01-29-2004, 07:12 AM
I don't know if it deserves the thread of itself ...
From Anirdam Banerjee ..
http://sify.com/news/columns/fullstory.php?id=13372216
<b>
A Lakshman Rekha for journalists?
By Arindam Banerjee
Wednesday, 28 January , 2004, 05:12
</b>
Thumbing through the pages on the Deccan Chronicle site, I happened to scan an article on 'PM vs Sonia'. The article itself was not worth writing home about â it was just the 316th such analysis of why Vajpayee's BJP succeeded and Sonia's team failed at the recently concluded Assembly elections. | From The Archives: State Polls 2003 |
Nevertheless, two words of one sentence in the whole article kicked me painfully in the shins. I had just run into a phrase that I'd hoped I would never have to see in an Indian newspaper. The author proclaimed: "He consults all for a feedback, makes up his own mind, and then acts with the Brahminical deviousness for which he is renowned."
The funny thing is - I'm sure that the lady has never met my father â but, yet she feels free to call him devious â a trait, I've never seen in him. OK, OK - I can get over the fact that the lady writer let slip her latent bigotry by stereotyping all Brahmins as devious, including people I personally know very well. I can even handle the rather troublesome issue that in most cases, had any insane Indian journalist dared to color an entire group of people, say Sunni Muslims or Catholics, with such verbiage, a competent editor would promptly have snipped out the phrase. But, there's a much bigger issue here?
Question is - for us journalists, columnists and various forms of media participants, where is the line? Where is the 'Lakshman Rekha' that we must not cross? Equally important - if such a hypothetical line is crossed, as was done in this fetid piece of writing, how should the system of editors, newspapers and the journalist community react? Remember, the writer and the writing was never criticised or apologised for, in this case. | Discuss: Lakshman rekha for journalists? |
Now, before the peanut gallery lapses into 'arre yaar â this is a free country only â bolne do usko â freedom of press hai na?'. Sure, the writer is welcome to spew expletives in private, or even do so in public, using her own resources. But, what she should not automatically have is free access to a mass media forum, such as a widely distributed newspaper, to spew her venom. Free speech and a free press are mandatory for our democracy but free access to a mass media forum to spew out bigotry is NOT.
Let me explain what I mean. Two Sundays ago, a well-known TV presenter in the UK, Robert Kilroy-Silk wrote an article in the Sunday-Express. In it, not only did he put his foot in his mouth, but he pretty much swallowed it whole â essentially, labeling all Arabs in derogatory terms. Here's a report on what he said: Titled, 'We Owe Arabs Nothing,' the article stated, "Apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the west - what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?" Sure, the bigotry flowed out of Kilroy â but the reaction in the UK, is interesting to note.
Various media outlets and the Muslim council of Britain criticised it, while BBC immediately took Kilroy-Silkâs show off the air "pending an investigation of his comments." The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has even brought in the police to consider whether the article might constitute an offence under the Public Order Act.
No, No, No â I'm not suggesting that the writer from the Deccan Chronicle be thrown in jail. Far from it, in an openly free country, she has the right to say whatever she wants to say, however disgusting it may be. But, where are the checks and balances in our system to prevent or at least mitigate the effects of such writing? In Kilroy-Silk's case, more than half a dozen journalists and columnists wrote articles and short pieces, openly criticising this race baiting. The public mockery that Kilroy-Silk is living through is well deserved and exactly what should happen in any open society. In India, however, the writer at Deccan Chronicle, has had herself declared 'secular' and obtained a carte blanche for any kind of open bigotry â no criticism applies. The typical pat response from media community seems to be 'I agree with you 100 percent saar, but, we cannot criticise a fellow journalist!'
So, where is this mythical line for us, in India? Most people will agree that religious bigotry, such as labeling or stereotyping a whole group of people, is not cool. But, is it OK, to praise the perpetrators of genocide?
