Media: divided against itself

A year later many of those views are being reiterated. 8216;8216;America still forces the world to adopt solutions that America itself has discarded8230;September 11 has much more significance for America than it does for the rest of the world,8217;8217; writes Vir Sanghvi, editor of The Hindustan Times. 8216;8216;One cannot preach democracy within nations while ignoring all other democracies on international issues and yet expect to be credible as leader of the democratic world8217;s campaign against terrorism8217;8217;, echoes defence analyst K. Subrahmanyam.

My aim is not to support or refute this viewpoint but merely to ask why is it not reflected in the way the media, the very same media that airs this view, has treated the anniversary of 9/11? In the last fortnight there has been a deluge of stories on the subject across media: political stories three leading English newsmagazines devoted entire issues to the subject, human interest stories, stories that relived the event, stories that talked of the fallout and a constant recasting of the visuals already familiar from last year8217;s round-the-clock telecasts. Nobody can deny this was one of the most newsworthy events the world has ever seen and yet, by giving it the kind of coverage a year later that we would not give to any story of devastation emanating from the third world, not even the tragic bomb blasts in Bombay a decade ago, are we not boosting the presumption of total superiority that we accuse America of displaying?

This is not an isolated incident. The contradiction between opinions expressed and priorities displayed in the way the news is covered is increasingly visible in our media. A recent survey conducted by the Mumbai unit of the Network of Women in Media, a conglomerate of media professionals, on the coverage of the Gujarat violence by local publications for instance found clear evidence of a dichotomy in at least two cases. One publication, for example, was found to have carried jingoistic and crudely inflammatory headlines on a daily basis through the period while at the same time railing against fundamentalism and advising moderation in its editorials. Another publication was found to have played down the daily news even as it expressed strong views on the subject in its editorial pages.

The effects of this sort of split are not minor. The last Indo-Pak summit in Agra, for instance, offered ample evidence in this regard. At the time of the summit most observers had agreed in their columns or television appearances that no major advances were expected from the event, that caution rather than high expectations were in order. And yet this belief did nothing to inhibit the coverage in any way. In fact, the reams of newsprint and round-the-clock television scrutiny created exactly the sort of hyped expectations that the pundits were warning against, with disastrous results.

It is true, of course, that the media gives voice to diverse opinions and publications or television channels may carry views that they do not necessarily concur with. It is not variety that one is against or uniformity of opinion that one is seeking but a measure of consonance between the editorial line taken and the way in which the news is covered, in short responsibility not just for what is said but how much is said and how it is said.

Unfortunately, the prevailing trend discourages this sort of synthesis. In our new television age we have got used to news coverage that is dramatic, obsessive and replete with trivia. And instead of guiding the coverage the sort of sober reflection one would find in editorials, columns and articles on the media8217;s follies has come to play a balancing role. In effect this means that one hand often does not know what the other is up to. And this approach leaves open a gap. It is a gap that the Madhu Sharmas of the world can exploit. And it is a gap that in the long run affects the credibility of the media.