When Puppets Hide Behind Pomposity

Breasts make news. This is old hat. Silicon-implanted breasts make news. This too is old hat. The owner of the breasts makes news. This is old hat as well. Why is it then considered news? Because today the people responsible for giving us the news and the ones who make the news are the same. Almost.

The issue has essentially been reduced to whether the print medium is being paid for services in cash or kind.

The fact that beleaguered publications continue to be on the stands should tell us something. How do they survive? If the writers are contributing for free, as some indeed are, then what freedom are they being granted? The most powerful message regarding this issue came a while ago when there was a sentence passed against the powerful Hinduja Brothers in India in the Bofors kickbacks case. Around the same time they were happily negotiating the takeover of a newspaper chain in the UK for a lordly sum. It reveals the complete contempt and nonchalance with which people can go about the business of daily living without any pricks of the conscience.

Who is calling the shots? I ask this question studiedly because the insiders know the game. Journalism today is full of the evils it accuses society of.

Prostitution

In the meat market, there is bound to be a rat-race. As Samir Jain once held forth so eloquently without any conflict in his mind, “Publishing today is overt dueling. Irrespective of whether you are the market leader, you must be seen to be angrily competing in the duel. They – the advertising agencies, the world at large – want to see you lose an eye, lose an arm maybe, a display of war, lose an editor, gain a columnist, it is to be enjoyed. You may have the best product, but you must be seen in combat, which in publishing means you must raise your ad rate enough. Why? Because you must take enough money out of the market. Every morning I read about our clients in the Economic Times and they are making big profits, and we must take enough of it away from them for ourselves. Otherwise those clients will say, ‘I will place my advertisement in all the newspapers’, which gives profit to our competitors. Money must not be available for the competitors.”

What I find difficult to palate is that in many cases while one palm is being greased, the other is held up to underline the moral issues surrounding bribery. Newspapers survive on ad revenue, and there are some gory stories about how ads are solicited. In fact, space sellers attend press conferences and editors attend sponsored parties, even the ones that are not in their ‘honour’. These days an editor’s couture is also cause for comment—sounds suspiciously like the emperor/empress with no clothes. This is where backroom deals are struck and the regular bhaigiri takes place: “Usko hata do”. No wonder the media builds up dons as heroes; scratch the surface and the ideology is the same. How else does one account for two most-wanted individuals having access to the media - Dawood Ibrahim and Veerappan?

Where do the people who really matter – the writers – figure? They have no voice; often their words are culled to suit the ‘policy’ of the paper. S. Mulgaokar, then editor of The Indian Express, said about his boss, “When you work for Mr. (Ramnath) Goenka you usually end up agreeing with his views. And if you don’t agree, you publish his views anyway.”

An outsider works wonderfully in this scheme of things, if the publication wants to show its ‘committed to society’ face or even as fall-guy, who they can conveniently put the blame on. Mr. Goenka had said famously about Arun Shourie, “But this racehorse will destroy my tonga.” So, isn’t there anything like freedom of expression? There is, but not for the idealist, only for the bimbo.

Incest

There is the mistaken notion that political pressure alone plays a major role. But, you can poke fun at politicians. Ever heard about a media baron being at the receiving end? Let us not forget that the Press has in the past exposed leaders and even brought down governments. The spirit must be willing; right now it is wilting. Since when has journalism been about telling people what they want to hear, assuming that the print medium truly knows what people want to hear?

Sneaking in issues that have little importance has become big-time business. In this charmed world a man (no doubt one of them) who survives an accident becomes a hero. I am sure his life is precious. However, if it is willpower that kept him going, then there are hundreds surviving in the streets by it. But I can see all those little ladies daintily tip-toeing into the Rotisserie to get their fix of white asparagus and swapping stories about how they gave Reiki to him. They desperately need a hero, a poster child-man.

One newspaper displayed a prominent picture showing Mumbaikars paying tribute to the “victims of the twin towers” on the anniversary of 9/11. The media in our subcontinent has to remind us about it because they cannot feel left out. One can understand those who have lost their loved ones mourning. But I do not see why that date should become a part of our local psyche. To be concerned about the new world order, terrorism, religion and politics is of course important, but to deify a date which has nothing to do with us?

Do the Westerners mourn for the partition of India, the major earthquakes, the genocide in Gujarat, the bomb blasts in various parts of the world, the killing of civilians in Afghanistan to justify looking for a man in a cave, the war on Iraq to look for weapons of destruction that have not been found? Do they even know of some of the places where people are killed in large numbers?