Well, oddly enough, a few weeks ago, we found an Assistant Editor of a national newspaper writing in the Daily Times of Lahore, doing exactly that. She tries to credit the 'bravery' of the perpetrators of one of the worst genocide in the past 50 years - a genocide that killed quite probably 2-3 million civilians in less than nine months; far surpassing the kill rate the Nazis achieved in six years of systematic gassing. She writes about the much vaunted Pakistani army of 1971: "The fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking, therefore, to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return...the answers don't lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war."
In her selective perfidy, she blithely skipped mentioning what the Pakistani army actually did do, such as: "The number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (one million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66)."
As R J Rummel writes: "The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the 18 districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For 18 districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel's "death by government"] are much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from one million to three million. ... The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups killed about one out of every 61 people in Pakistan overall; one out of every 25 Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualised over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II)." (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)
OK, here's a suggestion folks â try writing the same article, except switch out the phrases about the Pakistani army with references to the Nazi SS. The reaction in most western countries is not hard to predict - if the article ever manages to see the light of day, the editors and owners of the publication would be pilloried in public, and the writer will pretty much have to kiss his/her career goodbye. Unfortunately, in this case, neither happened. We find that the writer got subsequently published in a reputed Indian business magazine â no points taken off, it would seem, for praising the bravery of the perpetrators of genocide. Strangely enough â both the scenarios, so far are softball issues â most people will fume and cuss at such putrid writing. So, let's make the case a little harder.
Lately, the editor of the leading English daily in India has developed a fetish for promoting the secession of Kashmir from India, under the guise of loosening Indian sovereignty on Kashmir. We get the first hint of this, in an article called 'Zurich on the Jhelum' in the August 22, 2003 edition of the daily. Next we see a very similar proposal being pushed in a lead article (January 20, 2004) titled 'Make Kashmir a neutral space'. Of course, another writer in the same daily was a little more direct and openly asks the leading question "India has to realise that it cannot settle with the Valley Kashmiris on the basis of the situation that prevailed before 1990... Will India be willing to forgo or even dilute its sovereignty in the Valley?"
Note, that this is the editor of a newspaper that claims a daily distribution of six million or so. No follow-ups countering this point of view and no presentation of such mundane facts like â "what rewarding terrorism with territory, may do to our terrorist neighbourâs next-step ambitions" or "what would allowing Pakistan close to our river headwaters likely result in." | Discuss: How long will the Indo-Pak ceasefire last? |
Who cares about such mundane things about securing the water supply for hundreds of millions of Indians? Of course, it is quite possible that the editor fully understands that once such editorials are published in his newspaper, they'll automatically be picked up Pakistani and US newspapers as proof of an "Indian desire to settle Kashmir, even if it means loosening Indian sovereignty over it."
Sure, the editor of the rag in question has the freedom of press behind him. But, so do the editors of the other mainstream media houses. They were happy to lash out at Jaya's minions for their recent peccadilloes with the press as in this HT invective: "The Tamil Nadu Speaker's directive to arrest the publisher, editor, executive editor and senior journalists of The Hindu is a matter of concern as much for the public as it is for the press." Would they consider directing their corporate wrath, against some of their colleagues, who actively promote secession?
Another incident â another scenario â but, the same question. Here's what I'm talking about - a respected member of the Parliament, on a jaunt to Islamabad, took time out to laud the advances of the Pakistani economy. He writes "Shaukat Aziz... announces that the Pakistan economy in the current financial year, July 2002-June 2003, has recorded the fastest growth in South Asia. He does not say so but the sad fact is that they have overtaken India as we slide downwards and they slither up. Per capita income in the current fiscal year," he adds, "has risen by a double-digit figure..."; In the article, the author made three somewhat fraudulent claims:
1. Per capita income has gone up by a double digit figure
2. Pakistan recorded the fastest growth in S Asia.
3. "have overtaken India as we slide downwards and they slither up"
Fine, I'll agree that these are strictly not BIG lies, but subtle fudging of the truth, you know like:
* Indian per capita income has actually left Pakistani incomes behind and poverty in Pakistan has doubled, while in India it has almost halved in the past 15 years. An average Indian has gained 50 percent over their income in 1990, while the Pakistani's income has only grown only 13 percent in the same time.
