Is news ever without an agenda?
In 2002, when the Indian broadcasters got together to boot out Mr Rupert Murdoch from the news space, it was not an unexpected move. The 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. Hurriedly and painfully. 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?
Should personal agendas determine what the public sees?
The power the media has over the public's beliefs is akin to the editor-in-chief playing God amongst the people.
Should anyone and everyone who applies be allowed a broadcast licence for news? 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 the 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 on all senior journalists and national channels about being "bought out". 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 personally get disappointed reading a newspaper or watching a channel, which is so obviously "advertorial" instead of editorial. But if I am informed of their "informed business decisions", 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 sponsors. No broadcasting code can change that. No "self control" over the editorial strategy can help 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 eco-system of public perception. And perception is reality.
In sharp contrast to brands who are here for real business are news channels that are here for personal agenda. These channels bleed so hard, their bottom lines can never turn black. But they don't care. Making money is not why they are here. It's making votes. Making money through the illusion of power and creating public perception is what keeps them relevant. The most important agenda is being able to "make that call" and "get the job done".
If a political person own a news brand, can you really expect the opposition to come out of the channel looking clean? Can there ever be balance in a story where the perception of the aggressor will get diluted by half if there was an equal counterpoint? Does any institution have the guts to say a real "No" to a "humble request"?
Heads roll, transfers happen, DNA gets destroyed and evidence vanishes in what must be the most corrupt practice of our times. Using the power of the media to bend the rules. And control mindspace.
Is it time to de-clutter the news by reviewing the agendas and evaluate the impact these self-serving people and their news brands are having over our nation? Do we really need so many news channels creating "information pollution"? Is this really our media culture, Mr Minister?
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? Is killing a high impact story of worth not corruption?
Or worse, is a situation where the CEO or MD sets the priorities in the newsroom for business purposes acceptable? This is how godmen and criminals are sometimes created, right?
Media support and sustained exposure will make the public believe almost anything.
Some of our best "gurus" are creations of the media. So are our self-styled educators and life-skills coaches. It's almost impossible to fail if the leading news brands promote you.
"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 and conscious air play. The same goes for an agenda across the news waves.