The media’s dubious role in Anna’s agitation

The confrontation between Anna Hazare and the government is becoming volatile. The government has been inept and clueless in dealing with a largely self-created crisis. There is no point in going into the history of the present face-off. However, Team Anna’s arrogance and rigidity is also responsible for the situation. Also, it is apparent that the role of media is quite dubious. It has not only vitiated the discourse but also the background against which the confrontation is played out. The incessant bashing of politicians has created a perception that politics is dirty and politicians corrupt and power hungry.

The situation has become more bizarre since a section of the society, which was largely apolitical by choice and had been disdainful of political process, started paying heed to Anna’s call. This section, the well-off middle class, happens to be the main consumer of the news disseminated by our media. So the media too got on the Hazare bandwagon to serve — as well as bolster — their clientele and Hazare received the collateral benefit of increase in number of supporters. The result was an uncritical, frenzied, unbalanced and emotionally-charged coverage that has continued to this date.

Team Anna was quick to seize the opportunity and used it to increase the pressure on the government .It was a win-win situation since the media got a boost in ratings and Hazare additional supporters. The face-off is now open-ended but the consequences, however, are unpredictable. Yet the media wants us to celebrate the arrival of another Gandhi as also the abject surrender by the government as a victory of the people who constitute but a small section of the total population. The attempt is to generate euphoria but the media has failed to pay attention to the embedded dangers of a destabilised polity and social turmoil willfully since it may itself turn out to be the cause of some of these dangers.

The main danger is from withholding information from viewers/readers. The feverish and laudatory coverage of Team Anna has no time or space for contrarian views or dissent. The media is glorifying what Team Anna stands for but their dismissal of democratic process and threats of fasts unto death have been overlooked. The shallow discussions in the studios do record a token presence of a dissenting voice but is drowned by anchors and Hazare supporters with their sanctimonious and righteous homilies based more on perception than facts.

The media has not informed the viewers about the constant denunciation of democracy and democratic process by Team Anna but has been denouncing the government`s action of arresting Hazare as denial of his Constitutional right to protest peacefully.

Team Anna wants to do away with representative democracy and replace it with people’s democracy, but how it will work has not been clarified nor has the media cared to ask. If it means association of civil society with legislative process, it is already there. The Right to Information Act took nine years to materialise. The contribution of civil society to this act is immense and quite praiseworthy. Similar is the case with NREGA, Tribal Rights Bill, etc. So why can’t Team Anna take its bill to the Standing Committee and canvass for the inclusion of their demands? Why must they dictate? Aruna Roy says the Standing Committee incorporated more than 150 changes in the Right to Information bill. Why must they suspect that the government and Parliament will not accept amendments to their bill? Yet the media sidetracks these aspects and viewers remain ill-informed.

The media singularly failed in its duty when it became a participant instead of an outsider who should have critically analysed and investigated the agenda behind Team Anna’s assertions. It never asked questions about what kind of organisational support they have, who is financing the campaign, what is common between Magasaysay Award winners and the sympathisers of the ultra-left causes, what is their vision for future if and when they achieve their objective and many more such issues. It is obvious from the way the campaign has been organised that an experienced hand or group is managing the show. Hazare, according to available reports, had not visited the Raj Ghat on earlier visits but on August 15, a drama was enacted for hours in a manner which must be the envy of renowned directors and event managers. The media never questioned as to who provided the manpower to organise the whole show. What about Kiran Bedi`s assertion that Anna is India and India is Anna? Does it bring to memory painful times gone by? Speculation is rife that many organisations are trying to take advantage of the campaign for their own agendas. Is Hazare being used as a shield?

The electronic media as a whole displayed disdain for any dissent but Times Now, Headlines Today and NewsX lost all sense of proportion. Their continuous coverage was nothing but blatant advocacy of Hazare`s cause. The inane rhetoric, lofty platitudes and hyper-nationalistic exhortations they indulged in might have carried credence only with the already committed. There was no dissenting voice, no contrarian point of view but only emotional pronouncements on the arrival of a saviour, a new icon.

Our Constitution ensures that majoritarianism does not prevail and the rights of minorities are protected. So what happens if another ‘civil society’ drums up enough support with the help of some recalcitrant channels and demands referendum for Mandirs in Agra, Varanasi and Ayodhya?