The INDIA bloc recently announced that it would boycott 14 television news anchors as it did not did not want to legitimise a “hate-filled narrative.” It said that no representatives from the parties of the alliance will appear on the shows helmed by these anchors. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said that the move showed an “Emergency-era mindset,” while news broadcasters associations accused the Opposition of intolerance, undermining democracy, and setting a dangerous precedent. Is the Opposition’s stand justified? Barkha Dutt and Abhinandan Sekhri discuss the question in a conversation moderated by Priscilla Jebaraj. Edited excerpts:
What is the purpose of this boycott and do you think that the boycott will fulfil that purpose? What precedent does this set?
Barkha Dutt: First, it is important to know that boycotts have always existed. There have been de facto boycotts; this is a de jure boycott. What do we mean by a boycott? We mean that an individual, a group of individuals, an entity, or a political party will not talk to another journalist or an organisation that the journalist represents. In different phases, I have been boycotted by different politicians of both sides of the ideological divide. This is just the context. Now, in terms of this particular list of anchors... It is important to separate those accused of hate-mongering from those accused of bias. The media is, for a large part, also polarised into this or that camp, so this bunching together of hate and bias is confused and confusing.
Also read | Not boycotting anchors but can’t be part of their hate agenda: Congress
Second, the Opposition says it is taking on hate, and it has named these 14 anchors. But it has not named their editors or promoters. If you’re really serious about contending hate, what are you actually achieving by going after an anchor whose ‘pro-hate policy’ would not exist if his or her editor or promoter didn’t allow it?
Last, in general I’m not a fan of cancel culture. I think TV news is pretty dismal in our country. There is a lot of hate on our prime time that needs to be called out. But I’m not sure whether this is the best way of doing so.
Abhinandan Sekhri: As Barkha said, boycotts have always existed; should they be public or not is the question. I don’t think there is anything wrong with issuing this list. Why do politicians appear on shows? It is to propagate their ideology, it is their marketing strategy... If they are not achieving that, why would they go on that show? Politicians should have stopped going on these shows a long time ago. Is there any point at which politicians of any ideology should stop going on a show? Or should they never stop going, no matter what happens, even if there is a call for genocide? I’m sure for most of your listeners, there is a cut-off point. Now, the question is, are we there yet?
There are not many avenues for the media to be held accountable. In an imperfect world, the media can’t say ‘we should be treated perfectly.’ The media ecosystem isn’t dented or slightly compromised; it is broken. I have no sympathy for any media professional who wants to be treated with kid gloves.
There has been a lot of talk about an Emergency-era mindset. Is that fair?
Barkha Dutt: First, I just want to say that I don’t feel sympathy for anybody on this purported list. [It is wrong] to suggest that the fact that I have some scepticism about the purpose of this list translates into, ‘I feel bad for these people.’ I don’t. I agree that the media model and purpose, at least in broadcast media, is broken.
I also feel that this phrase about an ‘Emergency-era’ is used by everybody today, whenever it suits them. What we should really be talking about is the absence of a media culture. We have not been able to deepen or grow roots for a media that will institutionally guarantee you your right of access to public figures. There is a kind of lazy judgmentalism with this phrase ‘access journalism’. And sure, if you mean that journalists and politicians are too close to be able to talk about each other objectively, that’s bad. But I am talking about the right to access my sources. As a reporter, I need to be able to talk to people, to go to places, to talk to officials in the government. When you do not have an institutional culture that guarantees you that access, you cannot report sitting in your studio. What we really need to talk about is the absence of that culture. The fact that today, the BJP doesn’t talk to who it doesn’t like, the Congress doesn’t talk to who it doesn’t like... that’s what we should be questioning. How have we reached that point? And why is it so okay, with large sections of the media boasting about their access to one camp or the other?
And why are we not calling out the elephant in the room — the promoters and editors of these networks? If we believe that these are hate-mongering anchors, they exist because their promoter and editor has allowed them to exist. But nobody wants to have that conversation. Because the truth is that politicians do not want to lose their television time beyond a point.
The response to this action indicates a wider distrust of sections of the news media, especially television news. How did we get to this point of loss of trust and credibility?
Abhinandan Sekhri: That is a very long story. For one, it is a worldwide phenomenon. For example, [former U.S. President Donald] Trump is not even going to participate in the presidential primary debates because he feels that he will not benefit as much as his competitors will benefit from appearing on the same stage as him. So, I think politicians have realised that when they can incorporate or actually get a certain media ecosystem into their campaign team, they will not speak to anybody else. So, in such an environment, it is but natural…
There are certain problems that don’t have immediate solutions. Solutions will evolve as the ecosystem evolves, as citizens become more aware and their expectations from their politicians and the media changes. Most importantly, I think the change has to come from those who are most impacted by it, which is news professionals. And like Barkha said, the buck must stop with owners and editors. We cannot expect politicians or political parties or governments to stand up for the principles when we ourselves do not want to be held accountable. In the U.S., for example, the First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech, is dear to them, whether it is a citizen or whether it is a journalist. That extends to the larger ecosystem of sponsorships. For example, when Breitbart News crossed the line on anti-Semitism, it lost some 22 sponsors overnight. Tucker Carlson’s show was off. [In India], that expectation is not there — from citizens or viewers or indeed from us news professionals — even when there is outright hate being spewed on TV. The solution is not a one line or two line or a white paper. It will evolve as the expectations of our citizenry and of our news consumers evolve.
Do you think there are any specific steps to be taken to rebuild credibility in journalism, especially television news?
Barkha Dutt: I think a lot of the lack of quality is about the lack of boots-on-the-ground reporting. A lot of this could be changed if there were alternative revenue models to do content. Some of us in the digital space are making that attempt, where we have to adjust to the idea that we don’t have to be mammoth to be impactful. We need to resolve this question: how do we make news and the news media self-sustaining in the long run, where news can pay for itself?
No matter where you go, people will crib non-stop about the media in general and television media in particular. Then I turn around and say, but do you watch it? And they say, oh, sometimes on mute, sometimes for entertainment. We say these [channels] are all TRP chasers, but you are the TRP. So, we need to get enough viewers to care about the fact that if revenue models are broken, and the only way you can run a big newsroom is with corporate or political money, you are not going to get high-quality journalism. One of the reasons we are here is the broken revenue models. I do believe that there are still very brave, gutsy individuals in the Indian media. But they don’t have platforms.
Abhinandan Sekhri: We have to fix the news ecosystem within us news professionals first. Once we have decided this is what journalism is, and this is why journalism is important in a democracy, then we can go on to the viewers. Right now, we aren’t there, but I do think there is a critical mass of people, like Barkha said, individuals who want journalism to survive, who hold those values dear, who can challenge the owners.
Barkha Dutt is the founder-editor of Mojo Story, a multi-media digital platform; Abhinandan Sekhri is the cofounder and CEO of Newslaundry, a media critique, news and current affairs website
