The Increasing Polarisation of Indian Media
By: Lighthouse Magazine
Tags: Sociology, Media Criticism, Perspective, Bias, Polarization

By Nureen I. Shah

In today’s digital age, the media is widely considered as the 4th pillar of democracy. From the Gutenberg Printing Press to news alerts on our smart phones, the media’s journey from a source of amusement for the informed elite to an irreplaceable global phenomenon deserves not just one, but hundreds (if not thousands) of articles like this one, to describe in some detail. However, the focus of this article, as reflected in the title above, is narrowed down to the story of contemporary media in India. More specifically, on how the latter has become increasingly polarised in the past few years.

In India till 1991, there was only one television channel — Doordarshan, the public service broadcaster. The opening up of the Indian economy in early 1990s enabled the entry of private broadcasters in India. The number of television channels has proliferated manifold. By 2005, India had more than 200 digital channels. The number of television channels has grown from around 600 in 2010 to 1600 in 2016. This includes more than 400 news and current affairs channels(1).

Although privatisation has been a boon for the media industry in terms of its unparalleled growth and huge returns in the last three decades, it has also raised very important questions vis-a-vis the nature of media coverage in general. It is pertinent to understand that ever since news channels became private entities, anyone can own or invest in them. Politicians are no exception. From the word go, there have been accusations of bias and unfair reporting against one media house or the other. In case of some channels the bias may not be as apparent. However, there are many others (especially nowadays) who do not shy away from taking sides outright and act as propagators and supporters of policies, actions and statements of political parties on both ends of the spectrum.

On one hand we have channels like India New and News 24, which are deemed pro-Congress by a lot of commentators. Pertinently, the owner of the latter channel Anuradha Prasad is the wife of Congress Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Shukla.

On the other hand, we have a much more aggressive and jingoistic brand of journalism characterised and symbolised by channels like Zee News — whose owner Subhash Chandra was an active aspirant for the BJP ticket from Hisar in 2014 Haryana Assembly Election; Republic TV — initially owned and funded by ARG Outlier Asianet News, in turn owned by BJP MP Rajeev Chandrashekar; India TV — owned by Rajat Sharma, a former ABVP General Secretary; etc.(2)

This is the same brand of channels whose reporting of the many issues of critical national importance has been extremely polar and biased in all-out favor of the right wing.

Whether it be the issue of demonetisation, Goods and Services tax (GST), Indo-Pakistan relations, Article 370/Kashmir, the clashes with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), etc. On all these, and many other issues, these channels either blatantly supported the ruling dispensation or completely ignored them while substituting them with issues they deemed as most important. For example, the Sushant Singh Rajput case, where an all-out trial was launched by dozens of channels openly declaring that this was an open-and-shut case, and that Rhea Chakraborty was responsible for murdering SSR. It is a different story that the subsequent AIIMS report ruled out any possibility of foul play and confirmed it was a case of suicide .(3)

This three-month drama, however, helped in completely shifting the focus of our population from the crushing impact of the lockdown on our economy as well as the occupation of our territory and deaths of our soldiers at the hands of the Chinese PLA in Ladakh. On Kashmir, most of these media houses celebrated the fact that the constitutionally-guaranteed identity of 1.5 crore people was stripped away without their consent, and a draconian communications lockdown and censorship was imposed which continues to this day, albeit with some relaxations. While these media houses openly back the government and its policies, they have seldom taken the pains to ask the same government tough questions on any of those issues. Any panelist on TV debates on such channels who tries to express a view contrary to the popular majoritarian mood is trolled and shut down by the anchors themselves.

Anyone who expresses a dissenting opinion is termed as an anti-national.

This polarised approach of Indian media has brought it great disrepute internationally. Many international news channels have done programs on this subject openly criticising and mocking the falling standards and ethics of journalism in India.

It is therefore high time that the media oligarchy in India introspects as to how it has moved from being a source of information and knowledge for the people into a political tool to be used — and misused — at will.

References:

1. Rani, Dr. Padma (2013) Privatization, convergence and broadcast regulations: A Case study of the Indian Television Industry.

2. Malla, Vikram “The Politics of Media Houses” May 6, 2019https://medium.com/@vikrammalla/the-politics-of-indian-media-houses-by-ownership-82ecbe2dafab

3. “AIIMS Panel Rules Out Murder In SSR Death Case: Report” Outlook, Oct 3, 2020 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.outlookindia.com/website/amp/india-news-according-to-sources-aiims-panel-rules-out-murder-in-ssr-death-case/361402