A command economy of opinion
The media industry worries little about the Indian government now. Its concern is rather about
revenues, which are still tiny in relation to the size of its audience.
Written by Arvind Rajagopal | May 15, 2014 8:28 am
INDIAN EXPRESS
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/a-command-economy-of-opinion/99/
2 Comments
The major private media outlets are owned by large business houses that can navigate any set of rules
with their ability to buy talent, technology and political favours. ( Source: Reuters)
The demand for an independent media in India was initially seen as a way to curtail state control over
the airwaves: since state control was taken as fait accompli, the demand for autonomy was a way to
limit the impact of the ruling party’s grip over broadcast media.
After 1995, when a Supreme Court ruling deprived Prasar Bharati of its monopoly, which satellite
channels had already begun to undermine, the government suddenly became one player among many.
From declaring the media was irrelevant, irresponsible, or both, as Indira Gandhi used to do, political
leaders became vulnerable to negative media coverage.
Today, more than government media, it is the “autonomous” or commercial media that presents a
threat to public interest. The commercial media exerts de facto monopoly over the airwaves, while
Prasar Bharati is almost a voice in the wilderness — except, ironically, when it interviews Narendra
Modi.
Indeed, Prasar Bharati is considered so unimportant that the television ratings agency, TAM, has
ignored it, until forced by a recent court order to include it. The election media coverage study released
recently by CMS Media Lab does not even mention Prasar Bharati in its study, and few seem to have
noticed Prasar Bharati’s viewership is nowhere near its pre-1995 levels. Meanwhile, advertisers have
focused on the more affluent urban audiences who watch cable and satellite, not the free-to-air
government channels, which are watched mainly by those who cannot afford private channels.
Given that they inform, and even embody, the public interest, all media houses and sectors should be
held to the same, high standards of accountability. The very criteria used to evaluate Prasar Bharti’s
professional autonomy should therefore apply to privately owned media.
In fact, since 1995, debates about the Indian media have been about the growing power of private
media, and the government-business nexus central to it. The “paid news” phenomenon has taken media
manipulation to extraordinary levels, since viewers today have no way of knowing which news stories
are genuine, and which ones are disguised advertisements. Political parties spend huge amounts on
their election campaigns, their money is from sources they refuse to declare, and the media is the
biggest beneficiary.
The expansion of the economy has thus completely changed the question of media regulation.
Previously, businesses had to fear the government, and media regulation served mainly to protect
government power. Today, the balance has shifted.
The major private media outlets are owned by large business houses that can navigate any set of rules
with their ability to buy talent, technology and political favours. Large volumes of persuasive media
coverage can be generated to convey the impression of public support for any suitable programme
chosen for promotion. Questions of fairness or unfairness of media treatment are outweighed by the
volume of coverage, audience size, and revenue earned.
The media industry worries little about the Indian government now. Its concern is rather about
revenues, which are still tiny in relation to the size of their audience, and finding creative ways to bring
in less affluent audiences into a market that has historically been heavily tilted towards its premium
segment.
One way it has done so, whether by accident or by design, is through the encouragement of civil
disobedience and popular protest focused on select social issues. Historically, major media houses have
dismissed or trivialised protest, and tacitly endorsed the status quo, but there has been a 180 degree
switch lately. Both the news and the entertainment media have embraced popular dissent, diffusely
defined and safely practised. From the anti-corruption campaign led by Anna Hazare, to the mass
outrage against the December 2012 gang rape of “Nirbhaya”, enthusiastic media industry support has
been critical to the sense that Indian democracy is alive and well.
The sympathy for popular protest is a legacy of nationalist politics, and India has a history of insurgent
movements. But for the news and entertainment industry, social issues provide an avenue for growing
audiences, and bringing them into intimate relationships with the media. Media industry reports list the
Anna Hazare campaign and the protest against the December 16 gangrape as their achievements, and as
signs of the increasing reach and influence of the media.
to help us personalise your reading experience.
In this conception, today’s protestor is tomorrow’s consumer, while media self-regulation is a triumph
of Indian democracy. Only government is the problem, and needs to be rectified. Indeed, it needs to be
regulated, and business can offer suggestions as to how.
The command economy of the licence-permit raj is no more, but corporations seek a command
economy of opinion in its place. Before we embark on a discussion of how genuine autonomy can be
achieved for Prasar Bharati, we should notice the new alignment between government and business
that has taken place, and demand a genuinely public media that is autonomous with respect to both
these entities.
The writer is professor of media studies at New York University
[email protected]