Media Ethics in Times of Demonetization: Framing Debates in English News Channels

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of

Master of Philosophy in Media Studies

by Darshana Choudhury (Reg. No. 1730012)

Under the Supervision of Naresh Rao H Associate Professor

Department of Media Studies

CHRIST (Deemed to be University) BANGALORE,

April 2019

Approval of Dissertation

Dissertation entitled Media Ethics in Times of Demonetization: Framing Debates in English News

Channels by Darshana Choudhury, Reg. No. 1730012 is approved for the award of the degree of Master of Philosophy in Media Studies

Supervisor: ______

Chairman: ______

General Research Coordinator: ______

Date: ……………………..

Place: Bengaluru (Seal)

ii

DECLARATION

I, Darshana Choudhury hereby declare that the dissertation, titled ‘Media Ethics in Times of Demonetization: Framing Debates in English News Channels’ is a record of original research work undertaken by me for the award of the degree of Master of Philosophy in Media Studies. I have completed this study under the supervision of Dr. Naresh Rao H, Department of Media Studies.

I also declare that this dissertation has not been submitted for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or other title. I hereby confirm the originality of the work and that there is no plagiarism in any part of the dissertation.

Place: Bengaluru Date:

Reg No. Department of Media Studies CHRIST (Deemed to be University) Bengaluru

iii

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the dissertation submitted by Darshana Choudhury (Reg. No. 1730012) titled ‘Media ethics in times of demonetization: Framing debates in English news channels’ is a record of research work done by her during the academic year 2017-2018 under my supervision in partial fulfillment for the award of Master of Philosophy in Media Studies.

This dissertation has not been submitted for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or other title. I hereby confirm the originality of the work and that there is no plagiarism in any part of the dissertation.

Place: Bengaluru Date: Signature of the Supervisor

Dr. Naresh Rao H Associate Professor Department of Media Studies CHRIST (Deemed to be University) Bengaluru

Signature of the Head of the Department Department of Media Studies CHRIST (Deemed to be University) Bengaluru

iv

ACKNOWLEDEMENT

I am immensely grateful to the Almighty God for granting me wisdom and strength to overcome my challenges and successfully complete this thesis.

I would first like to thank Dr (Fr) Thomas C Mathew, Former Vice Chancellor, CHRIST (Deemed to be

University), and Dr (Fr) Abraham VM, Vice Chancellor, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru for giving me the opportunity to pursue research and facilitating me to complete my study.

I am very grateful to my supervisor Dr Naresh Rao H, Department of Media Studies for being always approachable, understanding and constantly guiding and motivating me to persist in my endeavours with conviction that has enabled me to complete my thesis. He consistently allowed this paper to be my own work and steered me in the right the direction.

I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Kannan S, Department of Media Studies for his management, monitoring and valuable inputs throughout the study.

I thank the entire Department of Media Studies for taking time out, guiding my thesis and encouraging me at every stage.

I also extent my gratitude to the experts () involved in this research project. Without their passionate participation and input, the study could not have been successfully conducted.

Last but not least, I extent my sincere gratitude and praise for the everlasting love and support from my family, especially my mother for believing in me and encouraging me throughout the journey.

v

ABSTRACT

Objectivity has been a traditional ideal for journalism. Journalists are trained to be objective; they do not frame stories by themselves…or do they? Faced with the pressure of deadlines, strained resources and the perception that audience prefer reportorial style, journalists resort to amusement or conflict based reporting positioning one side against the other and often aggravating facts and issues. The public today expresses disappointment with current media practices. Media watchers argue that instead of improving the quality of programming, competition has resulted in a race to the bottom, where news channels have conveniently forgotten basic ethical norms. This study is an attempt at re-visioning media ethics. It is believed that ethical journalism is never more important than in the time of crises. Taking India’s recent economic crisis, demonetization, this research aims to answer what makes it difficult for journalists to adhere to ethics especially during crises? With emphasis on situation faced by reporters, pressure imposed on them by various sources and ethical dilemma, this study provides answers to the questions posed on the work of journalists. Content analysis of demonetization debates broadcasted on two popular English news channels and interview responses of experienced journalists of Indian news media goes to explain how demonetization was represented by Indian news channels and to what extent journalistic ethics was reflected in their content.

Keywords: debates, ethics, framing, news, television

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval of Dissertation ii

Declaration iii

Certificate iv

Acknowledgement v

Abstract vi

Table of Contents vii

List of Figures ix

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 1.1 Evolution of television in India 1.2 News Channels in India 1.3 Politics in News Channel 1.4 Broadcast media journalism and ethics 1.5 Journalism in Times of Crisis 1.6 Demonetization in India: A Crisis

Chapter 2 – Review of Literature 12 2.1 Journalism and Ethics 2.2 Media and Crisis Coverage 2.3 Media Reporting Demonetization 2.4 Research Gap 2.5 Research Objectives 2.6 Research Questions

Chapter 3 – Theoretical Framework 25

vii

Chapter 4 – Methodology 28 4.1. Why NDTV and ? 4.2 Why Content Analysis? 4.3 Why Expert Interview?

