One of the more interesting phenomena in the world of Indian newspapers is not to be found in the content that they put together, but the kind of advertising that they use to position themselves in a crowded marketplace of information products. From “India Poised” from The Times of India, which is as much an advertising feature as an editorial feature that is sometimes used by them, to “Speak up, it is in your DNA” which was used by DNA when they launched (the “your” was obviously targeting the Mumbaikar), Calcutta is incomplete without tt used by The Telegraph, these advertising campaigns are curious in that they do not seek to inform what the newspapers will deliver, but try to align themselves with ideas of nation, state, or metropolis building.
Whether or not Burke turned to the press galleries, as Carlyle is supposed to have recorded, and called the press the fourth estate, the idea has never been that a newspaper is entrusted with the task of governance. The relation to governance or administration is that of a check and what one wants from the press, therefore, is to be acutely watching the administrative process. This watchdog function has as its necessary corollary the task of bringing to the table for discussion different ideas on how a particular process ought to be administered. As some theorists have pointed out the press do not tell people what to think, as much as tell them what to think about. Out of such conversations emerge ideas that, ideally, make themselves a part of the political thought of parties and become administrative measures or laws. The manner in which reservations for different sections of society have made their way into government orders is a good example of the role that the media play. To think that the media are part of that governing process is to mistake the role.
It is, hence, curious but not entirely inexplicable to find advertisements that project newspapers as being associated with the task of nation-building. To blame brand managers or the marketing department would be erroneous. Journalists often think that they are in many ways governing the country. Proximity to politicians and the belief that they have the ear of those in the seat of power gives them the happy thought that they are in fact the rulers. Other than the pomposity that sometimes, more often now, that they attach to themselves is also that delusional belief that they can change the course of history with their personal intervention. Such belief is helped in some small measure by the bestowing of government-sponsored awards like padmas or with rewards like a Rajya Sabha seat. With journalists having such belief, it is not entirely the fault that marketing and sales departments, who often ensure these journalists their pay-checks, think that their product is responsible for development, tryst with destiny, superpower, as the case may be.
Another part of this business is that the direct beneficiaries of the talk of economic development, the building of brands, of images are the media. To celebrate economic growth of the gross variety, distributive issues be hanged, is almost necessary because the newspaper and the media become part of the growth story. Notice the general celebration around the recent report on the growth in the media business. In such a scenario, advertisements for the newspaper have to somehow show them as being a part of the story, instead of being narrators or examiners of the story. This is participatory journalism of a different kind! Instead of bringing readers into the process of writing news stories or of getting disadvantaged sections to speak in their own voice, this is the voice of the industry, of business. And the advertisement for the newspapers and channels then becomes as much reportage as anything else that they may carry.
Within such an overarching logic it does make sense that each newspaper at least tries to identify itself with a city. In the United States, this identification with an urban space is built in the name of the newspapers. From the smallest town to the largest city, the newspapers carry the name of the urban settlement with a beacon, times, dealer, or courant added to it. Interestingly enough, newspapers in India have not had such associations. On the contrary newspapers have always aligned themselves to larger units, either a linguistic community since the unit of nationalism was that, or states, or in the case of some newspapers, the entire country. But getting the people to read or promote themselves as voices of the nation or even the country, especially in such a country as ours, is not an easy task. Better to think of major cities as the bastions that they have to control. Urbanization makes it possible for its own logic of revenue segmentation. There are issues of cross-ownership here, but one can set that aside for the moment. But there is a desire to own areas in terms of advertising revenues. Such a move demands that both internally and in the public imagination a particular newspaper tries to get the public to believe that no one stands up for them as much as they do. In this context the naming of Mumbai Mirror is rather appropriate.
But none of these explanatory attempts can answer the simple question of ought. Should newspapers and channels be promoting themselves as somehow associated with ‘building’ the country? Such an idea is a nationalist relic when newspapers were used to voice the concerns of the natives and were used as instruments of public opinion by leaders. That logic does not hold. It does not hold in the ownership structures of the media, it does not hold in the kind of journalism that is practiced, and it does not hold in the relationship that the public has to the newspapers, which is most crucial. So all that one wants is that some decent and rigorous public scrutiny of the government at all levels be carried out and a conversation, however segmented, be kept alive. And since scrutiny involves at least a marginally adversarial or oppositional force, it is not expected that newspapers think of themselves as being part of the governing process. One would much rather read Samna and Ganashakti for such a purpose. Do not be cheerleaders for the state, or economy or city. Just get on with telling the readers that you will report correctly, accurately, and ethically. But may be that is difficult part; ’tis easier to thump chests and wag tails.
