Ownership, money, Modi 3.0 uncertainty: A sobering reality check for election cheer

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on June 13, 2024

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/06/13/ownership-money-modi-30-uncertainty-a-sobering-reality-check-for-election-cheer

The Lok Sabha elections will continue to be analysed threadbare for some time to come. They were unexpected, revelatory about the Indian electorate and uplifting, even if momentarily, because they suggested that democracy is still alive in India.

The celebrations, however, by those who believe that the election results, and a governing party with a diminished mandate, will lead to substantial change need to be tempered with a reality check.

Let’s just look at the media, especially television news – call it “mainstream”, “Big Media” or “godi media”. There is little to debate now that in the last decade under Narendra Modi’s government, it has been a supplicant, rather than acting as the Fourth Estate in a democracy.

The clips of the dozens of interviews Modi gave to these friendly channels during the elections are proof enough, if that was needed. News anchors, who on any given day, are in scream mode, were listening and smiling attentively even as Modi proceeded to lecture and even insult the media.

After a decade of bending over backwards to please the ruling party, to amplify its poisonous and hate-filled narrative, especially against Muslims, and to save its aggression for the opposition, can one really expect a change just because the governing party’s numbers in this Lok Sabha are fewer than the last time?

I think not, and this is why.

First, even if the BJP is now more dependent on its coalition partners in the NDA today than it was yesterday, is there any proof that these partners are committed to freedom of expression and freedom of the press? Would they really object if this government – which the media has rightly called “Modi 3.0” rather than the “NDA government” because Modi will continue to dominate – continues to find ways to curb dissent and critical voices in the media? 

As a former chair of Prasar Bharati, Jawhar Sircar points out in this article in The Wire, “The godi media is likely to be a little less virulent against the opposition, as one never knows who may come in next. But the screaming television prosecutors, including a few rotund well-dressed creatures who revel in tormenting anyone who dares to question Modi, would hardly change — as they earn unimaginable amounts of crores.”

Which brings us to the second point, that the owners of these television channels dictate the line they take. And that ownership pattern is not changing.  As long as it is evident that Modi and the BJP are in full control of the government even if technically, they are part of a coalition, the topics discussed might change a little, but the approach will remain the same. There is no cost attached to attacking the opposition, but criticism of this government will still have repercussions.

Media analyst Vanita Kohli-Khandekar, who writes a column in Business Standard, makes some additional and interesting observations about Big Media. She points out that while the Election Commission figures reveal that 642 million people voted in these elections, and of these, roughly 235 million or 36.6 percent voted for the BJP, if you watch any of the roughly 400 news channels, you will think that the news on it is directed only at these 235 million who support the BJP. What about the remaining 407 million news consumers, she asks. 

This gap has been filled to some extent by independent news channels on YouTube and for those who read news, the digital news platforms that are not dependent on big business. Their numbers might not exceed those who watch or read news provided by these mainstream channels and newspapers, but there is little doubt that they have played an important role in the last five years, in filling the void left by mainstream media. They have been the source of nuanced and in-depth reporting, of critical comment, of interviews that inform and educate. 

Their ability to continue and remain independent in the future, however, is uncertain. This Modi 3.0 government might wait a while before it proceeds with the agenda it outlined in its previous avatar but there is little doubt that at some stage it will find ways to curb independent media. 

For instance, even before the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha, Mohammed Zubair of AltNews has been informed that the Delhi Police has asked that his account on X be taken down because it violates the Information Technology Act.  The social media platform has not complied with the request but the very fact this has happened within days of the formation of the new government provides a necessary reality check on its approach towards a free and independent media.  

We must remember that there are two interventions that will adversely impact independent media that are still on the anvil. One is the setting up of a “fact-checking unit” that will determine what is false or misleading and insist it be taken down by social media platforms. And the other is to bring all news-related YouTube channels under the Broadcasting Services Act which will give the government the power to curtail their content.

Journalist Charmy Harikrishnan sums up the last decade under Modi well when she writes:

“This was a lost decade of journalism. A generation of journalists has come of age with the bitter knowledge that the only news that is fit to print is positive news or spin. It is time we looked at ourselves in the mirror and flinched. It is time we wrote an editorial to ourselves. It is time we rediscovered the 5 Ws and put them to every announcement the government makes instead of responding with 1 Yes. It is time we redeemed ourselves.”  

Until this Modi 3.0 government settles back into its bad old ways with respect to independent media, there has been a welcome breathing space. This has permitted some interesting comment and analysis as well as much-needed humour and parody of India’s most powerful man.

The best is the cover of the latest issue of Frontline magazine, with a cartoon by Satish Acharya. It says all that needs to be said.

Also, much of the debate on TV, especially after the exit polls of June 1 that were way off the mark, took away from a more nuanced understanding of what had happened on the ground in these elections.

For those who wanted to know, The Hindu ran the post-poll survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) over several days. Equally useful and interesting is the interview by Manisha Pande of Newslaundry with Sanjay Kumar, the director of CSDS. The interview is worth watching because it answers so many questions that people must have to understand what has changed in India to throw up these results.

