| Published on 19-10-2007 In National |
| Viewed 1604 times |
| The role of media in the nuclear debate needs to be reviewed |
|
|
Written by
Nilotpal Basu |
Now that, by all accounts the operationalisation of the nuclear deal with the United States has been put on hold, the mainstream media makes interesting reading. Both the UPA chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister have clarified the position on this issue. Smt. Gandhi has been clear in her view towards sustenance of the present arrangement with the UPA seeking continued support from the Left. She has even gone to the extent of recognising the diversity of opinion and put on record her appreciation for the distinct views that the Left represented.
The Prime Minister is also reconciled to this approach notwithstanding the expression of `disappointment'. Hopefully, the continuing process of joint mechanism between the UPA and the Left which is scheduled to meet on October 22 will help clarify the direction further.
Having taken note of the current status of a very intense debate, the objective is not to delve into the dynamics leading to the current outcome. The focus here is to try and understand as to how and why the mainstream media has covered this debate as they have done. This is extremely important given the fact that the media enjoys an unambiguous freedom in our constitution. And further, it is respected in its reality. The spirit of the Constitution envisages the crucial role that media can and ought to play in deepening and enriching our democracy and truly reflect the diverse circumstances which in its totality encapsulates the concept of ` India'.
Unfortunately, the entire debate in the mainstream media has not been able to reflect this constitutional presupposition. In course of the debate, particularly in the terms of reference that has informed the process of joint mechanism has brought out the interconnections of the nuclear deal with other important policy areas. To name a few these included – a national energy policy, the question of an appropriate mix for enhanced energy security, the issue of an independent foreign policy in a vastly changed world scenario and the paramount need for sustaining the nation's strategic autonomy.
To start with, the mainstream media instead of an objective study of these critical areas which regardless of the deal was important for the country's future, brought up a linkage with the question of political stability and the continuation of the government. It is true that the Prime Minister's initial interview with an English daily did not help matters. But, as and how the debate progressed the need for examining the conflicting points of view were conspicuous by their absence. The success of the nuclear deal to come through was being projected as the be all and end all for our development paradigm. One does understand that the media may have a particular view on any important subject. But it is also important to realise that there may be many other views to which they do not subscribe – that is the way democracy is and ought to be. There is another significant question. The realisation of a particular view is possible depending on the extent of support that a particular view enjoys within the polity. More importantly, the particular view can also be realised on the basis of its ability to sustain in the face of counterpoints. The constitution pitched for unabridged rights of the media precisely with the hope that the media will redeem itself in ensuring this multiplicity of views.
Now that the Congress party and the government itself has been able to successfully reconcile with the reality that life does not come to a grinding halt in the absence of the nuclear deal, the gross inadequacy of the mainstream media in comprehending the process of moderation in keeping with the nature of the polity has become all the more apparent. `Disappointment' of the Prime Minister has transformed the media outlook. There is a palpable sense of anger if not downright revulsion against the inability to `call the Left bluff'!
Is the attitude of the mainstream media, an one off development or is there something more fundamental? In a very well researched paper the Delhi based media watch group Centre for Media Studies(CMS) has come out with startling figures. The study has established that `today advertising and market research in many ways determine the scope of mass media, including journalistic trends'. It is also an interesting coincidence that hundred percent FDI has been permitted in these two fields in the last two years.
The study also establishes that from the supplementary nature (25 to 30 per cent) the share of advertising in total revenue of media has gone up to 60 to 75 per cent now. In case of television channels this is even larger – 70 to 80 per cent. In case of some big newspapers, advertising revenue is 60 per cent of the total. The size of the advertising market is also huge – Rs. 12,000 crores of which three-fourths are consumed by the mass media. Again, overwhelming bulk of mass media advertisement is accounted for by big corporates both Indian and foreign. There is a major concentration as well with 15 advertisers accounting for three-fourths of such advertising revenue. The advertising agency business is also getting concentrated with top five advertising agencies having major holding from outside the country. This is a development commensurate with growing entry of foreign brands and increase in the share of foreign corporates.
Similarly, the market research agencies which conduct readership surveys and rating of television viewership directly influence advertising and in their turn the orientation of the mass media. The methodology of this market research is not transparent and there can be no scrutiny in the public domain to look out for `bias'. The market research and the advertising agencies are intertwined and the market research is essentially at the behest of the advertising agencies, thereby establishing – `a conflict of interest'. It is obvious that such intertwinings have a profound impact, ultimately on the orientation of the media. This overwhelming change in the context of the media poses a very significant question – is media a `public service' or `private business' promoting private interest?
The developments in the structure, operation and orientation of the media which was so obviously brought out by the CMS study seems to be quite pertinent, to understand the gross failure of our mainstream media to cover the debate on the nuclear issue. There are other instances as well. But being topical an attempt to understand the current dynamics that shapes the media today could be an engaging preoccupation in realising the vision of our constitution makers. This could be yet another positive spin off from the nuclear debate. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
