Media should have covered Padmavati protests differently: Less sensationalism, more objectivity
One of the things that our politicians love to do is to rage against films whose topics they dislike. When it comes to movies, it's not objectivity that comes into play, but just pure and raw emotion. The logic is simple: Movies attract audiences from all walks of life and any form of political posturing helps cater to different vote-banks. To put it bluntly, our politicos aren't stupid to waste time debating the intentions of a film director or the factual story of a movie.
Over the past two weeks, the controversy over Padmavati has become our national pastime and a constant source of political entertainment. More depressingly, we are still about two weeks away from the movie's scheduled release. Just to update, the first casualty in this intense, high-octane media coverage has been our much-proclaimed sanity. Maybe by the end of it, we may even abandon our loaded cynicism because of our over exposure to it.
Increasingly, the story looks less about defending free speech or debating the content of the movie. Instead, it has become about that vile sound bite, the inherent need to better it by giving another hyperbolic statement and the necessity of a prime-time debate on who said the most callous thing of the day. It has become a boxing contest between politicians who only wish to fight over imagined historical glories. The media has been happy to oblige.
The point is simple. Everyone with a microphone has become an activist and everyone with a weapon against free speech has become an object of desire for mainstream anchors. We must therefore ask ourselves if we can change the way we cover issues of censorship and free speech? Why can't we ignore some of these rabid elements who try to create nuisance and initiate violence? Their drug is the attention we give them. They live and thrive on it. Maybe, just maybe, we could start by covering such stories without giving a platform to each and every small-time politician? If we reduced the space provided to them, will they not stop indulging in this madness?
No one is making the case that we shouldn't discuss and debate issues around free speech and expression. Some of the threats that have been issued are violent in nature and deserve condemnation in the strongest terms. The issue is more about how we cover such themes. Maybe we could do with less sensationalism?
Maybe we can avoid the constant need to perform theatrics in newsrooms? What we now need from our news channels is to become boring almost to the point of being mundane. So, yes - please make our news about policy again. Make our politics about government again.
Our coverage has become increasingly more toxic with each passing controversy on this issue. After all, the mix of free speech and politics is a heady cocktail and one that makes for a great viewing. It creates enough suspense and tension for voters, generates many eyeballs for media companies and attracts plenty of new voters for politicians. Movies come and go but our tolerance for what counts as free speech continues to decline. We continue to tirelessly discuss the same issue, only with different characters. Whether it's Akbar or Tommy Singh or Alauddin Khilji, we still don't know how to move forward on free speech.
Which begs the most important question: Will we ever see a liberal nirvana of absolute free speech in our country? As things stand, it's hard to be optimistic. Sadly, in India, the number of people who believe in obstructing free speech far outnumber those who believe in respecting it.