And finally, let me end by mentioning what I consider one of the most heart-warming articles to appear post-results even though I am not as optimistic about the future. Written by well-known cultural activist and literary critic G N Devy in The Telegraph, it is addressed to the Indian voter:

“Political analysts may lose sight of the fact that Indians are heaving sighs of relief not because their respective parties have won or lost but because they know that democracy has recovered from a spell of authoritarianism and the cult of personality… Leaders drunk on power, reeking of arrogance, need to know that as they were giving their lectures, thumping their chests, abusing their adversaries, pandering lies and posturing as superhuman, Indians were watching them without giving even the slightest clue as to which way their thoughts were going.”

The clues were there, given by independent media, but these leaders were not watching.

Battle of media tactics: Modi’s media blitzkrieg vs Congress’s snub

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on May 30, 2024

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/05/30/battle-of-media-tactics-modis-media-blitzkrieg-vs-congresss-snub

The “breaking news” from the last gasp of this prolonged, hot, and heated election season is surely this quote from Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In an interview with ABP News, he said: “In the last 75 years, was it not our responsibility to let the whole world know of Mahatma Gandhi? I am sorry, nobody knew about him. It was only after the film Gandhi that the world became curious about him.” He was referring to the 1982 film Gandhi by Richard Attenborough.

While the expressions on the faces of the interviewers – three of them, not just one – were worth watching, their response to this extraordinary statement was a stoic silence.  

Not so on social media. Predictably, it exploded with memes, fact-checks, and caustic comments.

According to Money Control, Modi has given more than 80 interviews in the last two months, a record for a man who kept away from the media for most of his two terms in office. The recent ones have been sprinkled with bizarre comments, such as the one quoted above, apart from several inaccuracies. 

And none of them have been challenged by those interviewing him.

The objective of this media blitzkrieg, across print and television, was obvious, as I had argued in an earlier column: it was to ensure that Modi remained right, left, and centre during this election period. He was the centrepiece of the BJP’s election campaign, and the party wanted to ensure that he occupied the maximum media space. It succeeded in doing just that.

Modi’s avalanche of interviews and some others with politicians and psephologists predicting numbers have also shown us the many ways interviews are conducted. 

The styles ranged from simpering, to combative, to friendly. The first, simpering, would describe all the interviews with Modi, which were obviously scripted and did not permit any counter questions. 

The combative style was exemplified by well-known journalists like Karan Thapar. His interview with Prashant Kishor, who has predicted a sweep for the BJP, is a classic example. Neither was willing to back away. Even if entertaining, whether the viewer was any wiser after watching the interview is a moot question. 

The third style was friendly and combative. This was the style of the two interviews given by Priyanka Gandhi. She spoke to Sreenivasan Jain for his series “Claim vs Reality” for Newslaundry and The News Minute. The interview was on the run, with Gandhi and Jain standing outside next to her car before she sets off on the next leg of her campaign in Rae Bareili.  

The only sit-down interview by Priyanka Gandhi with a mainstream television channel was with Rajdeep Sardesai of India Today. While Sardesai was combative, he was not offensive. And Priyanka Gandhi was at ease, parrying with him, turning some questions around, and generally managing to get her say. It was also quite obviously unscripted, a marked contrast to the Modi interviews. She was able to put across not only her own position on why she is involved in the election campaign but also why she is not contesting, a question Sardesai kept asking throughout the interview.  

After watching these two interviews, a question that comes to mind is whether the Congress party ought to have tried harder to reach out to voters through mainstream media. Why, for instance, did it not use someone like Priyanka Gandhi more strategically given her connect with people and her ease with media make her a good selling point for the party?

Some journalists who cover politics suggest that she agreed to these two interviews because Priyanka Gandhi  knew the two journalists and that they were part of the same strata of society that is often dismissed as “Lutyens’ Delhi”. Apparently, a few  journalists did reach out to her but did not get a positive response. She limited her media interaction to the reporters who covered her election campaigns. 

Since the Bharat Jodo Yatra, it is evident that the Congress party, and especially Rahul Gandhi, have made it clear that they did not want to speak to mainstream media as they felt that there was bias in its coverage. Instead, they chose to speak to popular YouTubers and social media influencers.  

While it is true that in the last five years since the last elections, the reach of social media has grown phenomenally, especially amongst the young, is it enough to get across to voters while ignoring mainstream media? We will know the answer to this question after the results, when surveys on voter choices and what influenced them will be available..  

Yet, politics is also a game of perception. And the more articulate politicians determine how their parties are viewed by voters. The BJP and Modi have used all media to maximise their presence in the minds of the public. Whether this converts into votes and support is a separate matter. But the sense of almost omnipresence – and perhaps also inevitability – has been attained.

The Congress party, on the other hand, has left it to reaching out to people through rallies and electioneering as it believes that mainstream media does not provide a level playing field. While that is true of most mainstream television channels, where there is no pretence about which side they support, print media has tried to cover all sides, as have independent digital news platforms.  

What we can conclude after two months is that unlike the mood in April, before the first phase of elections, when the media spoke of this election as a foregone conclusion, a “done deal”, 2024 has turned out to be more of a contest than was predicted or expected. For journalists covering elections, that has been a boon.