Journalist vs politician,journalism vs stenography

At the heart of the debate,said one of the moderators,Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi,was the issue of conflict of interest. “This is a world of wearing many hats,” he said,calling for an “institutionalised mechanism” of disclosure where people who appear on a channel discussion or write an opinion piece in a newspaper are identified,along with their ideological leanings or business interests.

“On a recent show,someone was called a defence expert but was a member of the defence policy of a particular political party,” he said,adding that the viewer or reader shouldn’t be kept in the dark.

That’s a valid issue,said P Sainath,Rural Affairs Editor,The Hindu,but the “more important one was of journalism and politics” and the blinkers that a journalist so comfortably wears in a media organisation.

Sainath spoke of the “dangers” of the conflict between the “fourth estate and the real estate” and the blurring of line between “journalism and stenography”. He said this wasn’t the failure of the individual journalist but a “systemic and structural” failure of the media. “In the middle of the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression,the media didn’t challenge experts who said things could never be better. And then,after you lost all your money,these same experts are trotted out to say how and why you lost your money.”

Congress leader Jayanti Natarajan,who moderated the discussion with Singhvi and The Indian Express Editor-in-chief Shekhar Gupta,set the stage for the debate saying that while politics and journalism were inextricably linked,the challenge lay in how “we can constantly push the frontiers while self-regulating” and the only way to do it is for “politicians and journalists to do it together”.

While Shobhana Bhartia,Editorial Director of The Hindustan Times,spoke of how the market should be allowed to decide what the reader wants,Sainath said he disagreed with this kind of “market fundamentalism”.

When Gupta asked CNN-IBN’s Rajdeep Sardesai if he was worried about “institutionalised fixing” of stories by the media,Sardesai said that the media rarely goes beyond the “he said she said” kind of journalism. “When was the last time an enterprising journalist forced a politician on the backfoot?” he asked. Given the levels to which some journalists stoop vis a vis politicians,he said,“we should hang our heads in shame.”

To which NDTV’s Barkha Dutt said that it wasn’t true that journalists weren’t trying hard enough or that they didn’t have access. The problem,she identified,was of journalists being “seduced by their sources”. “I have heard many politicians say after an interview,‘Can you remove that line,please?’ and all of us do it at one time or the other,” she said.

BJP leader Arun Jaitley said he wasn’t too worried about bias in the media and that he saw an opportunity,even in a hostile media,to put his point of view across. “The idea is to not join issue with the media,” said Jaitley. At this point,Sanjay Gupta,CEO of Dainik Jagran,said: “Just as there is freedom of speech,there should be freedom of bias. If a newspaper has a bias,it is better to be open about it. Why should a politician tell me what my newspaper should carry?”

While politicians mocked the “tyranny of TRPs”,India TV’s Rajat Sharma said: “If you think we enjoy TRPs,we are the victims of TRPs.” He then went on to narrate his personal experience: how in the first year of his new channel,he ran stories on rural development and social issues. But that didn’t work and “I almost had to sell my property” to keep the channel going.

But the third year,Sharma says,he decided to take the middle ground — spend 50% of his time chasing TRPs and the other half on “social issues”. The TRPs came to his rescue,he got to keep his property,raise his revenue over 100%,he said,to applause from the audience.

When Natarajan said the concern was if the media will ever project real issues,Sardesai said,“It depends on how you look at it. While sensationalism is an issue,we must all admit that the visual media has come a long way from the days when it covered politicians cutting ribbons.”

The panelists agreed that the reach of the media was limited,sometimes despite aggressive campaigns. “The ability of the media to influence polity is limited. If the media were as effective,no criminal would make it to Parliament. There are still barriers left to cross,” he said. Gupta rounded off the debate by saying that while every individual has his political preference,what’s key is whether journalists can effectively keep that distance — between their preferences and their stories.