Election coverage: Media rests under Modi's umbrella

The changes are interesting. Earlier, the media used to show report cards of the candidates and the parties present in the electoral battleground. This kind of coverage has completely stopped. Field reporters hardly focus on local issues. Even shows based on conversations with the common people avoid touching on these issues

The 2024 general elections have further exposed the Indian media. A declining media could have grabbed the opportunity to do a course correction. Instead, it chose a lower level to touch upon. Has it to do with the existing structure of the media? Or is it purely opportunistic? The most perturbing point is the absence of awareness about the danger ahead. One high-profile anchor has repeatedly been hunted out by the shouting public while covering elections. Is it normal?

In their classic work, ‘Manufacturing Consent’, E S Herman and Noam Chomsky have revealed how the US media has been promoting the interests of the American establishment. The book reveals how selective coverage and chosen silence make the media partial and unjust to the unprivileged masses. Herman and Chomsky define the contours of an independent media as “the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press if democratic presses are to function in a meaningful way.” However, he adds, “But the evidence we have reviewed indicates that this is not met.”

If we judge Indian media by the standard set by Chomsky, we will have to be completely disappointed. He finds flaws in the coverage of the infamous Watergate scandal. In this incident, the Nixon administration sent petty criminals to break into the Democratic Party headquarters for obscure reasons. Chomsky says that the media coverage was possible because the Democratic Party represented powerful domestic interests. He draws a parallel to the illegal break-ins organized by the FBI to disrupt the activities of the Socialist Workers Party, a legal political party. He says that it is no scandal because the party does not represent any powerful interests.

Chomsky traces diversity in media coverage owing to the diversity of business interests. India's media has lost this diversity too. An absolute control could be seen here. We can find this homogeneity in headlines and breaking news. Irrespective of the language of the channels, all of them run the same news at a given point in time. Invariably, they are source-based. How could they fall under this category of breaking news or exclusive when all the channels are running simultaneously? We never see any channel or newspaper running an item that forces the government to come for clarification. News items coming from the investigating agencies are generally planted and come in the form of pamphlets. They have a singular purpose: to malign the leaders of the opposition parties.

Chomsky’s book exposes the structure of American media in the nineteen eighties and analyzes the details of business interests involved in media production. He has also exposed the composition of experts and observers. The majority of them had no independent background. It included serving or retired government officials in higher numbers. Members of conservative think tanks were also in significant numbers.

What is the case with the Indian media? This has evolved into a unique model. The propaganda model of the US media, as explained by Chomsky, shows some degree of accountability. It can hide its shortcomings and, also be seen confronting authority. However, the Indian media has thrown its mask into the wind. They are out in the open as the soldiers of the ruling party. They even defeat the spokespersons of the ruling party in defending the government.

While analyzing media coverage of elections, we must dissect a few generalizations. People often say that the media has always been in the hands of powerful interests. It has never been impartial, they say. These generalizations are fallacious. We need not compare the present and previous regimes on the press freedom index. We need not refer to our sliding position on the Freedom Index. The Prime Minister did not address a single press conference in his 10-year tenure. Is it not astonishing? His communications are one-sided. His recent interviews also confirm the same. He addresses the interviewer as a teacher who indoctrinates the former into his doctrine, we are into a general election, and these interviews are appearing in the form of propaganda. Does it conform to the basic norms of journalism?

Can we ignore that it is damaging the democratic ethos of the country? It is causing irreparable damage to journalism itself. Future journalists will see these clippings of a group of journalists listening to Prime Minister Modi like students and laughing. They will react scornfully to scared faces and dishonest gestures. Scripted questions without any counter-questions will appear to them only as conspiratorial.

The conspiracy against democracy has many dimensions. It involves technology, an innovative style of presentation, and high-quality animation. They attempt to create penetrating and palatable content. A popular channel telecasts a cartoon show. Other channels also copy its style. It shows the defeat of Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh, Tejasvi, and others in a silly confrontation. Narendra Modi and Amit Shah are the constant winners. Earlier, it showed Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Prasad, and Sonia Gandhi. The scriptwriter must be a trained political worker of the ruling party.

The changes are interesting. Earlier, the media used to show report cards of the candidates and the parties present in the electoral battleground. This kind of coverage has completely stopped. Field reporters hardly focus on local issues. Even shows based on conversations with the common people avoid touching on these issues.

Whether the Election Commission ensures free and fair elections is no longer the media's concern. No reporter tries to touch the apprehensions of the opposition candidates. The cases in Surat, Khajuraho, and Indore are examples. The opposition candidates were intimidated, bribed, and manipulated to withdraw, and the media covered it as the failure of the Congress and the INDI alliance. Were these cases not failures of the poll machinery and democratic collapse?

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)