Chapter 5 – Data Analysis and Findings 33 5.1 Content Analysis 5.1.1 Analysis of demonetization debates on NDTV 24 x 7 5.1.2 Analysis of demonetization debates on Times Now 5.2 Findings 5.2.1 NDTV 24x7 5.2.2 Times Now demonetization 5.3 Interview 5.3.1 Analysis and findings

Chapter 6 – Interpretation and Discussion 96 6.1 Framing Demonetization 6.2 Ethics 6.3 Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards 6.4 Experts on Demonetization Coverage 6.5 Fighting unethical practices

Chapter 7 – Conclusion 111

References 115

Appendix i

Appendix ii

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 1. English news channels weekly impression 29

Fig 2. Panelists 96

Fig 3. Hashtags 100

Fig 4. Frames 103

Fig 5. Relationship between theories 112

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction

How responsible has been the Indian news media in last two decades? This is one obvious question that lingers around any debate on the conduct of media in India in present days.

News was never supposed to be merely a product of media; media as a source for engaging people with the government, democracy and issues around the world. It is one ubiquitous feature of human social formation and continuation of social life (Preston, 2008). More generally news is mirror to reality and this vision of reality is constructed by journalists. In this age of information technology where we are flooded with information or news coming to us from all sides, today is evolving. Practicing the freedom of press, unearthing rampant issues, reporting crime and sexual assault are journalists of the new millennium.

The profession however is blamed to be hollowing out of its integrity and honesty. Rather than mirroring the reality, news media construct reality from the perplexities of the world and in the process distort it (Stocking & Gross, 1989). News media in India from past two decades has been continuously under question. Poor functioning of this industry is not only criticized by the critiques and experts but also by the common people who regularly consume it. Studies say people today have a good knowledge of the press and can differentiate between what is news and what is not news but mere sensationalism (Jaggi & Majumdar, 2009).

Now what are the common reasons we know that has led journalists and news media to act in such dubious ways - privatization, corporatization, deregulation, technological convergence, profit motives, TRP and most deeply political interference and political ownership as most studies highlight. Not only news reports but the entire content of news media has undergone changes in last two decades specially television news. Evening slots after primetime news have turned into fighting rings where politicians and journalists involve in excessively opinionated debates. Information is suppressed to short texts rolling as tickers and slugs at the bottom of the screen. It has shifted from public interest to one rating obsessed industry that surely has effect on

1 news agendas and editorial priorities (Thussu, 2007a).

Despite of all the criticisms news media is free from any kind of regulations from government and still attracts a large audience particularly the broadcast media. This is mostly because without media there will probably be no quick and effective communication. There is a universal agreement that media are powerful shapers of our images of events, through both the information they provide and the "spin" or interpretation they place on it (Soderlund, Wagenberg, & Pemberton, 1994). Perhaps that is why the strength of the news media and specially television as a medium for it never relegates.

This study deals with television in India and the news channels in particular. Before understanding the process of news production and ethics related to it, the researcher shares a brief history of the evolution of television in India. Discussing evolution of television is an attempt by the researcher to highlight the fact that television and news industry is always about changes. There are changes in agendas, content, work of professionals, technology used, control and ownership. The following section is expected to explain all the reasons mentioned for poor functioning of the industry.

1.1. Evolution of television in India

“All India Radio will break into a new field of activity on September 15 when it will present before the public of Delhi and the countryside around, its first television programme from a limited number of sets. The television service will be inaugurated from Vigyan Bhawan by President Rajendra Prasad” - J.C. Mathur

Director General of All India Radio, Mathur addressed the press with these statements, just a few days before the medium was launched in India in the year 1959. A report titled “Dated September 5, 1959: Experimental T.V. Service” (2009) quoting Mathur said “Television was purely an experimental one with limited scope and objectives, intended to give the technical and programme personnel experience in handling a new medium.” Mathur (1960) in his article

2 Television in India said “television service was designed for community viewing with primary objective being adult education.” AIR with the help of government and organization working for objective being adult education.” AIR with the help of government and organization working for adult education and social welfare installed television sets in selected community centers across Delhi. Setting up of television sets for community viewing gradually led to formation of tele- clubs who engaged in informal discussion within themselves on issues shown in the programmes. These tele-clubs then communicated to the television units which further helped in planning subsequent programmes.

India initiated ‘Satellite Instructional Television Experiment’ (SITE) after a few years of television launch. It aimed to promote social and economic development, spread education and raise people’s living standard in India. History of satellite broadcasting gives credit to late Dr. Homi Bhabha and late Dr. Vikram Sarabhai who with great potential brought space research programme in the country. SITE was initiated in 1975-76, made use of the earliest satellite for transmitting television programmes directly to community recipients (Chander & Karnik, 1976). Though there were a few causalities in the nation due to satellite technologies, SITE was the biggest techno-social communication experiment in the world.

