NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

Left, or left out? A special responsibility War, for no particular      reason Representation, not      reservation Mutually Advantageous      Detente

Your news, my way

The predominant media organisations of our time bear only a mild resemblance to their forebears. Once regarded as inalienable to ensuring the public good, media today increasingly serve private purposes above all. Discourse for the public interest is still maintained in reams of print and hours of television and radio, but the largest media firms are not organised around this intent. Certainly, their economic vitality does not derive from addressing the public interest alone. The for-profit entity that maintains today's publication or broadcasting station obtains much of its raison d'etre from the commercial transactions it promotes or facilitates, and from the advertising revenue it attracts.

One might ask the elementary question regarding this condition, and further, of the trend towards consolidation amongst media companies -- is this good? The grand dialogue on the nature of "good" has endured longer than anyone can recall; I won't attempt a summary here. Nor is the intent merely to cast corporate enterprise in the media as inevitably debauched; certainly that needn't be the case. Instead let's break down the disquiet over media trends into specifics, beginning with three questions that may be posed sequentially. Together, these encompass the largest concerns regarding the continuing loss of diversity in ownership and purpose.

First, is the information that we receive from different media organisations significantly determined by the nature of ownership? That is, would we get substantially different stories and perspective if the media we turn to were owned by other persons and entities than they now are? The emphases are important; were only marginal differences to stem from ownership, the argument would be quickly set aside.

Second, do differences in content reflect an intentional direction of society itself, or are they merely the result of random variations in human enterprise? That is, is ownership of the media a means by which to shape society and, more importantly, are the owners attempting this? Finally, we may ask why anyone might seek to influence society through control of media.

The prevailing consensus is that such questions are largely rhetorical. Easily, we might turn the sequence around and see this to be true. To wit, if particular individual and collective goals can be achieved by control of the media, it follows that such influence will appear desirable to such person(s). This is why religious organisations own broadcasting stations or newspapers, for example; a well-defined social end is pursued from such ownership. And, further, if we accept that individuals and organisations do attempt to shape society through control of the media, then clearly it matters who owns the particular outlets from which you receive information, what purpose those providers have in bringing you the said information, and what perspective and opinion they add in doing so.

If the consensus view is well-founded, it is discomfiting, and understandably so. The core reason one is troubled by the possibility of orchestrated media is that if real, it would appear to shape our very lives. In free societies, citizens cherish their notions of choice, and the suggestion that we merely select acceptable fruit from the only trees the orchard-owners will grow belittles our understanding of freedom. Autonomous broadcasting by state-owned media, for instance, nonetheless raises a smirk of contempt, for we dismiss the possibility of true independence to AIR or Doordarshan. Yet, we barely pause to ask whether some degree of similar control over content may be exercised by the private media that we take to be free of shackles.

The predisposition against the appearance of bias or control -- an oxymoron in itself, literally! -- is thus shallow; we see this quite evidently in India from the popularity of television stations and newspapers that are in fact owned by political parties and leaders. Moreover, even within the most centrist media, we accept that some polarization of views is inevitable, even when it appears deliberate. One can quickly identify the leftists and the rightists and even grasp their particular agendas, no matter how middle-of-the-road they profess to be. So much so that a centrist entity is often identified not as purposefully seeking middle ground, but as merely providing comparable space for ideas from both left and right within the same organisation.

This willingness to accept overt signs of bias seems to indicate that the polarized representation of events may not be so egregious after all! Combined with a sense of helplessness, this is likely at the heart of our apathy. We cannot possibly resist being force-fed; therefore we must in fact be choosing the diet we obtain!

Reporters, editors, and other media persons probably perform an equivalent role from the producing end, since their economic advantages are often tied to similar dissonant behaviour. Sure, one mustn't discount the many who insist that they bring no partisan representation whatsoever to our public spaces. Still, one can only hope they're lying, and not that they've adequately convinced themselves of this illusion. Social and political evolution is quite evidently an undeclared war from the extremes. From this understanding, in fact, embracing bias conveniently demonstrates purpose, whereas disavowing it suggests a lack of conviction!

Perhaps that's too harsh, and there is a valid place for bias. Many readers and viewers regard obvious leanings as improper, but could that be unnecessarily so? An evident preference for one school of thought over another is more desirable than the camouflaged conflict of apparently opposite views never acknowledged as such. If T V R Shenoy appears a spokesman for the BJP rather than an 'independent' columnist, or if Varsha's unwavering script appears markedly pro-Hindu, these may not be something to deride. The most ardent believers of any view are its likeliest champions too; to regard their thinking as too extreme may seem common sense to those who occupy the middle ground, but the middle has rarely directed social or economic policy. Nor is all such "extreme" thinking necessarily egregious; Gandhi and Ambedkar, after all, were as prodigious as any other writers of their times, and quite distinct from them.

The intriguing query, really, is whether polarization, control, bias, and other realities are additive to our freedoms, or a danger to them. Robert McChesney's book Rich Media, Poor Democracy is unequivocal in asserting the latter. To quote: The media system is linked ever more closely to the capitalist system, both through ownership and through its reliance on advertising, a function dominated by the largest firms in the economy. Capitalism benefits from having a formally democratic system, but works best when elites make most fundamental decisions and the bulk of the population is depoliticized. For a variety of reasons, the media have come to be expert at generating the type of fare that suits, and perpetuates, this status quo. If we value democracy, it is imperative that we restructure the media system so that it reconnects with the mass of citizens who in fact comprise "democracy".

A particularly critical view, no doubt. But the concluding challenge -- of reconnecting the citizens and our media -- is an appropriate one to take up, regardless of one's agreement with McChesney's opinion. The question is -- how shall we accomplish this?

Postscript: Each year, I've chosen one topic to read extensively throughout the year, in addition to my regular reading. Last year's readings of the Constitution of India led to a few articles in this column, and in interactions that followed from them I found much that improved my learning. This year, I have chosen 'Media and Democracy' as the focus of my reading, and I hope this experience will be as rewarding. Beginning with this column, at various times throughout the year, I will revisit the role of the media in promoting democracy, and also attempt to identify how the people themselves can 'reconnect to the system'.

RELATED LINKS:

• The Hoot is a unique place to understand Indian media.
• The Nation recently carried lengthy reports on the consolidated holdings of large media companies in the United States.

Ashwin Mahesh