Only Way Messenger Won't be Shot is if the Message Delivered is Truthful By Prabhu Chawla Published: 16th March 2014

02:00 AM Last Updated: 16th March 20 14 07:21 AM The message is increasingly becoming irrelevant. Now messengers are targets. Pol itical parties will welcome any herald as long as the words brought are the ones that cheer. The political narrative of the General Elections has become a saga of ugly confrontation. Now leaders not only insist on choosing the messenger, th ey also dictate the message. Arvind Kejriwal, the progenitor of a novel politics of change, has set a precedent by announcing his intention to send all renitent media to jail. His anger may have been well placed. After all he is new to poli tics and has also been a media darling, unused to improbation. Most of us saw li ttle wrong in his style or substance because he was fighting to engender a clean and transparent establishment. The press gave him maximum exposure before and a fter he joined politics. He and his party were cynosures of the media s adoring ey es. Once Kejriwal stepped into active politics, each and every move came under t he media s unforgiving lens. As much as his questioning of pedestal pendragons wer e given prominence, queries raised about his party also got equal billing. The s ame yardsticks applied to probing his adversaries were used on his effervescentl y successful political outfit too. But the gap between conduct of crusader Kejriwal and the rest of the political c lass seems be diminishing fast. As leaders acquire clout, acceptability and legi timacy, they start behaving like monarchs. They forget arrogance brings agony. O nce Kejriwal became part of the system, his party adopted the same tactics as ma inline parties of intimidating critics. His mission may be diametrically differe nt, but his methods are the same as of his opponents. He perhaps believes that i f other political outfits can dictate terms to the media, why can t he with a clea n track record. The media is now confronted with a situation in which the establ ishment has forged a coalition to defame, deter and decide its survival. With the enormous growth of the media forcing it to adopt the perilous path of c ompetitive journalism, parties have acquired the monopoly in deciding content of not only the electronic media but also of print. They now decide which anchor o r club of reporters should be obliged. They also dictate kind of analysts to be invited for discussions. Should any channel exhibit defiance, they would spread the word that it should be boycotted. Moreover, parties have made it almost impo ssible for journalists to cover events unless the content provided by them is us ed without raising questions a trend started by BJP s PM candidate whose team unders tood the economic weakness of the Indian media. The BJP was the first to provide controlled feeds of rallies addressed by Modi to be telecast live for hours. Fo r months, viewers were not informed that the live footage was in reality provided by the party. When Rahul Gandhi learnt about the practice, a copycat Congress hi red dedicated camera teams and asked the channels to carry footage the party pro vided. Even a regional leader like Mulayam Singh Yadav could persuade the electr onic media to broadcast his rallies live using a captive system. But Kejriwal s me etings received coverage without a penny being spent. Thus, by laying out their terms, political parties escaped the usual media scrutiny on their functioning. Earlier, interviews of those who were herded to the rallies would be carried; em pty spaces in the audience shown; and the focus would be on the hidden aspects o f choreographed election events. Now the spotlight is only on the leader s speech followed by a debate by a panel that includes collaborative columnists. Kejriwal perhaps has a point when he alleges that the media has become uncharitable to h im because he is questioning the role of tycoons in the elections and the influe nce of big business on media coverage. For decades, the Indian media has been qu ite charitable towards India Inc. Barring a few exceptions, the media has abjure d following corporate shenanigans and malpractices, in contrast to the vigour it brings to any dissection of the political system. But Kejriwal and supporters f eel journalists have been partial towards select leaders; at the same time runni ng a campaign against political parties.

Most newspapers and channels treat some leaders as sacrosanct compared to others even in the same party, and have unknowingly carried stories fed by them withou t questioning their intentions. According to media researchers, three individual s Narendra Modi, Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi have been given over 60 per cent p rime time coverage by channels and over 50 per cent space meant for political ne ws in the print media. According to a TV analyst, for the past seven months, Mod i directly or indirectly has grabbed over 600 hours of TV space, against over 45 0 hours by Kejriwal and less than 300 hours by Rahul. Interestingly, the media h as given extensive coverage to AAP s second-rung leaders and a few BJP satraps whi le ignoring stalwarts like Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj and Nitin Gadkari. In s pite of getting such extensive publicity, none of them have spared the media. If Kejriwal has now chosen it as his latest target, the media must also share the blame. The Indian media has survived many sinister attacks on its independence. It will overcome many more if it places less emphasis on bytes, speeches, select ive opinion, collusive debates and promoting class leaders at the cost of grassr oots leaders. The messenger, too, would then survive the might of any political nemesis if the message delivered is truthful, irrespective of colours and contou rs. prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com