Of journalism, hatemongers, and press freedom

Post-2014, a section of the media lost its journalistic fervour. It became the voice for all kinds of obscurantism, fanaticism, and parochialism.

Many of them were once good journalists who have since been labelled 'hatemongers’, and now feature in a recent list put out by I.N.D.I.A, where the Opposition alliance has decided to not appear on their TV shows and debates. Of the 14 in the list, I have associated with many as a journalist, and later as a panellist on their shows and debates.

The change of regime at the Centre in 2014 turned many of these journalists into different people. Initially, I used to argue with some of them, asking why they were doing what they were doing; but soon realised that my efforts were futile. What triggered such a dramatic fall? 

In the early 1990s, when I joined the profession, it was not fashionable to be a journalist. Doordarshan was the only source of TV news. Soon, as India opened its market to the outside world, it also opened the airwaves for private players, which led to private TV channels. In its initial days, private news TV channels had a messianic zeal; news freed itself from government control, it no longer was the spokesperson of the government where the Opposition had no space. In a short while Doordarshan news became obsolete.

The rise and fall

Private TV channels revolutionised the news genre, attracted new viewers, and the space for news consumers grew exponentially. However, in the race to the top, the focus shifted from unbiased news to generating TRP (to maximise viewership which in turn brought in revenue), and the decline had started. Dumbing down content to gain eyeballs became the norm. TV news channels were criticised, but they had still not degraded themselves to being the lapdog of the government. Sanity was still the driving force, and communalism was a big no. News was still valued and the governments were looked at with suspicion.

Before 2014, there was no rush among journalists to take selfies with the Prime Minister or Cabinet ministers. It was not a badge of honour to be ‘followed’ by them on social media. Those who were seen aligning with power centres were referred to with disdain as ‘dalals’ (middlemen). Those who held the government and others in power accountable to the people of this nation were celebrated journalists.

This was also the time when TV anchors and reporters were no longer seen as poorly paid journalists who struggled to make ends meet. TV journalists became celebrities, and the darling of millions. They drove big cars, wore iconic brands, and travelled in business class. Soon they became powerful, and could make or break the careers of politicians and powerful people.

A caged parrot

The dramatic exit of the Manmohan Singh government in 2014 was a testimony to the might of the new beast. This beast was getting out of hand, and it was no accident in history that this beast found itself in chains after 2014. It no longer was a free bird, rather, it preferred to be a caged parrot singing peons of the government.

Instead of recognising its historical role in a vibrant democracy, this section of the media (especially TV news channels) played a part in the creation of an authoritarian society; instead of asking tough questions to the Prime Minister and the government, this section of the media started targeting the Opposition. The editorial line they commonly adopted was to discredit the Opposition.

The tables had turned, and how! This section lost its journalistic fervour. It became the voice for all kinds of obscurantism, fanaticism, and parochialism. It is not clear why this switch took place, but it was clear that the guardians of democracy overnight became a threat to the same cause. Secularism, pluralism, and diversity became their enemies, and communalism and majoritarianism their new creed. Targeting and demonising Muslims became their normative goal; bitterness and hate-mongering their raison d'etre.

Press freedom for journalists, not…

It pains to see this downfall. The rot which has engulfed the TV media, has done irreparable damage to society — and it will take decades to undo this damage. The list produced by I.N.D.I.A is just the tip of the iceberg — though many more should be included in this list and some names could not have been added.

Since the list has come out, many have lamented it is an assault on the freedom of the press, and have even compared it to the imposition of Emergency in 1975. How can a political formation cherry-pick its media interactions, they ask. If this is left unquestioned it will embolden more in the future and such fiats will seal the fate of press freedom in India, and as a consequence affect the quality of democracy as well.

Press freedom is non-negotiable and no government or political party should dictate terms to the media, or regulate it — but, should the same privilege be extended to those who sit in TV studios and spew venom day in and day out? Press freedom is for journalists, not for those who divide society. On September 21, 2022, the Supreme Court asked why were TV news anchors, if they became a part of the problem of propagating hate speech, not taken off the air? The court wondered why the government was a “mute spectator”. On January 14, the Supreme Court observed that “if action is taken against the news anchor or their management, all will fall in line.” 

Communal poison

In the name of press freedom, should such hate-mongering TV news anchors be permitted to divide society on religious lines, demonise a particular faith, create riot-like situations, and even lead to the killing of people? Can such news anchors call themselves journalists? Without a doubt, no! 

At a time when advocacy for free speech absolutism is in vogue, it might be good to pause and reflect on a letter India’s first home minister Sardar Patel wrote to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief M S Golwalkar on September 11, 1948, saying why he banned the RSS: “….their opposition to the Congress, that too of such a virulence, disregarding all consideration of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison and enthuse the Hindus and organise for their protection. As final result of poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the valuable life of Gandhiji.”

We cannot allow communal poison to spread again and result in further human suffering.

Ashutosh is Editor, Satyahindi, and author of Hindu Rashtra.

(The views expressed here are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)