It is an unfortunate fact that both on television and in print the national media seems to show an increasing tendency to ignore the problems of working people, especially the peasantry and working class, and the poor in general. Coverage, when it occurs, is superficial and episodic. But what accounts for this bias? I think there are several distinct but interrelated factors.
 

First, is the effect so-called market forces have on the media. In general, the economics of the Indian media is driven by advertising revenues. This, in turn, means that editorial content must yield space to advertising because it is the latter which pays the bills! So there is a problem of real physical space – column inches or minutes on prime time – for all kinds of news. But excessive dependence on advertisers also means that advertisers get to have a say in both the content of specific news items (especially at particular moments of controversy) and also in terms of whether the overall ambience created by the news helps sell a product or not. And within this it is clear that an advertiser would not like to have a commercial for his or her product sandwiched by news of starvation, poverty, disease.
 

Second, the composition of the newsroom, particularly of the English national news media and even the electronic vernacular channels, leans heavily towards higher socio-economic demographic strata. So there is also a sense in which the sensibility of the average journalist may not really be attuned to the problems of the poor and marginalised.
 

Third, the established political parties, the government and those who wield economic and social influence play a very big role in defining what constitutes "news". What the prime minister says or does, for example, is always considered news. The same goes for statements and decisions by captains of industry. But news of people’s struggles and problems get dismissed as "activism", "NGOs" etc. We saw how farmers’ suicides were not considered news (except in The Hindu and a few other papers) but when the prime minister travelled to Maharashtra there was quite a bit of coverage. But as soon as the PM moved to other things, so too did the news coverage. Hardly anyone took note of the fact that farmers’ suicides actually increased after the visit.

As an institution, the media has bought into the myth that big business and the security forces can do no wrong, and that in any case, the protest of some poor folk being displaced in some “remote” part of the country is not news
 

So within the constraints of the market and of the social demographics of the media there is also bias and lack of professionalism. And I think these are the factors that account for vast aspects of the lived experience of the majority of Indians being considered irrelevant as far as "news" is concerned.
 

As far as your questions on page three kind of journalism is concerned, I am not at all against media coverage for "society" events, fashion shows, religious festivals and the like. Supplements exist precisely to cater to sectional interests and as society becomes more prosperous and variegated this is only to be expected.
 

Sadly, however, our supplements, instead of catering to the diversity of tastes which we know exists, have become homogenised around a shallow "golden mean" of celebrity news, gossip, astrology, vastu and other obscurantist cults, and a certain kind of film writing that has nothing to do with paying Bollywood the due it deserves. The same is true for what passes as "spiritual" writing, which is more akin to pop psychology than the exploration of philosophical issues and concerns.
 

And unfortunately, many of these kinds of things have begun to invade mainstream news spaces, further marginalising the problems and concerns of the majority of Indians.
 

The Kalinganagar struggle (in Orissa) is an interesting one and I’m glad you brought it up. Not only was the horror of the massacre of the protesting tribals played down – there was no live coverage, no breathless commentary of the type even the smallest terrorist incident provokes – and even though what followed was especially gruesome (the mutilation of the bodies of the dead tribals by the police) there was virtually no coverage. The reason I think Kalinganagar became a no-go area was because it came at the intersection of three media blind spots – first, the protest of poor marginalised people is not considered news; second, allegations of wrongdoing by the security forces are almost always ignored or played down whether they occur in Kashmir, the North-east or against the tribals in Orissa, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and elsewhere; third, the target of public opposition was an industrial project which the media sees as India’s passport to economic development. So as an institution, we have bought into the myth that big business and the security forces can do no wrong, and that in any case, the protest of some poor folk being displaced in some "remote" part of the country is not news.
 

I don’t think global finance has played a role in the Indian print media scene since other than on a very limited basis there is no foreign capital in newspapers. As for television, I am not sure our channels are so bad because of global finance. Star News is linked to Murdoch and CNN-IBN and Channel 7 to the AOL-Time Warner, I suppose. But the coverage of all channels is uniformly bad. But certainly, as the role of domestic monopolies and global finance increase, I think all these negative trends that I have spoken about will get magnified.
 

