August 29, 2011.
Much has been written about the media blitzkrieg in favour of Anna Hazare. And why not? The media has been the biggest weapon in Anna’s armoury. He hadn’t quite expected it to unleash itself in this manner. To give the devil its due, the media itself had not anticipated the agitation to grow into a movement. The media kept agitation before the public eye and the burgeoning numbers fed the coverage. It was a happy cycle.
The English media, however, was not much enamoured of Anna barring Times Now. The three most-watched English channels behaved differently. CNN-IBN gunned for Anna but in a veiled way (Rajdeep Sardesai would ask negative questions all too often, putting words in the mouths of his hapless panellist); NDTV (read: Barkha Dutt) would have been happier with more boo-boos by Kiran Bedi (Her ghunghat act was repeated ad nauseam on the channel for three days and every face popping up on the channel was asked to comment on it after being briefed about the sinister implications it held for Parliamentary pride).
Times Now, another personality-driven channel, was an exception. It was doggedly pro-Anna. Arnab Goswami gushed about him all day and resolutely rebuffed any criticism of the movement passing off as critique. This polarisation of the electronic media was not reflected in the print media. Most English newspapers steered clear of going for or against the movement though they were compelled to report it as much as possible, given the sheer numbers of people on the streets.
While keeping Ramlila alive for almost a fortnight, the media did end up exposing some chinks in its armour. For one, it failed in exposing and exploring a key element in the whole drama. Right through Anna’s arrest to the culmination of the fast, the media singularly refused to analyse the Congress’ role as a party and as the principal role-player in government.
Anna’s arrest, for instance, was an outrage in any democracy. It held the threat of the country’s subversion into a Pakistan-type of anarchic republic with the domination of the old rule of thumb. The media was suitably disgusted, for sure. But it studiously limited its role to reporting and criticism. It refused to travel the imperative distance from dispassionate observer to passionate vigilante. There were extensive and well-displayed reports on the horrific demonstration of government arrogance but the language was always controlled, decisively neutral. Edits conveyed that it was a violation of basic rights of a citizen but did not convey a sense of horror at this brazenness of the unprecedented act. If it was an act like the Emergency, the media did not rise to the occasion to respond like a Ramnath Goenka or a C R Irani.
Through the entire episode, few bad words were said for the government. Appeals front-paged by national newspapers took the placatory line, implicitly placing Anna and the government on the same footing as far as apportioning of blame was concerned. One would have preferred a clear stand taken by such newspapers that Anna was committing an outrage of democratic privileges of a citizen. But in the time-honoured tradition of staying politically correct, they would not fall foul of either party.