* Pakistani growth without the $one billion of free oil from Saudi Arabia and about $one billion of grants and airbase rental from the US, would be about one percent, that is essentially a stagnant economy. India, on the other hand, is fuelling the rise of Asia, along with China.
* Even if he could not predict the 8.4 percent growth of the last quarter, the huge migration of jobs and companies to India over the past few years, is almost unparalleled, except in the case of China â no prizes for knowing this factoid.
The question - does this cross the line of journalistic ethics, according to you?
Surprisingly, some BJP types, who virulently oppose this same gentleman, find nothing wrong with the writer's fanciful writing, since "everyone knows he's a politician, so he has some freedom." OK, fine â I give up â so from now on, I'll handle articles by politician writers, the same way I treat Arundhati's scribbles â by, first calling a fact-checker! So, what is the solution to all this? First of all, the solution does NOT lie in getting the Government involved or even establishing new laws. That would surely defeat the purpose.
What, however, is necessary is to create a level of comfort in criticising other media organisations and personalities. This 'effective freedom' is a key part of why the Kilroy-Silk issue was handled well in the UK, while conversely, the Deccan Chronicle article was mishandled here. The prevailing mindset of "cannot criticise our colleagues in the media, yaar" needs a quiet and painless death. The change is happening in some circles, but has clearly left many a mainstream media house by.
Next, editors must recognise that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, too. For example, Bibhuti Bhushan Nandy reports in HT, that: "A recent article by Sharmila Bose (Ananda Bazaar Patrika, August 3) depicted Ram as an impotent wretch and Sita as a nymphomaniac." The question is, would the same publication feel comfortable publishing similar profanities about deities and prophets from other religions? Somehow, I do not think so! But, by publishing such nonsense, the publication forfeited any credibility that it had, in decrying the real fundoos. Nobody wants a battle on religious idiosyncrasies to be fought out on in newspaper articles and columns and editors should be the last people to start such wars. Here is a case where the editors and owners must step up to the internal policing required to maintain propriety.
A complete lack of balance on political issues has been a pet peeve of quite a few people. Tavleen Singh writing on the media fascination with Sonia states: "How much is Sonia Gandhi a real figure and how much a myth created by the media? This is a question that comes to my mind every time I see an interaction between her and Delhi's political journalists. The most recent one was last week when a gathering was arranged at the Parliament House annexe. It was clear that the country's most hardened hacks fell over themselves trying to get close to 'Madame' much as if she were a movie star. 'No questions, please, no questions, no questions, no television cameras,' her flustered flunkeys yelled but they need not have worried because when the questions did come they were so mild that any child could have answered them." | Discuss: Does Sonia Gandhi have leadership qualities? |
The ceaseless BJP bashing without any similar spotlight on the Congress and its leaders (except after the recent Assembly elections) has left the BJP hardened, and has allowed the Congress to continue living in la-la land. Who looses â the Indian democracy and the Indian voter, of course! In the end, theyâre left without an effective opposition party. It is here that effective oversight committees formed from within the media are critical to rectify this imbalance â once again, no governmental oversight, please.
For example, media watchdog groups in the US often track and highlight the number of positive/negative references made by the various network news channels, about a Presidential candidate. Similar groups in India could track the number of positive and negative references about the BJP and Congress in the run-up to the Lok Sabha polls; at least for the major media outlets.
In the end, I do recognise that, not every media house will draw the line, where I have drawn them and I do not expect them to, either. However, we all need to recognise that, just as freedom of expression and a free press, are the very legs that any true democracy stands on, the lack of propriety, unbalanced reporting and blatantly slanted facts can cut off these very legs, at the knees.