Can the Kherlanji case become a Jessica Lal or Priyadarshini Mattoo case for the media? You know, I doubt it will. The Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo cases became middle class cause célèbres not just because the men involved in the crime were powerful and influential but also because we as a middle class society could identify with the victims. She was one of us, is what every right-thinking person in Delhi would have thought when they heard the shocking news of the acquittals of the killers of Priyadarshini and Jessica. But when it comes to Kalinganagar or Kherlanji, there is not just a remoteness of physical distance but also of caste and class that kicks in.
 

Or even the BMW case. Had the Nanda boy killed "one of us", I don’t think the case would have gone the shocking way it did. At least not without the media kicking up a fuss. At the same time, I want to clarify that being a middle class victim of a crime committed by a powerful person does not now mean justice will be done. In our social hierarchy, the politician and the policeman are still top of the pile. But the Jessica and Priyadarshini cases have stripped them of a certain amount of immunity enjoyed. This is a good thing. But as in these two cases I would like to see our justified concerns being converted to all cases where powerful offenders target the weak and defenceless, the Dalits, Muslims and tribals. No doubt the media, including my paper, The Hindu, have a big role to play in sensitising public opinion on this point.
 

(As told to Teesta Setalvad/ Communalism Combat.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2006. Year 13, No.120, Cover Story 2
 

The post The protest of poor marginalised people is not considered news appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As a publication, Communalism Combat’s circulation may be low when compared to so-called mainstream newspapers and magazines but its reach and impact should not be underestimated. This is because CC has had a considerable impact on the public discourse on communalism in India, both in terms of conscientising the wider body politic about the dangers of sectarian, divisive politics, and in putting forward proposals to make our public institutions and arms of the State free from a communal or anti-people approach.

If CC has been less successful on the latter front, this is only because communal politics and violence have become an intrinsic part of the way in which our political class thrives and rules. The Bharatiya Janata Party is perhaps the most obvious example of this phenomenon but virtually every other party or formation, from the Congress to the ‘Third Front’ and Bahujan Samaj Party, is implicated in this in one way or another. The Left parties are pretty much the only exception, but their lack of political confidence leads them to tail behind parties like the Congress and take only an epiphenomenal view of the phenomenon of communalism.

Needless to say, none of the parties involved in building an anti-BJP front is particularly exercised by the ease with which state institutions can be subverted and used to foster violence. None has seriously attempted to introduce reforms that would make the executive branch, and particularly the police, accountable for all acts of omission and commission during riots. None has attempted to prosecute those involved in organising and carrying out communal massacres, whether in Delhi (1984), Meerut (1987) or Bombay (1992).

If Communalism Combat is to play an ever more pro-active, interventionist role on the subject, it must sharpen its attack on the institutional and political mechanisms within the Indian State which allow innocent citizens to be hunted down and killed in broad daylight. CC has done excellent work already – for e.g., by highlighting the need for police reform, or looking at the long-term strategic issues of pedagogy and school curricula – but there is room for a lot more.

Another front on which CC has contributed considerably is on breaking down the media discourse on communal violence. Thanks to virtually real-time investigation and intervention, the magazine has helped shatter the myth that communal violence is about "rioting" between amorphous mobs of "Hindus" and "Muslims". What happened in Gujarat was a calculated and well-orchestrated political attack on the state’s Muslim citizens.

The instigators and attackers were not "Hindu" in any meaningful sense, even though they tried to justify their acts of cruelty by appealing to Hindus as a whole. I think today, partly as a result of CC’s work but also because of the openly pogrom-like character of communal violence, most newspapers have shed their traditional coyness about identifying the victims. I wish, however, that newspapers would avoid glib and misleading references to the attackers as "Hindus", "Hindu mobs" etc.

Why should a mob that consists of political activists (be they Congressmen in 1984 or sangh parivarists in 2002) or of lumpens motivated or paid by politicians, be allowed to take on the protective cover of a religion? I think this is something one needs to pay careful attention to, because it is precisely the semantics of media discourse that allows groups like the sangh parivar to cultivate a siege mentality amongst ordinary Hindus and equate themselves with Hindus as a whole.

Archived from Communalism Combat, August-September 2003, Anniversary Issue (10th), Year 10, No. 90-91, Media 3
 

The post ‘Impacting public discourse on communalism’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.