Media should be free from political influence, including films & TV

MEDIA DOWN THE AGES

- Right from the freedom movement till the present day, the media has been playing its role for socio-economic development or upholding the people's right

- While Indira Gandhi had AIR (that attained notoriety of All Indira Radio) and Doordarshan to propagate her voice, quite a few media houses were also divided with pro and anti-establishment stance

- There is a growing tendency of carrying "unconfirmed news", information that "remains to be verified" and, shockingly, even "unconfirmed rumours"

- Public memory is very sharp as is repeatedly seen during the elections after elections

It may be an idea worth considering to run a disclaimer with the news coverage, particularly if it is targeted against a person or an organisation on these lines: "This statement is by xyz party and this channel does not subscribe to it."

It was the free media that also highlighted all the corruption cases associated with the Congress regime – from Bofors to Coal and 2G scams – and even fanned the anti-Congress wave and contributed to the success of Narendra Modi in 2014 and ever after, till now

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was right when he said last week that the media has made positive contributions for the popularisation of Swachh Bharat Mission and Beti Bachao-Beti Padhao. He has also called upon the media to join the efforts to develop a strong and inclusive India.

There is nothing new about the media influencing the masses for causes and missions. Right from the freedom movement till the present day, the media has been playing its role for socio-economic development or upholding the people's right. Our forefathers who led the freedom struggle had their own media instruments to oppose the foreign rule. Media did join the Nehruvian era of reconstruction and nation's development.

At the same time, the media did remain by and large free and fair as the fourth pillar of democracy. One does not recall any instances of the Government trying to unduly influence the media till one had come across the Emergency and the censorship imposed by Indira Gandhi. And but for the free media, the excesses committed by the Indira-Sanjay combine would not have come to light.

It was the free media that also highlighted all the corruption cases associated with the Congress regime – from Bofors to Coal and 2G scams – and even fanned the anti-Congress wave and contributed to the success of Narendra Modi in 2014 and ever after, till now. In this backdrop, questions about media fairness do arise though one should not indulge in any kind of generalisation.

While Indira Gandhi had AIR (that attained notoriety of All Indira Radio) and Doordarshan to propagate her voice, quite a few media houses were also divided with pro and anti-establishment stance. Certain media houses who remained staunch Indira supporters did not even blink to change colours the day (rather night) the Congress dictator had lost the elections in March 1977. Even later, ruling political classes have continued to try to influence the media with favours to those who toe their line and blocking the government support to those who dared to be upright. Political party mouthpieces play their masters' voices. They are anyway a separate sect and enjoy their own space.

But what about the rest of the media? Doesn't it get coloured in one way or the other? Does the government in power allow true freedom of expression or freedom of coverage? This is one question that needs to be debated on and on and the media needs to have frequent introspection of its own role. We do often hear voices that the media indulges in sensationalism particularly from those quarters whose interests are not served by a particular type of coverage.

Then there is a growing tendency of carrying "unconfirmed news", information that "remains to be verified" and, shockingly, even "unconfirmed rumours". It is this unchecked freedom that often leads to media carrying half-baked truths or even personal allegations under the name of impartiality.

We often come across media houses scanning the veracity of what appears in social media. Isn't it about time the so-called mainstream media scans its own stories for fact-check? We need to ask ourselves if we are not insulting the reader by presenting half-truths.

Reader mindset is bound to be influenced by what he/she reads and what he/she watches. Printed word is still sacred and is regarded as credible. The spoken word with a visual is much more influential. I am not presenting any rocket science. Movies and TV serials are meant for purely entertainment. But the news is a serious business be it the coverage by the print or the electronic media.

Movies and TV serials do carry disclaimers that their characters are fictitious. Any resemblance is purely coincidental and so on and so forth. But the television news does not come with any disclaimer and hence the coverage is taken as gospel truth. It may be an idea worth considering to run a disclaimer with the news coverage, particularly if it is targeted against a person or an organisation on these lines: "This statement is by xyz party and this channel does not subscribe to it." Still better, one can balance it by quickly presenting the opposite view in the next frame. I am not suggesting a debate with each news coverage. But at the same time, the reader/viewer is entitled to get a balanced coverage.

I do not subscribe to the view that public memory is short and that they tend to forget what they see or read. Public memory is very sharp as is repeatedly seen during the elections after elections. The voter remembers everything that he/she sees and hears and, of course, what he/she experiences. What Abraham Lincoln had once said, is a proverb now: You can't fool all the people all the time.

As regards the movies and movie stars, they have been generally considered neutral – not subscribing to any political thought – save few actors who entered politics. Though there have been biopics and movies on wars and freedom struggle, they echoed nationalism. Then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri reportedly had even asked Manoj Kumar to make a patriotic film. But that was to project nationalism.

In contrast, during Indira Gandhi's tenure as PM, a movie called Aandhi was banned as the lead character resembled her. Indira Gandhi had to face all round criticism. Later, the Doordarshan tried to wean away crowds from Jayaprakash Narayan's meeting by telecasting the blockbuster, Bobby.

Most people chose to ignore DD movies on that Sunday and attended JP's rally at Chowpatty in Mumbai. But we never had a Prime Minister supporting a particular film. Such selective support gives rise to criticism and might even lead to a political divide in Bollywood and affect the freedom of expression. Political workers may have their opinions but those who are in the seat of power should not only be above politics but be seen as being apolitical.

Political talks may help in achieving some temporary results and followers but in the long run what matters is the nation's progress and the overall socio-economic development.

As I have been saying, the 75th year celebration of our Independence is one big opportunity to knit India as one nation for one mission to ensure that fruits of true freedom – the economic freedom - reach each and every Indian.

Before I sign off, let me just recall what Chief Justice of India N V Ramana said the other day: "You can trust the Indian judiciary for its absolute independence and its inherent constitutional strength to treat all parties equally and equitably".

Can all other pillars of democracy – The Executive, The Legislature and The Press – echo the similar voice, 75 years after Independence? Let's debate. Facts are sacred and comment is free.

(The author is a Mumbai-based media veteran known for his thought-provoking messaging)