Television spread enormously in 1980s. Singhal, Doshi, Rogers, & Rahman (1988) in their study ‘The Difussion of Television in India’ found that viewers of television in India are more urban than rural people with higher level of income. In terms of social effects television promoted consumerism. It fuelled local television manufacturing industry and encouraged use of VCRs (Video Cassette Recorder) in India. This spread of television gave rise to four different beliefs about satellite technology among Indian societies. There were utopians who believed that technology is essential for human race; the dystopians believed technology is a curse; for neutrals technology has no effect on society, and for the contingencies, impacts of technology are determined by the context in which the technology is applied (Contractor, Singhal, & Rogers, 1988).

Variety of programmes were produced and broadcasted. Public service broadcaster ‘Doordarshan’ the sole broadcaster of that time, (operating right from the beginning of television in India in 1959) began to respond to increasing commercial pressures for production of content.

3 Its programmes reflected the demands and pressures of the market. The aspect of public interest was gradually found thrown out of the country's television agenda (Sinha, 1997). Experts predicted that state's control over television will diminish in future.

Doordarshan was challenged when CNN covered Gulf War was telecasted in national channels of developing countries. Viewers could watch foreign broadcast via satellite in India. A lot more change was witnessed in television and news industry in 1990’s. A Hong Kong based group launched Star Television in India. And that same year the first private Indian channel ‘Zee’ came into the picture. Gradually with more satellites in the earth’s orbit numerous channels of entertainment and news proliferated. Sociological implications of satellite television programming were one heated topic to study at that time. Studies found technology affecting many aspects of the Indian society. There was information revolution on one hand speeding up the modernization process of people in democratic societies (Rampal, 2001). On the other hand western programming was appropriated by Indian television executives and audiences. Cultural hegemony was evident and expressed by network executives and Indian television audiences (Crabtree & Malhotra, 2000). Transnational media companies in India had consumerist ideologies that conflicted with nationalist ideologies of the country. However the situation was not the same across the country. Technological advancements only helped people in global cities who are privileged with skill, money and language to use the hybrid products (McMillin D. C., 2001). Unless private networks and industries support the rural areas, this population remained neglected compared to urban consumers.

On one side was the nation-state with sovereignty under threat standing aligned with public service broadcasting. While on the other side was the global, transnational commercial flow of culture and information. Consumers, who were consuming entertainment, were creating globalized and hybridized identities (McMillin D. C., 2002). Non-native language programmes gained popularity in multi-cultural Indian nation. It was an era of extraordinary economic and technological growth that brought variety in programming and channels.

However, in the process television was losing its public interest ethos due to commercialization (Rodrigues U. M., 2005). Doordarshan allowed private producer to produce news programmes. General rules of conduct for television and radio advertising’ was made

4 flexible by allowing advertisements by private enterprises. Government funding for the channel reduced and the Information & Broadcasting Ministry could not help but allow broadcast of private and foreign channels in Indian homes. Advertising revenue was then accepted to boost Doordarshan which gradually disposed off the principle of public funding for public-service broadcasting. Ironically television was brought for the purpose of education but government had to switch from the policy of ‘television for education’ to ‘television for education, and entertainment’ justifying its need for revenue (Rani, 2006). Indian television was continuously under change and in the whirlwind of communication revolution. There were arguments with increased programme choice for viewers; satellite television increased ratings war. Broadcasters were united but not ready to regulate the television industry. Entirely free market can fulfill all needs of the audiences they believed (Shitak, 2011). State-led television was then a huge loss- incurring venture. Private channels destabilized DD’s monopoly. Decline of state-led channel with rise of private television channels resulted in mutation of television system (Sulehria, 2017). The mutation further caused marginalization of classes, fall of development television, and commodification of television viewers.

1.2 News Channels in India

24-hour satellite news today are dynamic and expanding with over 250 plus channels available, comprising commercial, public, global, national and regional levels. The emergence of 24-hours satellite news channels resulted in revolution in television news production and practices. The media environment is saturated and fiercely competitive; from ‘being first’ journalism convention changed to being ‘live’ on television (Rai & Cottle, 2007). Growth of channels in diverse regions of the world was ‘globalizing’ television. Its ownership and reach highlighted supremacy of major western players in news television market of India. One good example is Rupert Murdoch and his control on both content of programme and its delivery across audiences. Murdoch owns a worldwide empire of all aspects of media and is hugely powerful. He brought in what Thussu (2007) termed as ‘desi’ globalization by ‘localization of global genres such as English-language to Hindi-language news channels (transnational news networks like BBC and CNN).’ Such indigenization of entertainment programmes and television news added dimension to the globalization discourse. Thussu also highlighted an interesting fact about Murdoch. When Rupert Murdoch entered the media market in India in 1991, he chose to somehow steal the head

5 of Doordarshan to run ‘Star’ in India. He thought it was not possible to run a highly bureaucratized broadcasting system without the help of most experienced and powerful officials of Indian broadcasting industry. In India foreign-owned media companies have no restrictions to operate news channels. Murdoch launched Star News as the first 24x7 English news channel in 1998.

