Is news ever without an agenda?
In 2002, when the Indian Broadcasters Association got together to boot out Mr Rupert Murdoch from the news space, it was not an unexpected move. World over, news companies are supposed to be editorially balanced, politically non-aligned and unequivocally patriotic. No one had a problem with acting on the third criterion, so Mr Murdoch had to divest. Nowhere can a foreigner control the editorial agenda. And rightly so. Even Fox News is a joint venture in the USA.
So what determines who gets a "news channel" application approved from the ministry of information and broadcasting? And why do they get to control the news agenda?
The power the media has over the public's beliefs is akin to the editor-in-chief playing God among the people.
Should anyone and everyone who applies be allowed a broadcast licence for news? Can personal agendas determine what the public sees? What is the criterion for the ministry to say "no"? Ah, the bigger question. What are the criteria for saying "yes"?
In this clutter and din of hundreds of news channels, who is really being served? Is it local governments? Is it corporate India? Is it a political party? It doesn't seem to be the people.
Trolls on social media and loose-tongued social climbers keep casting aspersions at senior journalists and national channels about being "bought". Is that really so? We've heard this criticism so many times, as professionals, but at least I for one have never seen it. What makes you believe it?
I get disappointed reading a newspaper or watching a channel often, which is so obviously "advertorial" instead of editorial. But if I am informed of the "informed business decision", I have it in my power to switch off or dump the page. It's a fair business practice. What are PR agencies there for? And how else would Sweety, Pappu or Dolly ever get noticed in public? Or get a marriage proposal, for that matter? The news business survives on advertisements and advertorials. No broadcasting code can change that. No "self-control" over the editorial strategy can change that. Only a policy change can. It's a business. And the money matters. Why would image consultants, spin doctors and marketing experts sit on expensive board seats otherwise? They are all part of the ecosystem of public perception. And perception is reality.
In sharp contrast it is our news channels that bleed so hard. They don't care. Making money is not why they are around. It's making votes. It's making money through power over people that keeps them relevant. Or being able to "make that call" and "get the job done".
If a politically-aligned person owns a news brand, can you really expect the perspective of the opposition to come out clean? Can there ever be balance in a story where the power of suggestion will get diluted by half if there was another opinion? Does any institution have the guts to say no to a "humble request"? Heads will roll, transfers will happen, DNA will get destroyed and evidence will vanish in what must be the most corrupt practice of our times. Using the power of the media to bend the rules. And control mind space.
Is it time to unclutter the news space by reviewing the agendas and impact these self-serving news brands are having over the nation? Do we really need news channels creating "information pollution" and confusion?
If a leading journalist gets a request voluntarily by a newsworthy person to be on an interview, is it any less an advertorial? Is a coercive conversation to cover a random visit by a minister somewhere even a shade less commercial? Or worse, is a situation where the CEO or MD sets the priorities in the newsroom for business purposes acceptable?
It is how godmen and criminals are sometimes created, right? Media support and sustained exposure will make the public believe almost anything. The power of "deception".
Some of our best gurus are a creation of the media. So are our self-styled educators and life skills coaches. It is almost impossible to fail if the leading news brands promote you. Many will buy your books and T-shirts.
"Love me, hate me but don't ignore me" is the mantra for those who need media exposure to survive.
Even the best song composed on earth would fail without adequate radio play. So if trains are derailed and delayed and the public is inconvenienced, chances are we'll notice. And of course, have a sequel to a movie like MSG. It made the national news, after all.
And then, we have murders most foul. Buried under piles of cash. Public memory is short. Unless someone has something to gain.