From Anirdam Banerjee ..
http://sify.com/news/columns/fullstory.php?id=13372216
<b>
A Lakshman Rekha for journalists?
By Arindam Banerjee
Wednesday, 28 January , 2004, 05:12
</b>
Thumbing through the pages on the Deccan Chronicle site, I happened to scan an article on 'PM vs Sonia'. The article itself was not worth writing home about â it was just the 316th such analysis of why Vajpayee's BJP succeeded and Sonia's team failed at the recently concluded Assembly elections. | From The Archives: State Polls 2003 |
Nevertheless, two words of one sentence in the whole article kicked me painfully in the shins. I had just run into a phrase that I'd hoped I would never have to see in an Indian newspaper. The author proclaimed: "He consults all for a feedback, makes up his own mind, and then acts with the Brahminical deviousness for which he is renowned."
The funny thing is - I'm sure that the lady has never met my father â but, yet she feels free to call him devious â a trait, I've never seen in him. OK, OK - I can get over the fact that the lady writer let slip her latent bigotry by stereotyping all Brahmins as devious, including people I personally know very well. I can even handle the rather troublesome issue that in most cases, had any insane Indian journalist dared to color an entire group of people, say Sunni Muslims or Catholics, with such verbiage, a competent editor would promptly have snipped out the phrase. But, there's a much bigger issue here?
Question is - for us journalists, columnists and various forms of media participants, where is the line? Where is the 'Lakshman Rekha' that we must not cross? Equally important - if such a hypothetical line is crossed, as was done in this fetid piece of writing, how should the system of editors, newspapers and the journalist community react? Remember, the writer and the writing was never criticised or apologised for, in this case. | Discuss: Lakshman rekha for journalists? |
Now, before the peanut gallery lapses into 'arre yaar â this is a free country only â bolne do usko â freedom of press hai na?'. Sure, the writer is welcome to spew expletives in private, or even do so in public, using her own resources. But, what she should not automatically have is free access to a mass media forum, such as a widely distributed newspaper, to spew her venom. Free speech and a free press are mandatory for our democracy but free access to a mass media forum to spew out bigotry is NOT.
Let me explain what I mean. Two Sundays ago, a well-known TV presenter in the UK, Robert Kilroy-Silk wrote an article in the Sunday-Express. In it, not only did he put his foot in his mouth, but he pretty much swallowed it whole â essentially, labeling all Arabs in derogatory terms. Here's a report on what he said: Titled, 'We Owe Arabs Nothing,' the article stated, "Apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the west - what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?" Sure, the bigotry flowed out of Kilroy â but the reaction in the UK, is interesting to note.
Various media outlets and the Muslim council of Britain criticised it, while BBC immediately took Kilroy-Silkâs show off the air "pending an investigation of his comments." The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has even brought in the police to consider whether the article might constitute an offence under the Public Order Act.
No, No, No â I'm not suggesting that the writer from the Deccan Chronicle be thrown in jail. Far from it, in an openly free country, she has the right to say whatever she wants to say, however disgusting it may be. But, where are the checks and balances in our system to prevent or at least mitigate the effects of such writing? In Kilroy-Silk's case, more than half a dozen journalists and columnists wrote articles and short pieces, openly criticising this race baiting. The public mockery that Kilroy-Silk is living through is well deserved and exactly what should happen in any open society. In India, however, the writer at Deccan Chronicle, has had herself declared 'secular' and obtained a carte blanche for any kind of open bigotry â no criticism applies. The typical pat response from media community seems to be 'I agree with you 100 percent saar, but, we cannot criticise a fellow journalist!'
So, where is this mythical line for us, in India? Most people will agree that religious bigotry, such as labeling or stereotyping a whole group of people, is not cool. But, is it OK, to praise the perpetrators of genocide?
