DEALING WITH DISCREDITED FORCES - ROLE OF MEDIA

The lifeline for sustenance and growth of any terrorist or violent movement anywhere in the world is publicity. It is the most precious oxygen on which these outfits that do not believe in democracy and rule of law survive. They use media as a perfect tool to promote their cause which, in any way, does not contribute to peace and social harmony. What comes out of their so-called struggle, whatever veneer they may apply to it, is nothing but anarchy and chaos in society.

Should the media oblige such organisations? It is difficult to give a categorical reply “yes” or “no” to this question. It is debatable and it all depends on which side of the political spectrum you are perched. Conventional use of tags for those on the left is that they are “liberal” and those on the right are “conservatives”. This is no longer so in China. Those who are opposed to communism are “liberals” and those who stand by communist ideology are “conservatives”.

Be that as it may,there were two instances in the recent past where the media, wittingly or unwittingly, played into the hands of the political and left extremist elements which are not only discredited but lost public support. Media has only helped them in their efforts for revival.

First, let us take the case of Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief K Chandrasekara Rao. 2009 general elections have exposed his hypocrisy and the elections only helped him grow richer by crores. He is the most discredited and cantankerous politician today known for his thoroughly inconsistent stands and language that does not befit a civilized politician. Of late, he has been talking of militant movement and civil war for Telangana statehood. He knows that people of Telangana no longer trust him. He wants to be in the news and so he talks of civil war. But neither the people nor the state administration takes his talk seriously.

But his only lifeline for survival is the media. When he organised a rally in Siddipet, in a desperate attempt to regroup his truncated party, almost every Telugu news channel (there are 12 in the state) telecast his rally live including the one owned by late Dr YS Rajasekara Reddy’s son. This is the rally in which he reiterated his “resolve” to launch a civil war.

Well, there can be no legal bar on the channels to report the rally in whatever manner the electronic media wanted. But, is there something like professional judgement and discretion in going “live” for the (mis)adventures of a politician? This is where unhealthy competition in the electronic media makes them shed all sense of professional propriety. There is a sheepish mindset. If one channel does “live”, everybody else has to follow suit; otherwise the competing channel may pip the post in the TRP race.

There can be no restriction in reporting the event especially when KCR threatens “ civil war” and people should have enough inputs to judge his credentials. But covering the entire rally “live” is to give an importance that he or his party does not deserve. This is where the editorial judgement should have come to play rather than senseless competition.

Politicians like Ambika Soni are making politically correct statements that the government would not constitute a regulatory body on its own and it should be left to the media establishments to come out with their own regulatory body and a self code. In the competitive atmosphere that we witness not only in Andhra Pradesh, but in the entire country today, will the media barons come out with such a self-regulatory body, and even if they come out with one, will it serve any purpose?
The second instance where media did not come out with flying colours was the one revolving around the West Bengal cop abducted by Maoists. The media space/airtime that Maoist leader Kishenji aka Koteswara Rao got on the national channels in every bulletin was amazing. He was giving exclusive interviews, phone-ins which were getting updated and bytes “behind” the camera. Besides, he also addressed a press conference with a hood covering his head and gun totting over his shoulders. It would have been a “romantic” interlude for the young journos to interview one of the dreaded left extremists rather than interacting with run-of-the-mill politicians who give a boring copy and sedate headlines.

To digress, hitherto, a journalist had to trek several miles blind-folded in thick forest to have an interview with a naxal leader. Now, the Maoists are holding press conferences within ear-shot distance of the Police station.It only reminds us of Nepal Maoist leader Prachanda’s interaction with the media.

But the point here is that Kishenji used media as a tool (not that the Maoists have any love lost for the bourgeois media) to blackmail the establishment. According to the West Bengal government, “the police had nearly cornered the top Maoist leader, but he very shrewdly used the media to blackmail the government threatening that the officer’s life would be in danger if the offensive was not halted immediately”
It is possible that the W Bengal government did not have the nerve to corner the Maoist and developed cold feet. But was it right on the part of the media to have allowed itself to be used for blackmail?

As the Prime Minister had stated time and again, Maoists are the single most internal security threat and the Home Minister has declared “war” on Maoists. Maoists don’t believe in democracy nor in peace talks. They believe in armed rebellion and are not prepared to give up arms under any circumstances. They would like to over throw Costitutionally elected governments. When the state declares “war” against them, what should be the role of media? Should it do something, whatever the professional obligations, that will only publicise and further the cause of Maoists who pose a grave threat to the very concept of nation-state?

There is a school of thought that believes in the jargon “Publish and be damned”. Media cannot be expected to analyse the intentions of those in the news and then report. During the Balkan war, when British media did not toe the official line, it was said that media had no territorial loyalties and truth is the only overriding factor to guide the media. Otherwise, we would not have had “Watergate”.

While it is a case of professional discretion in the case of KCR, it is undoubtedly a dilemma when it comes to Maoists. At least, the latter deserves a debate.