India saw largest corporates entering media market and making ties with news organization. For example Reliance Industries strategic association with the Network 18 and the Eenadu group. Experts feared that growing concentration of such ownership could lead to loss of media heterogeneity and plurality. Big media players were been steeped in debt and such tie ups with corporate industries signified growing concentration of ownership in an oligopolistic market (Thakurta & Chaturvedi, 2012). No restrictions in cross-media ownership and absence of government regulation led to commodification of information which in turn is affecting diversity of news flow and thus hindering the public good.

To understand how news is made in India, Batabyal in 2012 entered into two channels Star News and Star Ananda. He found journalists whether willing or not willing participate in the modern discourse of private television news and are also aware of their own practices. News programmes are tailored for specific audiences and journalists are encouraged through corporate strategies to understand the taste of the audience. Batabyal concludes with three broad claims. First, the traditional divide between the corporate and the editorial functions no longer exists in Indian television newsrooms. Second, television journalists, mostly middle-class imagine themselves as the audience and produce content they think audience would like. Third, advertisements target wealthier sections of society, so do the television news channels. Rodrigues & Ranganathan (2014) said India’s ‘globalising’ polity, privatisation, new communication technologies and individualism has led to changes in news processing and procedures.

1.3. Politics in News Channel

The largest political campaign of post-independence era around the symbol of lord Ram was led by Hindu nationalists (Rajagopal, 2001). There was wide-spread criticism for broadcasting the

6 ‘Ramayana’ a Hindu epic in serial form by Doordarshan. The issue was for the channel violating a decade old taboo on religious partisanship. While audiences were enjoying an epic golden age watching Ramayana, Hindu nationalist leaders were embracing the prospects of neo-liberalism and globalization. The complexion of Indian Politics was forever changed thereafter. Television as a device joined these movements symbolizing the new possibilities of politics as authoritarian.

Television expanded and enlarged the space for political action. Politicians understood how the medium worked and adapted to it, says Mehta (2008). As an example, Arun Jaitley, was a lightweight leader during the 1998 general elections but he was booked by NDTV to represent the BJP for seven straight hours of live broadcasting. NDTV wanted Jaitley and not any senior BJP leader as he could answer questions in the idiom that fits the channel. This tradition followed particularly in coverage of issues related to the government. Television news industry has also enabled various non-metropolitan elites gain class and status mobility. Television news organizations became venues for interaction between political and economic elites. Economic power regularly engaging in dialogue with their political counterparts on television, parlayed into political power (Roy, 2011).

Newspapers, magazines and TV channels are paid for acclamations of particular candidates and political parties but even then these mediums pretend to be independent news said Thakurta (2011). For example, the case of ‘paid news’ exposed during the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections of 2009. There is no proper media regulatory mechanism to curb these unethical and illegal practices, he said. PCI is a quasi-judicial body whose writs are primarily for the print medium. Mass media has gained such power with time that they act like an auditor of society, an auditor that cannot have another super-auditor above it. On a similar context Nalin Mehta (2015) said politicians got into the television business and news transformed to propaganda by power players. He also stated that easy money brought in by politicians (mostly by under the table funding sources) deformed the market and flushed out all serious neutral media players. Politicians, real estate, chit fund and money market companies are the major investors here. Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Karnataka companies make over 80 percent of the news TV business; between 60- 70 percent news business is in Punjab, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and the Northeast. Politicians from presidents to party leaders have learned to go public by taking their messages in the form of news. When this influence process works,

7 the news not only tells people what to think about; but also what to think (Bennett W. L., 2016).

1.4. Broadcast Journalism and Ethics

Journalism is not defined by technology or by the ways and techniques that journalists employ; it is importantly defined by what function the news play in people’s lives. Fundamental objective of news makers is to serve the people with news, views, comments and information on matters of public interest in fair, accurate, unbiased, sober and decent manner (Norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2010). And for this journalists have to follow certain principles of good practice.

Several codes have been promulgated over the years for every form of media in India. But the concern is how far the essence of those codes is practically realized. Codes formed either by an autonomous body or by media house themselves are confined to only papers and books. No set of conduct has been found to be effective till date in correcting the destructive functioning of media, particularly television. Consumers argue that instead of improving the quality of programming, competition among channels has resulted in a race to the bottom. A race in which, television news channels have conveniently forgotten basic ethical norms and principles of journalism (Batabyal, 2012). There have been a number of instances of Indian television channel abusing the tremendous power enjoyed by the mass media. From the Radia tapes in 2010 to the Essar leaks in 2015, disreputable practices exposed on Cobraposts and numerous other tales show how Indian journalism has been under the burden of unethical practices. The practicing professionals have often found these codes difficult to comprehend due to several reasons behind (Ravi, 2013).

