Kejriwal's leaked video: How media biases cancel themselves out

The question of media credibility and freedom has emerged as a major theme in the run-up to the elections as all parties – from Congress to BJP to Aam Aadmi Party – have alleged unfavourable coverage as being the result of either ownership-induced biases or compromised journalism. “Paid news” is now the favourite whipping boy of almost all politicians. A few weeks ago, sting operations targeted at some opinion pollsters added fuel to the fire, as it seemed that some of the polling agencies were willing to doctor results up to a point. Since media channels are big consumers of such election surveys, the charge of bias against this party or that fits in well with the overall attack on “paid” media. And Kejriwal went to town accusing everyone and his aunt of complicity. “The channels such as Times Now, Headlines Today and India TV, which have used polls conducted by these agencies…should offer an explanation and make full disclosure to the public.” Not surprisingly, he also threw in a Modi angle: “The country wants to know how much BJP and Modiji have paid to each channel and opinion poll agency and for how long.” On 10 March the boot was on the other foot and Kejriwal found himself at the receiving end of criticism. Unedited clips of an off-the-record discussion between Kejriwal and a TV anchor showed him advising the latter on how his interview should be edited and played. The video seemed to suggest a favourable nexus between him and the journalist concerned. [caption id=“attachment_1430243” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The video of Kejriwal has raised questions about the media. Screengrab from Youtube[/caption] The larger question is this: given these allegations and also the reality that large parts of the media are owned by politicians, business houses and even vested interests, how can Indian journalism ever be credible? As I have noted before, the abuse that many senior journalists get on social media - including Firstpost - is often the result of readers/viewers being unable to believe that any story is the result of honest journalism. The answer lies in admitting to two shades of grey – and a paradox at the heart of it all: there is individual bias and compromise, and collective credibility. Example: it is well-known that Mukesh Ambani has funded the promoters of Network18, which publishes Firstpost and Firstbiz. So it is not unreasonable for the readership to presume that, at least at the perceptional level, we cannot be completely free of bias when it comes to reporting on Reliance or the Ambanis. However, the bias cuts the other way too. The perception bias ensures that nothing remotely favourable to the Ambanis or Reliance will ever be believed if published in our network. In fact, the network has to go out of its way to prove it is unbiased – and may still not be believed. It is clearly a no-win situation here. To find credibility, we thus have to look beyond the obvious biases. Credibility comes from individual and collective biases cancelling each other out rather than by pretending that absolute fairness and neutrality can exist in any medium. Even an individual blogger who has no funding from any source and anything he wants may be clouded by his own personal or ideological biases, overtly or covertly. Secondly, we also have to doubt the assumption that somehow media can be reasonably independent and credible and commercially viable at the same time. Good journalism costs money; a serious investigation into wrongdoing can swallow lakhs of rupees and months of painstaking effort to bring to fruition. And there may still be few readers to justify the cost. This can be paid for only by readers or advertisers. But how many readers are willing to pay Rs 15 daily for a Times of India? How many readers will read Firstpost if there is a monthly subscription? How many advertisers will be willing to pay you good money if, at some point, they are going to be targeted for their own wrongs? So let me repeat: Collectively media can be credible by neutralising each other’s biases, but individually we will have limitations on perfect credibility. This is why people may watch CNBC even though they know it is pro-business; they may watch Fox TV even though they know it has a Christian/Conservative bias; in fact, Fox TV exists primarily because a large chunk of the audience believes that mainstream American TV, dominated by the Left Liberal consensus, is ignoring their version of the truth. So let’s be clear. Biases emanate from multiple sources. The first bias is the personal one. If you like Arvind Kejriwal or Rahul Gandhi and I don’t, our journalism will reflect our respective biases. We may couch our writing with arguments this way or that, but underlying it all will be our personal biases. Personal bias (predilection would be my preferred word) cannot be eliminated, and often we would not be human if we don’t believe in anything or anyone. We have to live with it. The second source of bias is related to how journalism is funded. In India, there are many categories of funding sources. Here are some of them. #1: Big business with surplus cash. This is the main legitimate source of media funding. The Aditya Birla Group has a stake in TV Today, the Reliance group has funded the promoters of Network18 (publishers of Firstpost and Firstbiz) through a trust, and Kotak Mahindra has a stake in Business Standard, and so on. The inherent blind spot for these media houses is that they wouldn’t be seen as being objective about the activities of their financial backers. The problem here is not the source of funding alone but perception. #2: Politically funded newspapers. This is where the bulk of Indian journalism gets tainted, because political funding is always the result of backdoor funding - unless something is specifically designated as a party mouthpiece. Media writer Vanita Kohli-Khandekar says that “more than a third of news channels are owned by politicians or politico-affiliated builders. An estimated 60 percent of cable distribution systems are owned by local politicians.” These news organisations will have clear political biases, not to speak of business biases where the business interests of their political patrons are concerned. Most Indian politicians are also aligned to business interests. #3: Crooked money. Given the size of India’s black economy, there are not enough legitimate businesses which can use these hidden cash. Investing in media is one way to launder black money. Media investments are not only small (for crooks, that is), but also have the ability to yield big dividends in terms of political clout and respectability to owners. As Shekhar Gupta wrote in The Indian Express: “If you have a couple of news channels and newspapers, a few well known (and well connected) journalists as your employees, give them a fat pay cheque, a Merc, and they solve your problem of access and power. They also get you respect, as you get to speak to, and rub shoulders with top politicians, even intellectuals, at awards and events organised by your media group. It is the cheapest ticket to clout, protection and a competitive edge.” #4: Mainstream media houses helped by covert compromises, even blackmail. There are many legitimate media houses, both in English and in regional media, that do regular journalism unaligned to politics. But to make themselves viable, they use covert strong-arm tactics to earn revenues. The Zee-Jindal case is alleged to be one such example, but it is a well-known fact that many in the regional media play this game to stay afloat. Their message to advertisers: “If you don’t advertise, we may write nasty things about you.” #5: Formal alliances of media and business interests. In order to protect their commercial interests, some media groups such as _The Times of India_ have sections where news is paid for, and advertisers are given private treaties that more or less guarantee them some good publicity in return for advertising revenues. This model has now been taken up by many other media houses and is no longer unique to The Times of India. In any case, almost all publications create specific sections just for the advertiser and call them marketing supplements, or advertiser-sponsored supplements. #6: A ready source of rentals. Some media houses that obtained cheap land in the past from government are able to stay afloat by using rental incomes from property. The Indian Express lives partly of incomes from its real estate in Mumbai, and so does the Statesman. The Free Press Journal exists as a newspaper only to legitimise the real estate interests of its owners. The short-point is this: media is compromised in many ways, and credibility can only be a shade of grey. But the media as a whole is more credible than the sum of its parts. One medium’s biases are countered by the reverse biases of another. If you want neutrality, read multiple media. (Parts of this article were earlier published in Firstpost here).