Reporting news or playing politics:by Dr Frawley

[Guest guest]

Reporting News or Playing Politics?

>Author: David Frawley

>Publication: Organiser

>January 26, 2003

>

>Introduction: During the recent Gujarat elections, the media went so far

>as to print the type of election results it wanted to see as the likely

>outcome, though voters proved it to be totally wrong.

>Reading the English language press of India, particularly the editorial

>pages, it appears that the media considers itself to be the supreme

>authority in the land. The English press of India goes far beyond what its

>counterparts do in America, UK or other Western countries in trying to

>influence its readers or shape government policy.

>

>The English media dictates against the government as if it should be the

>real political decision-making body in the country. It deems itself

>capable of taking the place of legal institutions as well, printing its

>allegations as truth even if these have never been entered into much less

>proved in any court of law. It has vested itself with an almost religious

>authority to determine what is right and wrong, good and evil, and who in

>the country should be honored or punished. Like an almost theocratic

>institution, it does not tolerate dissent or allow its dogmas to be

>questioned. In the name of editorial policy, it pontificates, promoting

>slogans, denigrations and articles of faith in the guise of critical

>policy review.

>The media doesn't aim at reporting the news; it tries to create the news,

>imposing its view of the news upon everyone as the final truth. The media

>doesn't objectively cover elections, it tries to influence voters to vote

>in a specific manner, demonizing those it disagrees with and excusing

>those it supports, however bad or incompetent their behavior. We saw this

>particularly during the recent Gujarat elections in which the media went

>so far as to print the type of election results it wanted to see as the

>likely outcome, though voters proved it to be totally wrong.

>Where is the Medias Mandate?

>

>The question therefore arises as to what affords the media such a sweeping

>authority that can override legitimately elected and appointed bodies?

>What sort of mandate has the media been given to justify its actions?

>Clearly the media has never been elected to any political post and does

>not undergo any scrutiny like that of candidates in an election. It does

>not represent any appointed post in the government. It has no

>accountability to any outside agency. The media's authority is largely

>self-appointed and, not surprisingly, self-serving.

>

>The sources behind the media's operation and where they get their money is

>also not revealed. We are not informed as to how prominent reporters and

>editorial writers derive their income, including how much may come from

>outside sources. But clearly they are getting a lot of money from

>somewhere that they are not in any hurry to disclose. Though the media

>likes to expose the improprieties, financial, sexual and otherwise, of

>those its dislikes, which it often exaggerates, if not invents, if you

>examine how the media people live, you certainly wouldn't want them as.,

>role models for your children!

>

>Nor are we certain who the media really represents. Certain groups, not

>only inside but also outside India, are using this English media as a

>vested interest to promote their own agenda, which is generally anti-Hindu

>and often appears to be anti-India as well.

>

>The Media Propaganda Machine

>A section o the Indian media often appears more as a propaganda machine

>than an objective news agency. In this regard the large section of English

>media of India is much like the old state propaganda machines of communist

>countries. This is an important clue for understanding its operation. The

>English media of India largely represents a holdover from the Congress era

>in which it was a state run propaganda center for the Congress government

>that was far left in its orientation. We can perhaps at understand its

>actions today as a state run propaganda machine that has continued in

>power after the decline of the party that created it. Its prime motive has

>now become to reestablish that old state and former ruling party.

>

>The media remains largely a Congress run propaganda machine. As the

>Congress has not been able to win elections, it has emphasised its media

>wing even more strongly to try to compensate for its failures in the

>electoral arena. Yet as the Congress Party itself has often failed, the

>media has taken to supporting other leftist groups inside and outside the

>country in hope of gaining power. That is why they try to, make heroes of

>figures like Laloo Prasad Yadav or Jyoti Basu as another vehicle for their

>Marxist views.

>

>Most of the main writers in the media are of the far left and many remain

>card-carrying communists, a strange anachronism after communism has been

>rejected worldwide, particularly for those claiming to be progressive!

>Their leftist and communist sympathies go back decades to the periods of

>Nehru and Indira Gandhi who favored them. They are a Westernised elite but

>of the old left persuasion that finds their heroes in Yasser Arafat and

>Fidel Castro, and still emulate even Stalin and Mao. As the media is the

>last citadel of power for far left groups in India, it is not one that

>they will give up easily.

>

>The Danger of Hindu Fascism

>Similarly, the claims of the English media that Hindu groups and parties

>like BJP, RSS and VHP are fascists are the claims of a leftist and

>communist propaganda machine going back over fifty years. The English

>language media of India has long projected the great and imminent danger

>to the country posed by Hindu fascism. If one believes what the media says

>India resembles Germany in the 1930's with Hindu Storm Troopers active

>everywhere and on the verge of seizing power and conducting a campaign of

>genocide, particularly of Muslims.

>

>One would expect, therefore, that the media itself is under siege in

>India. On the contrary, there is no instance of a single journalist killed

>by Hindu militants, of a single newspaper office burned down by them, and

>of only a few scattered protests to the numerous anti-Hindu stories over

>the years. Not even a single major newspaper has been forced out of

>business by such supposedly 'vicious' and 'intolerant' Hindu forces. For

>all their worries of Hindu fascism, the Indian media seems quite

>comfortable with its way of life and its freedom not only to criticise but

>also to malign the groups it disagrees with in the most vehement manner!

>

>What newspapers have actually been attacked in India have been the target

>of Islamic groups, not Hindus at all, for which the media is quick to

>render its apologies to Islamic sympathies. In spite of this, the media

>not only exaggerates the danger of Hindu militance, it downplays the

>danger of any Islamic militance, even after 9/11. While it attacks even

>the mention of a Hindu Rashtra as dangerous, it encourages tolerance and

>respect for theocratic Islamic states, which follow an oppressive Sharia

>or religious law. The reason is clear, the Muslims actually attack them,

>while the so-called militant Hindu fascists, who are really largely

>pacifists, do not. Such writers reveal their double standards and their

>cowardice by such actions.

>

>The Gujarat Elections: A Mandate Against Media

>The recent Gujarat elections appear to be the first major revolt against

>the media, which occurred at a grassroots level. The media badly lost an

>election that it had made every effort, invoking the most shrill hysteria,

>bringing in NGOs to work for them, demonising not only the BJP but even

>casting aspersions on the very culture of Gujarat, to influence the

>voters. The voters, it appears, intentionally voted against the media,

>recognising its obvious prejudices and deceptions.

>

>Yet even after this defeat the media has not toned down its rhetoric and

>continues to proclaim that doom is approaching, much like the

>fundamentalist preachers of the West, hoping to scare people into

>supporting it. More such Gujarat election results are necessary to change

>this tide of biased reporting going back over the decades.

>

>India does need a responsible English language media that can articulate

>the genuine concerns of the country to the rest of the world. The absence

>of such a responsible media has caused great problems for the people of

>the country on all levels because the Western English language media,

>which has a poor record of making any real efforts to understand other

>cultures and languages, still uncritically relies upon such hostile media

>views. India's independence will not be real until this group loses its

>hold on the media and their place is taken by those who really appreciate

>the great traditions of this great civilization.

>

>While many people who are working in the media field are genuinely

>concerned about their country, even these remain unfortunately bound to

>the editorial policy of a hostile elite that continues to run the show. It

>is time for such more nationalistic writers to express themselves as well.

>They represent the real future of the country and its news organisations.