I have just returned from a trip to Gujarat, where amid much criticism of the media, particularly 24-hour news channels, I was asked, repeatedly and with perfect innocence, what my political affiliation was. My response that I had none was treated with a certain degree of scepticism as was my claim that as a journalist I was free to write as I pleased. There are many reasons why I should not have been surprised. A part of the state’s press has a far from sterling reputation with allegations ranging from blackmail, playing partisan politics to whipping up sentiments at times of disturbances, all with the profit motive firmly in sight. Couple this impression with Narendra Modi’s strident condemnation of the English media during his election campaign and I can well imagine how hard it might have been for my interviewees to take my response seriously. The problem, however, is that this is a perception one encounters increasingly these days, not just in one state, but all over the place.Allegations of partisanship or corruption by themselves are, of course, not new. Fending scoffing references to bribes and planted stories is a professional hazard one has long lived with. But now it seems to get harder and harder to defend the media from the sort of blanket criticism it is subjected to these days mainly for two reasons. One is, changing circumstances in the media itself. Though, by and large, the media continues to be a vital institution, some of the rhetoric that surrounds it is far from healthy.The notion that the media is a business like any other, for instance, may still be one that only a few openly subscribe to, yet its effects are clear in the sort of trivialisation and excess that has afflicted the media in general. And indications are that the trend is likely to grow with profit being defined more and more as the sole benchmark of success.Carry this idea to its logical conclusion and it would be difficult to justify any of the privileges that working journalists take for granted, privileges that accrue because of the media’s perceived public role. If news is seen as just another business — then the question could be raised as to why, for instance, should journalists get special and free access to public events? Or be granted safe passage at times of riots and public disturbances? If news is seen as just another business — why should public officials or people of prominence give the media time or grant interviews for free? In fact, a situation would be reached when the only people available to the media would be people with a vested interest.Many believe that this situation already exists. Which brings me to my second point that has to do with a wider social phenomenon, namely, the rapidly vanishing acknowledgement of, let alone respect for, objectivity. This is, to some extent, a worldwide trend and one that George Bush succinctly gave voice to when he divided up the globe into countries that were with America and those that were against it. In India, the BJP has done the same with its rhetoric of right versus left, Hindutvawadis versus ‘secularists’ and so on. Inaccurate as these divisions are (in the manner in which they wipe out all ambiguity and certainly distort, if nothing else, the unruliness of the Indian mindscape) they reflect a growing tendency to perceive every action as a result of an allegiance to a camp or a selfish interest.If you express a certain opinion it is indicative of a political inclination — that is, you hope to gain politically from supporting that view. If you act a certain way it must be because it is in your financial interest to do so. If you criticise some person or a work it is because you have an animus against that person. If you express a positive opinion it is because you have been paid to do so. This is a narrow, selfish interpretation that leaves no space at all for the possibility of an impartial assessment based on, among other things, a humanitarian impulse, an appreciation of truth, quality or clarity, professionalism, duty or a belief in community.One can blame falling standards all around to some extent for the growth of this sort of cynicism but it is evidence also of a narrowing of minds and imaginative capabilities that could have seen beyond personal gain. It is the kind of attitude that could destroy democratic institutions such as the press and judiciary that rest, however imperfectly, on the concept of impartiality. It is also an attitude that fosters petty competitiveness, encourages people to break the law where there is no personal gain to be had. In short, it is a recipe for anarchy.
