guillotined, How Television Changed India’ (published by Sage and Yoda Press). It is a new version of her 1997 book, ‘Hype, Hypocrisy and Television in Urban India’. Re-reading the first paragraph of the preface would make you think she is referring to what’s happening today.  I quote:

“Loud, sensationalistic, irresponsible, trivial, dangerous – these are some of the ways in which the Indian news media is perceived by many in the country today. Terms like ‘fake news’ and ‘paid news’ are freely and sometimes gratuitously applied to journalistic output. Diminishing public respect has rendered journalists vulnerable to pressures of various kinds. Journalists are sacked en masse, heads of media companies are raided for expressing anti-establishment views, senior news staffers are fired for taking on powerful politicians and attacked for exposing corruption and wrongdoing. Even among crowds, while covering news events, reporters and photographers are liable to be roughed up and assaulted by random members of the public. How did we get here?”

Shah’s is a detailed exploration and cannot be summarised here. But essentially, she has traced how the process of what she calls the “decline of the journalist” and the power of “the salesman, the technician and the entertainer” grew and shaped what we see today.

Whether the boycott decision by the opposition can bring about any change in a system so well-entrenched is difficult to predict. Also, given the power and reach of this media, whether the opposition choosing not to appear on these shows and thereby lending them some credibility will dent their viewership is uncertain. One could argue that in election season, such a boycott might hurt the opposition more than those they criticise or oppose.

What can be said is that it is time that we debated the debasement of what is mainstream television news, and search for alternatives. As long as the owners of these channels allow the named anchors, and others not on the list, their poisonous and performative brand of journalism, and believe that they profit from this, there is little that individual viewers can do to intervene. Yet, boycotts have been effective if they are scaled up to the point where they hurt the bottom line of corporations.

At the end of the day, we are still left with the question: what is journalism? It is not what we are seeing day in and day out on our TV channels. But it is still taking place in spaces away from mainstream media.

Here is a piece that gives me hope that all is not lost. Not many of this generation would even know of Bhanwari Devi. She is not a celebrity. She still lives in her village of Bhatteri in Rajasthan. Yet, it is her life, and her fight for justice against the men who raped her, that led to a path-breaking law on sexual harassment at the workplace. In a deeply reported article in Print, that focuses on Bhanwari, Jyoti Yadav reminds us of the struggles that Indian women face today. So sensitive and informative journalism is still alive, as the article illustrates.

Amid G20 hype, exposé on Adani, Vedanta and Manipur crisis relegated to shadows

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on September 7, 2023

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/09/07/amid-g20-hype-expos-on-adani-vedanta-and-manipur-crisis-relegated-to-shadows

The G20 Summit has taken over the headlines and the news cycle. By the end of the week, the recent exposes on Adani, the opposition alliance’s Mumbai meet, or even the Manipur crisis would have faded from people’s memories.  

In the meantime, we also had the surprise announcement of a special session of Parliament from September 18-22 with no indication of the agenda, some kite-flying about whether the name of our country will be 'Bharat' instead of 'India, although it is both in the Constitution, and the proposal of One Nation, One Election.  Enough masala to cover up the real and more substantive issues on which the media should continue to keep its focus.

The expose by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project or OCCRP on the financial dealings of the Adani group, carried in detail in the leading daily Financial Times, and The Guardian, has provoked no more than a murmur in India’s mainstream media. Although, the day after the story broke, newspapers did report it on their front pages, there has been little to nothing by way of a follow up apart from a few editorial comments, such as in Hindustan Times and Indian Express.  

Admittedly, the Adani story is complex. It is not easy to understand for readers who are not informed about the way financial markets work. Yet, it is possible for the media to explain it,  like this report in Newslaundry.  

At times, the silence of the media tells a bigger story than its word. 

Sometimes, the silence of the media speaks louder than words about its status. And the ongoing Adani story, exposing cronyism and institutional failures under the current government, must surely qualify as one such instance of silence. 

Given its open and blatant biases, the Indian TV news media is not expected to touch the Adani story. Nor are we surprised that the only way it can deal with it is to spin out its usual conspiracy theory, about George Soros being behind the exposes. But mainstream Indian print media’s silence cannot be ignored, especially when independent media, such as the Reporters’ Collective and the stories by M Rajshekhar in Wire have reported on the expose.  