Well, oddly enough, a few weeks ago, we found an Assistant Editor of a national newspaper writing in the Daily Times of Lahore, doing exactly that. She tries to credit the 'bravery' of the perpetrators of one of the worst genocide in the past 50 years - a genocide that killed quite probably 2-3 million civilians in less than nine months; far surpassing the kill rate the Nazis achieved in six years of systematic gassing. She writes about the much vaunted Pakistani army of 1971: "The fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking, therefore, to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return...the answers don't lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war."
In her selective perfidy, she blithely skipped mentioning what the Pakistani army actually did do, such as: "The number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (one million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66)."
As R J Rummel writes: "The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the 18 districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For 18 districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel's "death by government"] are much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from one million to three million. ... The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups killed about one out of every 61 people in Pakistan overall; one out of every 25 Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualised over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II)." (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)
OK, here's a suggestion folks â try writing the same article, except switch out the phrases about the Pakistani army with references to the Nazi SS. The reaction in most western countries is not hard to predict - if the article ever manages to see the light of day, the editors and owners of the publication would be pilloried in public, and the writer will pretty much have to kiss his/her career goodbye. Unfortunately, in this case, neither happened. We find that the writer got subsequently published in a reputed Indian business magazine â no points taken off, it would seem, for praising the bravery of the perpetrators of genocide. Strangely enough â both the scenarios, so far are softball issues â most people will fume and cuss at such putrid writing. So, let's make the case a little harder.
Lately, the editor of the leading English daily in India has developed a fetish for promoting the secession of Kashmir from India, under the guise of loosening Indian sovereignty on Kashmir. We get the first hint of this, in an article called 'Zurich on the Jhelum' in the August 22, 2003 edition of the daily. Next we see a very similar proposal being pushed in a lead article (January 20, 2004) titled 'Make Kashmir a neutral space'. Of course, another writer in the same daily was a little more direct and openly asks the leading question "India has to realise that it cannot settle with the Valley Kashmiris on the basis of the situation that prevailed before 1990... Will India be willing to forgo or even dilute its sovereignty in the Valley?"
Note, that this is the editor of a newspaper that claims a daily distribution of six million or so. No follow-ups countering this point of view and no presentation of such mundane facts like â "what rewarding terrorism with territory, may do to our terrorist neighbourâs next-step ambitions" or "what would allowing Pakistan close to our river headwaters likely result in." | Discuss: How long will the Indo-Pak ceasefire last? |
Who cares about such mundane things about securing the water supply for hundreds of millions of Indians? Of course, it is quite possible that the editor fully understands that once such editorials are published in his newspaper, they'll automatically be picked up Pakistani and US newspapers as proof of an "Indian desire to settle Kashmir, even if it means loosening Indian sovereignty over it."
Sure, the editor of the rag in question has the freedom of press behind him. But, so do the editors of the other mainstream media houses. They were happy to lash out at Jaya's minions for their recent peccadilloes with the press as in this HT invective: "The Tamil Nadu Speaker's directive to arrest the publisher, editor, executive editor and senior journalists of The Hindu is a matter of concern as much for the public as it is for the press." Would they consider directing their corporate wrath, against some of their colleagues, who actively promote secession?
Another incident â another scenario â but, the same question. Here's what I'm talking about - a respected member of the Parliament, on a jaunt to Islamabad, took time out to laud the advances of the Pakistani economy. He writes "Shaukat Aziz... announces that the Pakistan economy in the current financial year, July 2002-June 2003, has recorded the fastest growth in South Asia. He does not say so but the sad fact is that they have overtaken India as we slide downwards and they slither up. Per capita income in the current fiscal year," he adds, "has risen by a double-digit figure..."; In the article, the author made three somewhat fraudulent claims:
1. Per capita income has gone up by a double digit figure
2. Pakistan recorded the fastest growth in S Asia.
3. "have overtaken India as we slide downwards and they slither up"
Fine, I'll agree that these are strictly not BIG lies, but subtle fudging of the truth, you know like:
* Indian per capita income has actually left Pakistani incomes behind and poverty in Pakistan has doubled, while in India it has almost halved in the past 15 years. An average Indian has gained 50 percent over their income in 1990, while the Pakistani's income has only grown only 13 percent in the same time.