Broadcast journalism is a grand and all-inclusive field of dispersing news. It is one most blooming subset of mass communication which has evolved and expanded massively in India. Broadcast journalism is different from print in many ways. The work is not confined to the pages of newspapers and magazines alone but has a collection of tools like television, radio and the internet (Seemedu, 2018). If the print journalism produces texts that are fixed on the page; broadcast journalism, by contrast, produces texts which are fugitive. Items sequenced are experienced and decoded in ‘real time’ by the audience. Journalism using various kinds of broadcast media is real time in nature. Option to go live on air makes it instantaneous compared

8 to its printed counterpart (Montgomery, 2007). However responsibility towards the public and the society remains the same for journalists working in either print or broadcast media. All time consciousness and a strong grip on appropriate language is what is frantically required to present news here. With traditional journalism skills a reporter gathers information, interviews people and handle’s the situation for himself and the team. Together they need to follow ethical codes that are ensuring authenticity of the news, ensuring objectivity, fairness and socially acceptable language keeping in mind its cascading effects on society (Norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2010). Personal ethics may differ from person to person but in a profession as conscientious as this, ethics or the doctrine should be universal. Ethics must also make a clear distinction between “in public interest” and “interest to the public” (Ghosh J. , 2014). Former is about issues concerning the benefits of the public, while the latter is about issues that the public might find interesting. One should be cautious and judicious while choosing and presenting news items which interests the public. While working for what interests the public one should not forget public interest within the functions of media.

1.5. Journalism in times of Crisis

Crisis, according to Lanceley (2003) is any situation in which the ability of a person to cope is exceeded. It is a situation that cannot be dealt by an individual or a group's regular coping mechanism. Information in such situations help people manage with the risks. The power of mass media today lies partially in their liberation from control of the government and partially in their capability to attract a large audience. This makes them a very trusted source of information (Burkhart, 1991). Mass media are considered significant by citizens facing threats during crisis as well as by crisis managers who are involved in educating communities regarding risks during crisis (Perry & Lindell, 1989). Communication is what works best in times of crisis be it of any sort.

Responsibilities of news industry to inform educate and bridge gaps between government and citizens rises even more when there is any emergency or crisis. The world has faced numerous and will continue to face war, migration, natural disasters and economic crises as such with no doubt. But it is blamed that media has the tendency to exaggerate and dramatize situations of crisis and for their ‘obsession’ with sensationalism they tend to downplay issues,

9 ignore proper representation thus restraining audiences’ understanding of the real contexts (Zayani & Ayish, 2006).

This research specially focuses on news channels reporting and discussing a crisis. Not going too far the researcher discusses ‘demonetization’ as one ‘economic crisis’ which has completed two not so successful years but a situation very fresh in the minds of every citizen in India. Crises are unforeseen events and unforeseen events have always led to massive spikes in news viewership, due to high intensity and impact (BARC, Breaking the News Story, 2018b). Demonetization is one example and other includes death of Jayalalitha, Surgical Strike Operation and the very recent Kerala floods when talking only about India. In case of demonetization, BARC in 2018 reports, “news genre gained 10% share of eyeballs and became the second most viewed genre on the day following the announcement.” Reporting of demonetization in India by the television news media and whether or not ethical standards were reflected in the discussion are the followed main purpose of this study.

1.6. Demonetization in India: A Crisis

“Money often costs too much” said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Demonetization cost too much for everybody as the move proved to be nothing else but restricting people’s access to their own money (Dam, 2016; Venkatesan, 2016). November 8, 2016 was the day when the Indian Prime Minister , took a shocking decision of scrapping of high denomination currency, that is, INR 500 and INR 1000 with immediate effect. This decision of scrapping such high denomination currency flushed 86% of the total circulating cash of the Indian economy (Shrivastava, Lodha, Sousa, & Singh, 2019). Recalling this day of 8 Nov, 2016 would flood anyone’s mind with numerous tales to share. There were similar stories of millions of Indians having no clue on how to save their hard-earned money. No one, from any walk of life, had been spared the impact of Demonetization 2016 in India and this was extensively reported by the media of the world (Reddy, 2017). Reports claimed how people struggled with little or no cash in hand, young minds lost their jobs as unorganized sector was hit hard by cash crunch, unavailability of valid notes led to loss of life in private hospitals, farmers, poor vegetable and fruit vendors suffered. Even the little amount that every middle class wife or mother saved by joining each penny they get, turned useless in just one night.

10 More than 105 people had died in the post-demonetization rush for cash across the country (Dutta P. K., 2018). Demonetization hit small-scale businesses and caused loss of almost 15 lakh jobs according to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). What more can explain the crisis better than this. Stories of cash crunch loomed and the overall crisis was portrayed in all the ways possible by the news media. There were scattered reports on scattered protests, confusing, unacceptable high growth figures despite of visible damage done to the Indian economy. In context of economic crisis media exposure strongly affects expectations for future development of the national economic situation (McMillin D. C., 2002; Boomgaarden, Spanje, Vliegenthart, & Vreese, 2011). However different statistical data in different mediums of news clearly reflected the conflict between government-fed stories and ground realities. The situation prevailing was understandable even by personal experiences of people across India.

11 Chapter 2

Review of Literature

2.1 Journalism and Ethics

In 1863, John Stuart Mill, in his book “Utilitarianism” stated “ethical actions are those that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Prior to that some 2500 years ago Greek philosophers defined ethics to be the study of choices between good and bad. According to Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) journalism is the service of society and should be found on the ethical premise.

