When Journalism Chooses Its Master, Truth Becomes the Casualty
When Journalism Chooses Its Master,
Truth Becomes the Casualty
Before Fox News came into existence in America, I do not
remember thinking seriously about deliberately partisan television news. Fox
changed that equation. It discovered a powerful business model: identify an
ideological audience, understand what it already believes, bring in
commentators who reinforce those beliefs, and package opinion alongside news.
Why risk losing viewers by constantly challenging what they believe when
reassuring them can be much better for ratings? In my opinion, what India later
came to call the “Godi media” learned this model remarkably well with the added
advantage of proximity to political power.
There is nothing inherently wrong with opinion journalism.
Every journalist, writer, and viewer carries some degree of bias. The important
distinction is between having an opinion and manufacturing a reality. If
journalists verify facts, present evidence, and then offer an opinion, people
can decide whether they agree. Journalism fails when claims from authorities
are repeated without verification, inconvenient evidence disappears, and
opinion is presented as fact. Somewhere along the way, questioning the
government became “bias,” while repeating what the government says apparently
became “responsible journalism.”
That is why I reject the argument that independent
journalists are biased simply because their reporting repeatedly makes the
government look bad. If they uncover corruption, institutional failures,
questionable contracts, abuse of authority, or contradictions between
government claims and available evidence, they are doing their job. Truth does
not become biased merely because it is inconvenient to those in power. The
government has ministers, spokespersons, advertising budgets, social-media
operations, and an enormous public-relations machinery to advertise its
achievements. It hardly needs independent journalists volunteering as
additional publicity officers.
This distinction becomes painfully obvious in some Indian
television debates. A moderator is supposed to conduct the debate, challenge
unsupported claims from both sides, and allow competing arguments to be heard.
Yet on some “Godi media” programs, one participant is repeatedly interrupted
while another is allowed to speak; uncomfortable questions suddenly change
direction; and sometimes the anchor personally begins debating the opposition
representative. At that point, perhaps the anchor should simply put on a party
scarf and remove any remaining confusion. When the referee starts scoring goals
for one team, we no longer have a fair match.
This is where the Fox News comparison becomes important. Fox
demonstrated how profitable ideological segmentation could be: give viewers
familiar heroes, villains, grievances, and commentators who interpret events
through a predictable political framework. In my view, sections of Indian
television adopted that formula very effectively. But there is an important
difference. When partisan journalism becomes closely aligned with the
government actually exercising state power, it risks becoming more than ideological
entertainment it can become a shield protecting authority from scrutiny.
Indian history provides a useful test. During the Emergency
of 1975–77, Indira Gandhi's government could point to projects, administrative
measures, price controls, and achievements it considered successful. None of
those erased censorship, coercion, forced sterilizations, arrests of political
opponents, restrictions on civil liberties, or authoritarian rule. Journalists
who concentrated on those abuses instead of praising government accomplishments
were not necessarily biased against Congress. They were doing their job. It was
the government's responsibility to advertise its achievements; it was
journalism's responsibility to expose what the government would rather people
did not see.
The same standard must apply to Narendra Modi and the BJP
today. A journalist exposing wrongdoing under Congress was not automatically
anti-India. A journalist investigating the BJP should not automatically become
anti-BJP, anti-Hindu, a “mental Naxalite,” or whatever imaginative label
happens to be fashionable that week. The test is much simpler: Is the story
true? Where is the evidence? Can it withstand scrutiny? If it can, attacking
the journalist instead of answering the evidence is merely a way of avoiding
the story.
There is therefore a major difference between editorial bias
and factual dishonesty. Every newsroom decides what deserves attention, and
that inevitably introduces judgment. But suppressing inconvenient facts,
repeating political claims without verification, shouting down one political
side, or allowing one side privileges denied to another crosses a different
line. Bias influences which stories receive attention. Propaganda determines
which reality the audience is allowed to see.
So when people defend the BJP and the Godi media by attacking
independent journalists as “biased,” they should think carefully about what
they are defending. Supporting the BJP is a democratic choice. Defending Modi
is a democratic choice. Disagreeing with journalists is a democratic choice.
But expecting journalists to protect a government from uncomfortable facts
completely misunderstands journalism.
Governments already have public-relations departments. They
do not need journalists applying for the job.
Before dismissing an independent journalist because the
reporting repeatedly makes a government look bad, ask one question: Was the
reporting false or was the truth simply uncomfortable?
Fox News demonstrated that there can be enormous money in
giving an ideological audience the news it wants to hear. In my opinion,
India's Godi media learned that lesson exceptionally well. The tragedy is that
a country can have hundreds of news channels, thousands of shouting debates,
and endless “breaking news” and still be left searching for journalism.
Comments
Post a Comment