* Pakistani growth without the $one billion of free oil from Saudi Arabia and about $one billion of grants and airbase rental from the US, would be about one percent, that is essentially a stagnant economy. India, on the other hand, is fuelling the rise of Asia, along with China.
* Even if he could not predict the 8.4 percent growth of the last quarter, the huge migration of jobs and companies to India over the past few years, is almost unparalleled, except in the case of China â no prizes for knowing this factoid.
The question - does this cross the line of journalistic ethics, according to you?
Surprisingly, some BJP types, who virulently oppose this same gentleman, find nothing wrong with the writer's fanciful writing, since "everyone knows he's a politician, so he has some freedom." OK, fine â I give up â so from now on, I'll handle articles by politician writers, the same way I treat Arundhati's scribbles â by, first calling a fact-checker! So, what is the solution to all this? First of all, the solution does NOT lie in getting the Government involved or even establishing new laws. That would surely defeat the purpose.
What, however, is necessary is to create a level of comfort in criticising other media organisations and personalities. This 'effective freedom' is a key part of why the Kilroy-Silk issue was handled well in the UK, while conversely, the Deccan Chronicle article was mishandled here. The prevailing mindset of "cannot criticise our colleagues in the media, yaar" needs a quiet and painless death. The change is happening in some circles, but has clearly left many a mainstream media house by.
Next, editors must recognise that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, too. For example, Bibhuti Bhushan Nandy reports in HT, that: "A recent article by Sharmila Bose (Ananda Bazaar Patrika, August 3) depicted Ram as an impotent wretch and Sita as a nymphomaniac." The question is, would the same publication feel comfortable publishing similar profanities about deities and prophets from other religions? Somehow, I do not think so! But, by publishing such nonsense, the publication forfeited any credibility that it had, in decrying the real fundoos. Nobody wants a battle on religious idiosyncrasies to be fought out on in newspaper articles and columns and editors should be the last people to start such wars. Here is a case where the editors and owners must step up to the internal policing required to maintain propriety.
A complete lack of balance on political issues has been a pet peeve of quite a few people. Tavleen Singh writing on the media fascination with Sonia states: "How much is Sonia Gandhi a real figure and how much a myth created by the media? This is a question that comes to my mind every time I see an interaction between her and Delhi's political journalists. The most recent one was last week when a gathering was arranged at the Parliament House annexe. It was clear that the country's most hardened hacks fell over themselves trying to get close to 'Madame' much as if she were a movie star. 'No questions, please, no questions, no questions, no television cameras,' her flustered flunkeys yelled but they need not have worried because when the questions did come they were so mild that any child could have answered them." | Discuss: Does Sonia Gandhi have leadership qualities? |
The ceaseless BJP bashing without any similar spotlight on the Congress and its leaders (except after the recent Assembly elections) has left the BJP hardened, and has allowed the Congress to continue living in la-la land. Who looses â the Indian democracy and the Indian voter, of course! In the end, theyâre left without an effective opposition party. It is here that effective oversight committees formed from within the media are critical to rectify this imbalance â once again, no governmental oversight, please.
For example, media watchdog groups in the US often track and highlight the number of positive/negative references made by the various network news channels, about a Presidential candidate. Similar groups in India could track the number of positive and negative references about the BJP and Congress in the run-up to the Lok Sabha polls; at least for the major media outlets.
In the end, I do recognise that, not every media house will draw the line, where I have drawn them and I do not expect them to, either. However, we all need to recognise that, just as freedom of expression and a free press, are the very legs that any true democracy stands on, the lack of propriety, unbalanced reporting and blatantly slanted facts can cut off these very legs, at the knees.