Rao & Johal (2006) made an attempt to study ‘Ethics and News Making in the Changing Indian Mediascape.’ They wanted to explore ethical issues faced by Indian journalists in a globalized media environment. Through an interactive workshop the study finds that media organizations are not discussing extensively about ethics and journalistic norms with their reporters. There is no specialized training on it. That is why importance of concepts like privacy and accuracy are less understood and protected by journalists. Marketing pressures and tabloidization of news are affecting accountability, independence of the profession. On top there are no guidelines in India that can directly address sting operations especially use of spy cameras by television journalists. Journalists in their workshops revealed that hidden/spy camera use is a tactic to produce shock value that would attract more viewers.

Harcup (2007) in his book ‘The Ethical Journalist’ explains ‘truth’ and ‘respect’ are two words very important in journalism. Ethical journalism involves respect for people’s right to know the truth. If a journalist cannot respect journalism and the citizens they are accountable to, then probably they will not have respect for the truth either. Fundamentally journalism is about informing and empowering the citizens and facilitating a public sphere of rational discussion. News stories should be selected and presented carefully as actions and words can have consequences in any situation, whether one is reporting from a war zone or reviewing a latest

12 movie. Ethical journalism is crucial for the health and well-being of a society.

In the study ‘Journalists in a New Media Environment,’ Singer (2007) said “free flow of information is fundamental to a functioning democracy.” The very first concern of journalists working in traditional media should be making information available. Information must be valuable to society and .journalism should also provide means of identifying which information is important. In a changing media scenario journalist must shift from professional process to professional norms or ethics. Consumers should be able to trust that information. Trust is built if there is guarantee of social development and responsibility.

‘Media Ethics: Truth, Fairness and Objectivity’ by Thakurta (2012) is one book that aims at sensitizing people to issues faced by journalists. His definition of ethics is “a subject that seeks to use rational and systematic principles, values and norms to determine what is good and bad, correct or incorrect, right or wrong, as far as human actions are concerned.” With emphasis on paid news, reality television, attack, sting operations and more case studies the author offers a theoretical rationale for functioning in an ethical manner. He stresses that notion of truth and truthfulness is the most practical of ethical guidelines for media professions. Journalists are aware on what is ethics but adhering to it is the hardest part he said.

Dixit (2013) in his book titled ‘Modern Journalism and Public Relations’ said “journalistic ethics encompasses theoretical and practical reasoning.” He explains that “theoretical ethics is the analysis or ‘meta ethics’ of moral principles. Practically, ethics is applied ethics. It is the analysis of the practice of journalism and the application of its principles to situations and issues.” Journalism ethics investigate the ‘micro’ problems of what individual journalist should do in particular situations and the ‘macro’ problems of what news media should do, given their role in society. The issues of journalism ethics includes the limit of free speech, accuracy, fairness, privacy, proper presentation of news in terms of graphic images, conflicts of interest, and the representation of minorities and the role of journalism.

Ravi (2013) in his study ‘Ethics and Indian Television Content Portrayals’ states there is no limit to where a media organization can go on conducting trials. On just a statement or doubt media swallow up hours and hours of time and energy depicting or discussing a case. But ultimately there is no satisfactory outcome. Political supremacy on news channels affects the

13 manner in which channels conduct media trials. Programmes on crime, intrude upon the functions of police and law & order. Guessing who the culprit is, mislead the investigation and delay justice. There are loop holes in the media functioning, but controlling media through law directly is argued. The study stresses to reinforce the old regulations made for television and come with standards that can channelize media for effective functioning.

Ghosh in 2014 studying ‘Ethics of Indian News Media: Aberrations and Future Challenges’ states that in the act of news making and its subsequent dissemination to the public the news organizations close their eyes to the ‘code of ethics.’ His study discussed three incidents where the traditional mass media deviated from the established ethical principles and journalistic norms for such reasons. For Aarushi murder case the study states that traditional media felt threatened by the online media and used techniques of “reconstruction” to attract more and more audience to this case. Another incident is the coverage of 26/11 attacks by the television channels known to all as one big irresponsible move of media putting country’s security at stake. Media was flouting ethical norms in the “Operation West End” popular as “tehelka revelations in 2001.” The sting operation did expose corruption, but the manner in which it was conducted had ethical transgressions. The expositors (journalists) were involved in offering bribes to the victims for false impersonations. They were also guilty of other ethical nuances.

Shakuntala Rao in 2014 studied ‘Journalism Ethics’ in covering rape by India's news television. Journalists interviwed in her study accepted that there is immediate need for revisioning ethical practices especially of television news media for covering cases like sexual violence. Cases of rape and sexual violence against women were not considered newsworthy earlier. Rather than cruelty of the crime, victim’s caste and class were important for making news. Delhi rape of December 2012 bagged much media coverage but nothing changed or corrected the way how such sensible issues should be covered by the television news media. Journalists revealed that at the end of the day, ethics of the newsroom is dependent on what they think would best sell the story.

