Media Speculation not at Cost of Accountability
By Amba Charan Vashishth
The
media was agog with speculating that Nitin Patel will step into the shoes of
Mrs. Anandiben Gujarat chief minister who had resigned. The atmosphere in
Patel's residence turned festive and there were celebrations in anticipation of
the impending elevation. But, finally it came out to be Vijay Rupani and Patel
made his deputy.
Much
before the actual reshuffle of the council of ministers by Prime Minister
Narendra Modi took place on July 5, 2916 the media was agog with reports of
certain individuals being inducted, some ministers being promoted and some
others being dropped, a few for crossing the age-line of 75 or for poor performance.
These
media reports created a very anomalous situation and embarrassing moments for
everyone who figured in the news stories.
Those
who were projected as probables in the council of ministers or being promoted
started receiving a stream of well-wishers who made haste to be the first to
congratulate with sweets and bouquets. The former could not afford to be
discourteous to their visitors by refusing to accept the greetings in advance.
The
most embarrassing had been the fate of those projected to be dropped. Their
friends and relatives who used to visit them as a matter of routine started
avoiding them during those days. They knew their friends would not be in a state
of mind to receive them with a smile. The individual ministers too found it awkward
to visit their constituencies, to attend public programmes fixed much earlier
and even to step out of their bungalows for fear of facing the too caring
friends, well-wishers and even media. In a way, these poor fellows were, per
force, confined to their residences listening and following the reports on news
channels and print media.
When
the actual expansion occurred, hardly one percent of the predictions came out
to be true. What was the result? Unnecessary worry and harassment of the
persons figuring in the news. It would be no exaggeration to say that some
persons had to spend sleepless nights with bouts of anxiety.
Afterwards,
the media started interpreting the change of portfolios in their own way. It is
the prerogative of a prime minister/chief minister to select or change his
team. But the reasons that are imputed to change or not selecting some persons
the media speculated are not always true. If a person's portfolio is changed,
the reason can be non-performance, but not always. Why should PM/CM retain a
person in his council of ministers who has failed to come to the expectations
of his boss, both in government and ruling party? Can it not be that a PM/CM
changes a portfolio to give the individual greater exposure and chance also to
perform in his new charge? But the media is not condescending to strike at this
positive side.
Hair-splitting
has become the bane of today's journalism and negativism rules the roost. These
days there are hardly news reports; these are news stories opinionated. Though
best effort is made to make it appear fair and objective, yet slip of
partiality of the reporter could not be hidden despite best efforts. And there
can be no stories lacking the thrill of surprise and imagery. That is why they
need not be true, always.
Journalism
has, mainly, five objectives to perform: see, hear, observe, analyse and
report. A reporter cannot tinge his/her writing with his opinion. If he does, the
report loses its sense of fairness, impartiality and objectivity. But that is the malady with which the present
day media seems to be suffering. In fact, a majority of news reports these days
have a mixture of facts and events interspersed with comments which fail to
hide which side he/she stands. into being. But that too needed to keep one's proclivities
and feelings at bay. The journalist's role then was to confine oneself to the
facts that one discovers and reporting as a matter of fact. There was no room
for subjectivity in such a report. The nobler characteristics of impartiality
and objectivity got eclipsed.
Of
late, another phenomenon of reporting based on assumptions has raised its head,
more so in the electronic media engaged in a cut-throat competition to be the
first to assumee and to, later, claim that this is what it had predicted much
earlier. If the prophesies turn untrue, as mostly do those of astrologers and
meteorologists, mum is the word without the least trace of repentance.
The
media is the fourth pillar of democracy. Media is in the forefront to expect the
three pillars of democracy — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary —
to be accountable. But why should the fourth pillar, media, not be so?
The
writer is a Delhi-based political analyst.
