Now that the parliamentarians and the press have moved on to more weightier issues than headless chickens, it is about time that one weighs in on the ambassadorial comment, sotto voce, aside, off the record, or whatever else it was. The clarification leaves little doubt that whatever else Mr Ronen Sen intended, he knew that he could get away with referring to journalists as headless chickens. At least there would be no censure or recall.
Leaving aside our self-estimation for the moment, it is quite certain that not many would cavil with journalists being called a decapitatedavian species known more for succulent legs and poor headsthan for anything else. The reasons for this are not far to seek. In the way that the media behave, especially television, it is not surprising that there is not much sympathy for journalists, however uncharitable the comparison.
For samplers just take the way in which the media covered the floods that have ravaged parts of the country. If you were reading a newspaper in Mumbai, you would be forgiven if you did not know that river waters were even increasing in parts of the subcontinent. Or take the way in which the arrests of Sanjay Dutt and Salman Khan have been covered. Or more specifically, think of the way in which the nuclear agreements and the political reactions have been covered.
There seemed to be a near unanimity in the reporting that the CPI (M)-led parties were made of numbskulls, they had little or no political support, they did not represent any section of the population and their behaviour could only be rendered as foolish and incomprehensible. One can rightly hold such a view in a democracy. But one cannot as a reporter question the authority or responsibility of any political party to question a political decision, which is what the agreement is, and to use whatever force it commands in order to achieve a resolution to the issue as it deems fit within the boundaries of the constitution. What was incomprehensible was the manner in which the views of regional parties, which by definition represent the interests of one state, being held up against the fact that the CPI (M) has support only in West Bengal and Kerala. The fact that Mr Karat and his ilk have not won any elections was trotted out as a reason to dismiss their views as born out of ideology and not out of pragmatic politics. And all of this was in the news stories.
Each party follows certain standards and that is for all to see. When voters favour candidates from parties they do so knowing well the kind of party politics that these candidates support and abide by. For all these years the foreign minister had never won a popular election, and it was only in the last elections that, commentators observe, Mr Pranab Mukherjee was able to win thanks to a tacit understanding with the Left. And more importantly, one wonders what political support does the Prime Minister have. Mr Manmohan Singh, at least if his CV is any indication, has never won a popular election. Not even a college election. His Rajya Sabha seat from Assam is a travesty of the federal structure despite his deep and abiding love for the state thanks to an address in the late Hiteshwar Saikia’s residence.
The point here is not political. The point is that the media have no business in their news reporting to question the right of any political party to orchestrate protest and threaten such action as they may deem fit. That is why we have an opposition. They may be in error. But the media should not in their reporting single out leaders of any one political dispensation without recognizing that the same charge can be levelled, and with greater justification, against other leaders. Also, they have no locus standi to indulge in some silly notion of plebiscitary democracy by doing surveys and suggesting that the population favours the deal.
We do not live in a direct democracy. We do not even have the concept of a referendum. What we have is a first past the post representative democracy, which means that the opposition may have greater support than what the number of seats reveal. And it is a system where the representatives are charged with examining details of proposals and to articulate their opinion on them with clarity and coherence. The task of the media is to report that articulation and also help in informing people about the points of view so that they may be able to arrive at an informed understanding of the issue.
Newspapers did that to an extent. They gave the 1, 2, 3s of the agreement, they gave some summaries; but instead of sticking to these they went to the extent of questioning the judgement of the opposition parties in bringing the government to an edge. Such questioning was in the way some stories were played up and the use of words in the headlines and stories. Views of business leaders were offered as cautionary judgements. The possible lapse of double-digit growth was brought out as news stories. It seemed that the mainstream press was more worried about the government falling than anyone else with the exception of the ruling party. Such partisan support for an agreement and a ruling combine in the news reporting is always bothersome.
The news media as cheerleaders is always a disturbing sign. And when the reasons for pouring scorn on those in the opposition are specious, ill informed, and couched in reportage then the cheerleading descends to propaganda.