It is said that owners play a big role in constructing and delivering media content. Maheshwari (2015) in her study on ‘media ownership affecting news content’ compared two

14 English news channels of India to establish it. Keeping in mind the ownership and background of NDTV 24x7 and India Today Maheshwari analysed the content of two news channels. Results say that NDTV 24x7 is pro – corporate. Their stories involve corporate perspective and their leftish approach is quite evident. However the channel is rational and provides balanced stories with diverse viewpoints. India Today group on the other hand have great number investors from corporate sector. They are found to be biased in most of the coverage and plurality is missing in their content. Their tactic is whosoever is in power needs to be challenged. They lack neutrality and balance. Journalists interviewed in her study reveal that there is intense pressure from the management to do so.

Violation of ethics affects trust on the media. Of late, news broadcasters have faced criticism for their coverage which is often untruthful, and hyped-up. Credibility is what is affected here says , executive co-chairman of NDTV group. In one of his speechs at Mumbai Press Club, the journalist said-

“We are getting slack—forget research, we don’t even need to check our facts, and we don’t care if we wrongly defame anyone — the bottom line is we are dropping our standards. If this decline in quality continues, three years from now, Indian media will have no credibility left” (Livemint, 2015).

When talking about credibility of news channel a study by Rao and Ravi (2015) ‘Audience Perception of the Credibility of Local News Channels’ strongly points out what helps news channels gain credibility. While finding audience perception of the credibility of local news channels in Bangalore India, the study suggests that language was never an instrument for linking the news channels to the credibility. The manner in which news is presented and dealt with by the channels is what is more important. Credibility depends on practices in news rooms of television channels. Are they under strict code of ethics of sticking to facts and objectivity? It is sad that news media in India lacks a role model that can be followed and idealized. ‘The Hindu’ in newspapers and ‘NDTV’ as news channel are considered credible in the Indian Media. But NDTV 24x7’s situation after the revelations of in the Nira Radia tapes, scarred reputation of the highly trusted channel in industry. Further, increase in use of internet and dependence on online news by the young generation also reduces credibility of television news

15 channels. Ease of having access to fast and wide variety of news can shift viewers from television to online sources.

Also Bhargava and Balhara (2017) in their study highlighted how news channels can lose credibility. They said “news channels have lost the sense and essence to news.” Their results say newspaper still holds some principles of journalism and a credible stand in society but TV journalism is not even acceptable. Sensationalism is the main principle behind TV journalism. It is not because of the journalists working there but people above them who control the channel. Sensationalism and their race for TRP are the factor affecting media credibility.

Christians, Fackler, Richardson, Kreshel and Woods (2016) in their study ‘Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning’ stress that the media must function within the ethical premise. But there has been a gap between functions of media and the media ethics. Ethics is stuck and suffering at the junction of media theory and practice. It is a subject that is very subjective and when involves two or more mindsets in press ethics, fusion becomes difficult. The news media requires resoluteness and quick decision making in tough to tough situations of daily crisis. Therefore, ethics must be studied again with deliberation, careful distinctions and extended discussions. Media ethics should gain more recognition and they said “the gap between daily media practice and serious consideration of ethics must be bridged creatively.”

The study ‘Journalistic values in India’s regional television newsrooms’ by Chadha & Koliska (2016) found political and economic factors hinders adoption and practice of journalistic norms by professionals. Objectivity, public service and autonomy as values of journalism are considered less relevant in their day-to-day work. Editorial decisions in newsrooms were limited. Senior editors determine what stories could be covered and in which manner that would grab public attention. Journalist interviewed in their study revealed that nothing is more important than TRP. Journalists even accepted that they too had a similar attitude because if the numbers go down, they will lose their jobs. Programmes like talk shows and debates which are conducted frequently by channels attempt to prove a biased view point. There is absolute lack of neutrality the journalists said. They also shared instances where senior political leader enters newsroom and threatens to fire the anchor/ journalists for inviting a panelist who challenges his views. Many other journalists in this study admitted to have similar situation in work places.

16 Thomas & Mariswamy (2017) in their study ‘Impact of globalisation on Indian media: A study of credibility’ found that there is transformation in newsrooms of Indian media for both good and bad. There is a lot of technical advancement but this has adverse effect on the content. In the race for TRP channels side-line ethics and social responsibilities towards society. Their only aim is to weave the fastest news content. This has resulted in lobbying, sensationalism and corporate bias. There is immense scarcity of diverse and all sided viewpoints in news media. Credibility of news channels is therefore on the decline.

2.2 Media and Crisis Coverage

Starting with an Indian based study this section of literature will talk about media reporting different types of crisis. This study however emphasizes on economic crisis but literature on different crisis situation like war, disaster or business can provide a good understanding of different types of media report. Literature on ‘framing crises’ is also covered in this section.

Singh in 1984 analyzed a sample of AIR and Doordarshan news bulletins after the army action in Punjab. The manner in which Doordarshan and AIR covered Punjab after the army intervention was one of the worst moments of the Emergency era said the author. The study finds that it was most discreditable performance, an unrestrained resort to lies and half-truths twisted and distorted to suit the electoral designs of the ruling party and its leader. There was arousing of Hindu communal sentiments as a part of the ruling party's electoral strategy. Twisting the information dented the credibility of AIR and Doordarshan. Both AIR and Doordarshan resorted to downright lies and distortion of news creating communal contention between Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab and elsewhere. He further added that in moments of crisis when news hunger is acute media was used as propaganda weapon by the ruling party.