The Adani story eclipsed what I believe is as important a story, if not more, by OCCRP on the way the Vedanta group, led by UK-based business tycoon Anil Agarwal, has been the beneficiary of changes made in environmental laws for mining and other related activities.   

The investigation has these five key findings:

• “Mining and oil giant Vedanta ran a covert lobbying campaign to weaken key environmental regulations during the pandemic.”

• “India’s government approved the changes without public consultation and implemented them by using what experts say are illegal methods.”

• “In one case, Vedanta led a push to ensure mining companies could produce up to 50 percent more without new environmental approvals.”

• “Vedanta’s oil business, Cairn India, also successfully lobbied to have public hearing scrapped for exploratory drilling in oil blocks it won in government auctions.”

• “Since then, six of Cairn’s controversial oil projects in Rajasthan have been approved despite local opposition.” 

We need to let this sink in. After years of campaigning by environmental groups, laws and regulations were set in place to protect the environment.  An important feature was public consultation before any changes were made. This is only one of the rules that has been bypassed. And all this has happened without us noticing because these issues do not find purchase in mainstream media anymore. 

Of the other issues subdued by the spate of “breaking news” is, of course, Manipur.  Thanks to the fact-finding report by the Editors’ Guild of India, titled 'Media's Reportage on Ethnic Violence in Manipur', and the disproportionate response of Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh to it, what’s happening in that beleaguered state has not been entirely forgotten. 

The Manipur state government has filed an FIR against the EGI team accusing them of “promoting enmity between different groups”.  Not just that, but Biren Singh has gone on record to call the team members “anti-state, anti-national and anti-establishment”. 

Although the Supreme Court has intervened and stayed the arrests of the journalists, the action of the Manipur government is another reminder of how the ruling party in that state, and at the centre, looks at freedom of expression. To them, this fundamental right is purely transactional. One is free to report only information approved by them. Anything contrary is ‘anti-national’.  

This is the second such reaction of the state government to fact-finding missions. In July, it had filed an FIR against a three-member group of the National Federation of Indian Women for concluding that the violence was “state-sponsored”. Since then, there have been several such telling reports including one by a group of doctors. In this report in The Hindu, the displaced populations, especially in the Kuki areas, are facing a dire crisis due to a lack of essential supplies even for infants and medications for the ailing. So far, there has been no denial or action against this group of doctors by the state government. 

Coming back to the EGI report, it specifically looked at the role of the local media in inflaming the situation in Manipur. It even quoted some instances of this.  But it also revealed the structural inequality that is built into the location of media houses. 

In most states, media houses concentrate on the capital and some major cities. Many parts of a state, often the most marginalised and deprived, are left uncovered, or barely reported. It’s only when something drastic happens like a natural disaster, or drought and starvation, that these places feature. 

Manipur is much the same. The media is located mostly in Imphal and run by the Meiteis. Although the Nagas have a newspaper, Ukhrul Times, and other forms of media, the Kukis have never had an adequate media presence. When a crisis like the present one hits, where two sides are literally at war with each other, even the semblance of a media that reports from all regions disappears. 

It is not just the absence of the internet that has affected coverage in the local media, although the unjustified internet shutdown over an extended period is an important factor. More significant has been the way even journalists, who are supposed to set aside their personal identities and biases when they go out to report, have been affected by the passions dividing the state.  

This partly explains why the means of communication that were not cut off, such as mobile phones or landlines, were not used to verify news and get reports from parts rendered unreachable by local media during this conflict. After all, many of us have reported in the times when there was no internet, when phoning in your story and sending updates from a landline, or even post office, to the desk wherever it was located, was routine.   

Sadly, some Imphal-based journalists continue to resent what they call “parachute journalists” from the “mainland”. Yet had it not been for these journalists, we would not have heard both sides of the story on the Manipur violence. Perhaps, the best of the recent reports on Manipur is this one by Arunabh Saikia for Scroll, that tells us that the problem in the northeastern state is not going to disappear in a hurry. In fact, it is likely to escalate given that now both sides have the support of militant groups who were quiescent for some years. 