While in the communal times we live in, the Them vs. Us tussle is a worry, it is simpler to deal with. I have found politics is an easy target if you want to camouflage the bigger scourge - Commercial Considerations. You rile against cancer and splash ads of things that cause the disease; you flaunt naked bodies and to salve your soul you put in regular sermons. This is sickening, by far worse than the demagoguery you witness from the dhoti-sherwani brigade.

Have you not wondered about how so many celebrity-penned columns have sprouted? Page 3 is no more about movers and shakers but about the subversion of truth. Press releases passing off as ‘reports’ is an old game. The rich and famous now have the temerity of going through editorial copy before publication. Instead of disseminating information, the Press has become insular. A handful of people constitute Society.

This is an infringement of your right to know.

There have been times when one has wanted to laud the lone rangers in journalism who fight for a cause. I am told that either there is a political agenda here as well or the cause being espoused is to help a friend or to make sure personal relations are perfect for that bait of the Rajya Sabha ticket or the flat to be had under some quota. No wonder Samir Jain called them “the blue-blooded Brahmins” and his way of cutting them down to size was simple: “I like appraising my editors and deciding which one deserves which car, and which one deserves in-car air-conditioning.” Ramnath Goenka had other ways: “You see now that there all these big, big editors, what role is there left for us poor owners? My only joy comes from transferring my editors. “

Rape

Everyone is screwing up their noses at the stink, not realising the garbage is in their own backyard. The Press talks about ethics; it is time it looked within. The casting couch, corruption, blackmailers, toy boys, conscientious chicks – all of them who know how to make the right chirping sounds.

If you have a dissenting voice, you will be accused of lashing out at “imagined opponents” by people who are busy sucking up to various lobbies.

While it is true that rebels cannot sustain themselves with a new cause every morning, it is facile to believe that the market decides who calls the shots. It isn’t the reader’s market, but that of the movers and shakers; at best a paper is a habit with us, not something that mirrors our views.

One has to accept this as part of the business, but the public is a victim of ‘manufacturing consent’ and auto-suggestion. My grouse is that in this instance the perpetrators of the crime, so to speak, get to sit on the jury. I want to know of one example where the newspapers have exposed the misdemeanours of their own kind. Which is why the Tehelka exposes worked at the default show-case level, but there were quizzical looks directed against it. And if many Young Turks are speaking up for snoopy journalism it is not to justify such a high-level of expose, but so that in future they can enter bedrooms and closets for their own low-level scoops. Most such scoops invariably land up on willing tables by opposing vested interests.

Earlier too there was a barter system. Newspapers were identified with political parties, if they were not in some part owned by them. Yet, we did have people like Ramnath Goenka, who in fact legitimised brashness, whatever be the merits of his version of it. As Vinod Mehta, the editor-in-chief of Outlook magazine, said, “He liked to make ministers and prime ministers. He’d certainly go so far as to say that he created the new prime minister, and that all these people are beholden to him.”

The older generation may not have had the ammo of the MTV style thrust-the-mike-into-a-willing-sod’s-face, but how much merit is there in Samir Jain’s argument that, “The readers are the Establishment. This is vital to know. We want our readers to be seen wearing those expensive American gold watches”? Today, it is the Response departments of publications that decide even what ground-level news has to be furnished.

I do not mean to run down the efforts of an industrial house in the Gujarat earthquake relief, but who do you think was deciding how much coverage the daughter-in-law of that family ought to get as opposed to the social workers in Kutch? Or for that matter, how important was it to mention what Bill Clinton wore on his tour of the area? The darned reporters could not even tell the difference between parrot and olive green!

Do you think the newspersons are any better off today? They may not have pedagogues spouting philosophy sitting on their heads, but instead they have upstarts ready to sell their souls for a paltry consideration. I know of bright young people who have gone out to investigate stories and found to their chagrin that a 900-word article has been reduced to 250 words to accommodate an advertisement. Do you think such editors have any spine? Goenka had once called an editor a saint, but after a fallout when he was reminded about it, he shouted, “You think this is the Vatican? Saints should sit there. Not edit newspapers.”

An editor does not have to be a former reporter. S/he ought to have impeccable news sense and conviction, and even an opinion, though it must not colour the other voices. But most of them become puppets. They are unskilled labourers carrying the burden of propping up someone else’s edifice. It is disgusting to see that they are so happy to have a titular title that they are willing to sometimes ignore their own ideals.

Worse, some justify that there is a market for all sorts of debauchery and excesses. Therefore, published bullshit is being glorified as holy cow dung. The reader is forced to worship gods of clay on shaky pedestals.