Whether it is Adani, Vedanta, or Manipur, these are issues that will inform the path India takes in the future. The coverage, or erasure of such issues from the media also informs us about the direction that the Indian media has chosen to take. 

In Chandrayaan-3 success, lessons for the media, and for developmental policy

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on August 24, 2023

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/08/24/in-chandrayaan-3-success-lessons-for-the-media-and-for-developmental-policy

On August 23, India was literally “over the Moon” when Chandrayaan-3 successfully made a soft landing on a part of the Moon where no one had succeeded thus far. The achievement was not that of one person, but of a team of literally hundreds of scientists affiliated to the Indian Space Research Organisation. 

When the media turned the spotlight on them, all of them highlighted the team effort. Not even one, including the man who heads ISRO, Dr S Somanath, spoke of it as the work of one, or even a small handful of people. Television news tried hard to do that, with one anchor calling Dr Somanath “the man of the match”. The latter firmly denied this and again emphasised the team.

There is something to be learned from the Chandrayaan-3 success story, for us as a country but also for those of us in the media.

First, the success should underline the importance of science, of the scientific process, of rational thinking and of people working together for a larger goal. This piece by writer and journalist Gita Aravamudan, whose husband was a part of the early space projects, brings out the latter aspect well.

A scientific approach is especially significant in these times when we are bombarded with pseudo-science, when scientific facts are erased from our textbooks and when political leaders have no qualms endorsing non-scientific solutions to disease, for instance.

Second, the scientists interviewed by the media after the successful landing spoke of the importance of learning from failure. Chandrayaan-2 had failed to make a soft landing four years ago. Instead of turning on the people who worked on that project, ISRO gave the very same people the responsibility to analyse what went wrong and work towards solutions.  This interview with two scientists by The NewsMinute illustrates the absence of hype in the responses of the scientists.

And third, the importance of high-quality and affordable institutions teaching science and technology. The foundations for this were laid post-Independence when the government invested in such educational institutions. The individual profiles of some of the scientists involved in the Chandrayaan-3 project reveal that most of them were educated in India. 

Unfortunately, these rather obvious lessons will be drowned out in the nationalistic hype surrounding the success as the front-page headline in Indian Express illustrates. 

As for science and what it ought to teach us about development policies, we only have to look at the devastation we are witnessing in Himachal Pradesh.

One of the lessons from the Moon mission that policy makers ought to heed is the importance of learning from past mistakes. It is evident today, that much of the scale of the destruction in Himachal Pradesh could have been minimised had this been done. On the contrary, every principle that evolved from past experience and reinforced in multiple expert reports, has been violated by governments and private builders. The price for this is being paid by ordinary people in these states.

Thanks to social media, those concerned and interested in the tragedy of the Himalayan states have been able to see the distressing visuals of brick-and-mortar structures crumbling within seconds. 

As always, independent media houses have done much better in their coverage of the Himachal disaster than mainstream television. 

The ground reports by Hridayesh Joshi in Newslaundry have been exceptional. They show us not just the extent of the devastation, but also, through interviews with ordinary people and experts, they help us understand the reasons that go beyond heavy rains. 

The Newsclick interviewed seismologist C P Rajendran who speaks about the “flawed developmental model” adopted by states like Himachal Pradesh. 

Print media has also carried some useful articles that explain why we must view the Himachal Pradesh devastation not as a natural disaster but as one made by human intervention.  

For instance, since the 1980s, questions have been raised about building dams in the fragile ecosystem on the Himalayas. Can they sustain large storage dams that allow for generation of power when needed, or would they be better off with “run-of-the-river” dams that are smaller and do not store water? The latter were recommended. But most of the dams built in the last decades have been of the former kind. As this report in The Tribune explains, the release of water from these dams when the water levels rose due to the rainfall – without adequate warning to the habitations along the river – exacerbated the destruction. 

Similarly, there has been a strong push to widen roads to facilitate access for tourists and pilgrims. This is considered essential to boost the economy in  states like Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

But as several reports have shown, even the basic norm that you cannot cut fragile hillsides at angles of 90 degrees was ignored. As a result, we have seen new highways literally crumbling, one side covered by boulders that have rolled down and the other sinking. 

Also, in places like Shimla, if there were town planning norms about the height of structures, or where they can be built, it is evident that they have been ignored. As this story illustrates, brick and concrete structures were even built on riverbeds. This was a disaster just waiting to happen, and it has.

In contrast to Shimla, the hill-station of Mussoorie in Uttarakhand suffered less even though it also encountered heavy rain.  According to this writer, one reason for this was because corrective measures were taken several decades back to reforest areas devastated by limestone mining and restrictions on buildings and roads were put in place.

Ironically, the British who initiated the building of hill stations like Shimla and Mussoorie, had laid down norms that factored in the carrying capacity of these locations, a phrase that is in currency today when it is almost too late. They recommended, for instance, that structures ought not to be constructed on slopes exceeding 30 degrees. 

You could argue that the colonial concept of hill stations restricted access to only the elite, people who could afford second homes away from cities, and that so-called “development” has opened these places to people from other classes who needed cheaper accommodation and public transport. Yet, tragically, it is the classes that can now access these hill stations who have suffered the most. They are the ones who were trapped in buildings that crumbled, on highways that sank, on hillsides that collapsed.

The ongoing disaster in Himachal Pradesh ought to inform us in the media that there is always a back story to what is touted as a “natural disaster”. If we buy into it, and reinforce it in the way we report, we allow those responsible for the problem, usually the government, to get away with it. We also perpetuate the myth that development is essential and that questioning infrastructure projects, such as roads, or dams, is somehow anti-national, or anti-development. 

In the past, many civil society groups and environmentalists have been labelled thus. The Narmada Bachao Andolan that compelled rethinking on large dams like the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River in the early 1980s was called “anti-development”. The campaign, led by people like Medha Patkar, emphasised the importance of environmental sustainability, and the social costs of large-scale projects that resulted in the displacement of the poorest and most vulnerable communities. This was well before all these concepts were being mouthed by world leaders.

In the case of the Himalayas, again from the 1980s, there have been warnings, and studies to back them, on the direction development plans were taking there. Most of these were not heeded. At most a pretence was made to accept an “expert report” only for it to be relegated to a back shelf.

The consequences of this attitude by all governments, irrespective of their political affiliation, are before our eyes today.  

In the Second Citizens’ Report on the State of the Environment, published in the mid-1980s, the late environmentalist and journalist Anil Agarwal, who established the Centre for Science and Environment, wrote an essay titled “Politics of Environment” which seems almost prophetic today:

“The post-independence political debate in India has centred on two major issues: equity and growth. The environmental concern has added a third dimension: sustainability. India’s biggest challenge today is to identify and implement a development process that will lead to greater equity, growth, and sustainability.”   

“Development can take place at the cost of the environment only uptil a point. Beyond that point it will be like the foolish man who was trying to cut the very branch on which he was sitting”.

From all indications, in the four decades since this was written, India seems to have reached that point. 

A hate-laden speech and murder: Why did Chetan Singh vanish from the news cycle?

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on August 10, 2023

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/08/10/a-hate-laden-speech-and-murder-why-did-chetan-singh-vanish-from-the-news-cycle

July 31, 2023. That is a date we need to remember. What happened that day has already been relegated to the inside pages of most newspapers and has vanished altogether from our shouty TV channels. They are currently obsessing over the violence on the doorstep of India’s national capital, and the debate in Parliament over the no-confidence motion tabled by the opposition parties.

Yet, while the media must address the latest drama, there are several reasons why the event of July 31 needs to be followed up and analysed in much greater detail. 

On July 31, even as the Jaipur-Mumbai Superfast Express was speeding through Gujarat towards Mumbai, a Railway Protection Force jawan decided to make use of the loaded weapon he was carrying. Chetan Singh first shot his own senior after an altercation. He then walked through the train, picking out bearded men and shooting them at point blank range. He shot three such men. They were all Muslims. 

It is not just the act of shooting Muslim men, whose identity was evident from their beards and clothes (in one instance, he asked the name of the man to be sure). It’s Chetan Singh’s rant, recorded by several passengers on their phones, that is chilling. Here is what he said according to a report in The Wire:

“Pakistan se operate hue hain, tumhari media, yahi media coverage dikha rahi hai hai, pata chal raha hai unko, sab pata chal raha hai, inke aaqa hai wahan...Agar vote dena hai, agar Hindustan me rehna hai, toh mai kehta hoon, Modi aur Yogi, ye do hain, aur aapke Thackeray.”

Loosely translated: “They operate from Pakistan, this is what the media of the country is showing, they have found out, they know everything, their leaders are there...If you want to vote, if you want to live in India, then I say, Modi and Yogi, these are the two, and your Thackeray.”

Singh was apprehended before the train reached Mumbai. Most of the early reports in print media focused on his mental stability rather than his deliberate targeting of Muslim men.  

Television news coverage was a different story altogether. According to this episode of TV Newsance in Newslaundry, Times Now reported that the men were killed in “crossfire”. By this, one presumes they thought that Singh and his senior were firing at each other with loaded guns and three Muslims, sitting in different compartments just happened to come into the line of fire!

After this first, brief, and mostly inaccurate reporting of the train killings, television news moved on to the communal clashes in Nuh just outside Delhi. The follow-up was done mostly by Mumbai’s local newspapers. 

Mid-Day, for instance, reported that the investigators had concluded that the man knew what he was doing and admitted he hated Muslims. He also said, according to the paper, that he would have shot many more people had the train not stopped before reaching Mumbai. Singh has now been charged under sections relating to hate crimes.

Apart from follow-up reports, there was also little by way of comment that questioned why Singh had such a deep hatred of Muslims that he would go about shooting them without provocation. An exception was Ajaz Ashraf who writes a column in Mid-Day. 

Ashraf’s op-ed is worth reading because it questions the talk about mental illness and this kind of targeted killing. 

He concludes:

“We would be deceiving ourselves in case we think Chetan’s killing spree was merely because of his mental illness, which might also be a condition waiting to be diagnosed among a substantial segment of Indians, given the increasing frequency with which hate-driven violence is perpetrated. Certainly, the impulse not to hurt has weakened over the last nine years. There is a post called Chief Statistician of India. We desperately need to have a Chief Psychiatrist of India, who could measure India’s growing sickness.”

“India’s growing sickness”, as Ashraf terms it, is the visceral hate of Muslims that has been planted in our minds. Of course, political parties, specifically the BJP and its family members like the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, are primarily responsible.  But their hate-filled narrative would not have found purchase to this extent had not the media amplified it.  

Whether you watch Indian TV news channels or not, look at the episode of TV Newsance mentioned above to get a sense of the poison emanating from them every night. 

There have been instances in the past where the media has been held responsible for spreading hate.  For instance, after the 2002 Gujarat communal carnage, the Editors Guild of India had sent a team to look specifically at this aspect.  

Their report makes interesting reading today, more than two decades later.  Although TV news was not as ubiquitous as it is now, Gujarat 2002 is often referred to as the first “televised” riot because by then there were private television channels not beholden to the government. Journalists from these channels were stopped and even attacked by Hindutva groups, accusing them of only giving the Muslim point of view. This is unlikely to happen today.

Print media was still dominant and several leading Gujarati newspapers were questioned about the headlines on their front pages, and the news that they chose to emphasise. But the report also mentions pamphlets distributed by groups like the VHP that played a role in spreading misinformation. A parallel today would be social media that is all pervasive and much more dangerous.

Clearly, we need a detailed study on how and to what extent all media, television, print and social media, have amplified the narrative of hate, especially since 2014. 

How is this deliberate spread of hate to be checked? No one in the media will recommend government censorship. There are already rules and regulations in place that could, if they are used, offer some checks.

But ultimately, the responsibility lies in the hands of those who finance these media houses, the owners, as well as those who support them by way of advertising.

There is little doubt that the deterioration in media content has coincided with the corporatisation of the media from the early 1990s. Since then, media professionals running these organisations have to find ways to make their companies profitable. And what better way than to sensationalise and play up sentiments that echo what the majority believes? The combination of this is deadly, as we can see. 

This daily dose of poison has not just been seeded in the minds of millions of people but has begun to bear fruit. Chetan Singh’s hate-filled killing of Muslim men is a telling example of this.

Can our media introspect? Will it? I personally doubt it so long as people continue to buy and financially support the peddlers of hate. Even tighter regulations will not suffice if there is a “market” for these ideas, which there is, and so long as the dominant politics supports it, which it does.

July 31 and Chetan Singh’s targeted killing are a warning that we must heed, as media, but also as citizens of a country that seems to be hurtling down a precipice of hatred and violence. 

 

In the scramble for ‘exclusives’, media must follow caution while reporting from Manipur

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on July 28, 2023

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/07/28/in-the-scramble-for-exclusives-media-must-follow-caution-while-reporting-from-manipur

This “breaking news” took more than two months to break. I am referring, of course, to the so-called “viral video”, a term that hides the real content of that video. For it ought to be remembered as “the sexual assault video” of Kuki women, disrobed and paraded naked by a mob of Meitei men in the ethnic strife-torn state of Manipur on May 4, 2023. One of them was later gang-raped.

Two weeks ago, when I wrote my last column, one could count the number of stories, especially in national media, on the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur. Today, post the video going public, this north-eastern state has become the focus of politics and media in the “mainland”.

Much has been spoken and written since July 19 when the video was shared on social media platforms. It provoked shock, disgust, anger, sorrow but also frustration that this atrocity was not reported earlier.  It could and should have been as subsequent reports have revealed that an FIR had been registered on May 18, a fortnight after the assault, but that it took the Manipur police more than a month before it took some tentative steps. It finally moved and made arrests, as is now known, only when Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh was compelled to take note. 

A question that should be asked about the video is what the man who shot the video, who was obviously part of the mob, was thinking. 

Was he inspired by the ghastly videos we have seen with sickening regularity on social media in the last 10 years, of the lynching of Muslim men by mobs of self-appointed cow-protectors? These men loaded their videos on social media without any compunction for they knew there would be no consequences. It was also a way for them to demonstrate their masculinity and virility. 

In this case, it could have been all this as well as demonstrating the time-worn method of teaching the men of the “other” side a lesson, by assaulting and raping “their” women. We still do not yet know how the video travelled from the phone of the man who shot it to social media. Could he and his friends, much like the lynch mobs in “mainland” India, have done this to show off without realising what the consequences would be? 

Now there is a new twist with the Centre asking the CBI to investigate.  The man who allegedly shot the video has been apprehended, and his phone seized. In the end we might never know the true story.

Another question: although the volume of coverage on Manipur has exploded since July 19, has it helped viewers and readers to understand what has been happening there for almost three months? Or has it, as happens with most issues in this country, been reduced to a story about politicians and politics? 

Predictably, most television channels have reduced this to a debating point between political opponents. The usual whataboutery is being witnessed, exemplified par excellence by Union Minister for Women and Child Welfare, Smriti Irani’s dramatic statement in the Rajya Sabha on July 26 where, amongst other things, she claimed Rahul Gandhi put Manipur on fire. 

The signal for this strategy – of always blaming the opposition for anything that is uncomfortable for the government to address – came, of course, from the prime minister. He finally “broke his silence” a full 79 days after the troubles erupted in Manipur, only to churn out meaningless platitudes. 

What is worse, he used even his brief statement, made outside Parliament rather than on the floor of the House, to dilute the gravity of what's happening in Manipur by adding that women were unsafe in states like Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh (that happen to be opposition-ruled) and that all chief ministers should take steps to ensure women’s safety. He appears to have missed the main point – that the Manipur video was not about the safety of individual women, but about the assault on women during an ethnic conflict despite the presence of police and in a state governed by his party. 

We must also acknowledge that despite more coverage of Manipur in this last week, the media has been unable to push this government to act. Would things have been different if mainstream media had recognised earlier the gravity of the situation in Manipur and reported more extensively? 

What is obvious is that it was not anything reported by any established media, but a video amplified on social media that finally drove Modi to make a statement of sorts. Yet he continues to resist facing parliamentarians on the floor of the House.  

Also, although even government friendly television channels have been compelled now to mention the “M” word after ignoring it for two long months, what they are putting out is more noise than substance, adding nothing to the understanding of viewers about the nature of the conflict or the extent of its impact on thousands of ordinary people. It also puts absolutely no pressure on the government to act.

And as was evident even after Rahul Gandhi’s visit to Manipur on June 29, the discussions on these TV channels centre around politicians and political parties, and not the central issue of why things have deteriorated in Manipur to a point where we are witnessing something close to a civil war. Nor has anyone asked why Modi continues to use every chance to attack the opposition, lately mocking the acronym INDIA, at a time when all sides need to sit together to seek a solution on an issue like Manipur.

Unlike television, several national newspapers like Indian Express, The Hinduand others have been reporting extensively and providing explainers that provide useful background. And despite limited resources, digital media platforms like Scroll, Wire, Print, Quint and Newslaundry have maintained a steady focus on Manipur.

However, in the current media scramble for exclusive stories, even digital platforms can fall into the trap of overlooking basic journalistic norms before running with a story. 

For instance, in this troubling story in The Print about the disappearance of two young people, the reporter acknowledges that the video mentioned by the girl's family that makes them believe their daughter is dead is unverified.  Given the proliferation of fake videos, and the fact that one such video triggered the violence in early May, should not reporters be careful before running with such a story? Apart from checking with the police, there are now ways to verify the authenticity of videos that go “viral”.  Note that a gruesome video of a beheading of a girl from Myanmar was passed off as one from Manipur and there has been an FIR filed in this case.

The Print story also quotes an anonymous member of a Meitei group saying that the girl had been raped. Should such information be shared in a story when the police haven't even found the body? In any case, given the way rumours have already triggered sexual violence, shouldn't journalists be exceptionally careful before amplifying unverified information like this? Even in so-called "normal" times there are basic norms that have to be followed when reporting rape. This becomes even more crucial during conflict to ensure that the media does not exacerbate already inflamed emotions. 

As Manipur continues to simmer, the media, both mainstream and independent will be challenged to maintain their credibility even as they try to convey a truthful picture of what is happening in this divided state.

Meanwhile, how have people in Manipur, and the local media located mostly in Imphal, the state’s capital responded to the video? This report in Scroll is significant as it reveals the extent to which the ethnic divide has inserted itself into the media in Manipur. 

As for Modi’s statement, the comments were interesting. Imphal Times had a front-page collage showing Meitei deaths and inside, in an editorial it stated: 

“After 75 days of eerie silence, Mr Modi finally spoke, but to the dismay of many, he addressed only one incident – the purported video showing two women parading naked…Mr Modi’s selective response raises questions about his motives. Many see his statements as an attempt to play the gender card and manipulate emotions to divert attention from the core issue – the urgent need for peace and stability in Manipur.” 

Kuki women, speaking to independent journalist Greeshma Kuthar, who has been based in Manipur since June 4, have a different take, as we hear in this long podcast in Suno India. While they are glad that the media and the government have woken up to the situation in the state, they resent the obsession with incidents of sexual violence. One of them points out that speaking repeatedly to the survivors forces them to live through the trauma again. And they appeal to journalists from the “mainland” to try to understand the larger picture of what’s going on in the state and to report on it, rather than focussing just on one aspect because of the video.

They suggest, for instance, that there should be more reporting on how over 50,000 people living in an estimated 349 temporary relief camps are surviving. On his visit to Manipur on June 29, Rahul Gandhi went to both Kuki and Meitei camps and as a result we saw some visuals.  Since then, although there have been a few reports (read here , here and here) about conditions in these camps, we clearly need more. We do not know, for instance, whether there is any discrimination in the release of funds to the camps in the Kuki areas which appear to be largely run by civil society organisations.  

Manipur is a story that will not disappear. From all indications, its ripple effects are already being felt in other states in the region. 

It reminds us in the “mainland” media that we cannot continue to view what’s happening there as a “breaking” story needing a one-time investment to overcome the “tyranny of distance”, the phrase used to explain the late and minimal coverage. It ought to have been an integral part of our reporting. If it had, perhaps the May 4 sexual assault video would not have had the shock value that it did.