For Gulf War reporting, Zelizer (1992) explained that stories of war were reported in real time with the help of satellite-technology. This new system of receiving real-time reportage became a topic of discussion among personal communities. CNN led to the beginning of a new era of journalism. It offered faster, more conscious and less edited journalism. Other media organizations who did not have access to reporting adapted altered boundaries of journalistic practice. Certain news organizations chose to imitate such news produced by satellite fed

17 technology, while others chose to surrender to the demands suggested by CNN coverage. Gulf War was turned into serious incident by CNN journalists that helped the news media to consider and work within professional consensus.

On the other hand, Iyengar & Simon (1993) in their study of Gulf Crisis stated that “television news had a significant impact on public opinion.” The crisis reports were event oriented shown in episodes and these episodic framing encouraged reasoning among people. Continuous news reports on Gulf made viewers feel the economic and military risks that were posed by the conflict. However it only inspired them to think of resolutions to economic problems more rather than military resolution. The study also demonstrated journalists and the news media’s tendency to repeat the government’s ‘party line.’ Media’s agenda was to legitimize government’s perspective on the crisis.

Similarly in 1999 caught the media unawares; it supposedly did the government and the army. The media manufactured stories said Seshu (1999) in his study ‘Media and Kargil: Information Blitz with Dummy Missiles’. Media covered every aspect of the war going beyond government briefings and army handouts. But not a single newspaper or television columnist discussed India's first televised war. By analyzing news reports of three leading national English dailies the author finds that the media failed or chose not to seriously analyze who are the ones in ultimate loss after the war. Little or no effort was made to think and write for innocent lives residing on two sides of the border. There were stories on corporate and celebrity views on Kargil. In the monopoly ownership of the media in the country, the owners of the media are themselves part of the ruling elites.

Another study in the international context is by An & Gower (2009). They analyzed 247 news reports on 10 crisis prone business companies, published in New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today. Their aim was to examine which five ‘news frames of crisis’ (responsibility, human interest, conflict, morality, and economic) and ‘level of responsibility’ were used by the media according to crisis type. Results show that media assign specific guilt or blame to an individual or an organization for the crisis caused. This is attribution of responsibility frame used by media. Economic frame is the second most frequently used frame where media discusses consequences of crisis on the economy. However this finding is limited

18 to the crisis news specifically of business companies undergoing downturn.

A study on media coverage of the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 – 2009 by Boomgaarden, Spanje, Vliegenthart, & Vreese (2011), states “information affects evaluations in times of a severe crisis.” Through a three-wave panel survey data and content analysis of news report the study found that exposure to media (news) at the time of crisis affects expectations of people regarding the future of country’s economy. More the dependency on media for information more is the magnitude of effect on the person.

An analysis of Latvian economic downturn by Dreijere (2013) states journalist cannot directly show the economy as it is. It is understood by ways in which one single issue is given multiple dimensions and presented in different manner by different news media. News media mostly provides economic information in the form of complex descriptive statistics, with varying degrees of credibility and interpretations. From a vast pool of information, journalists pick a much smaller quantity that can cater to the interest and needs of the audience. Other factors that can influence the production of economic news are journalist’s role models, deadlines, length restrictions and the fact that many journalists do not have an economics background. To attract and maintain a large audience, economic news items have to be timely, clear and engaging. The study also emphasized on framing of such crisis by media. Results indicate that economic consequences frame has come down and conflict framing has increased. Media did not allocate responsibility in the required manner. The researcher stresses that media professionals need to research before providing news on economic issues.

Prakash & Anand (2016) analysed the media coverage of Chennai flood where the national media was accused of ignoring such a relevant event during the initial days of the calamity. Study states that the mainstream media failed to acknowledge the fact that their primary function is to inform. People of Chennai were caught in the floods off guard and the media was involved in the reportage of political stories until the rains struck catastrophe in the Tamil Nadu capital. The front page of India’s leading newspapers was packed with the coverage of Bihar Elections and Award Wapsi. In television news reports, microphones were shoved into the faces of families which were only trying to cope with the massive damage that the rains had done to their lives. Reporters even pressed for specifics as the camera panned to the family’s

19 apparent anguish. Every channel had its own tragedy to show. Chennai, they declared, was devastated, and there is nothing but trauma. The researchers were disappointed by this functioning of media and suggested that it is essential that reporters learn to be sensitive when interviewing and talking to victims, and understand that empathy is more important than TRPs.

Media coverage of 29 September 2016 ‘surgical strike’ by the along the India–Pakistan border was studied by Pandit & Chattopadhyay (2018). It stated that the mainstream news media in India followed the event with assertive nationalistic rhetoric. Key conclusions say during the time of national conflict, media reports become a mixture of aggressive nationalist and communal discourse. Journalists themselves articulate the voice of the nation utilizing certain expressions and personalized forms of address to engage the audience. Second, the news channels persistently adhere to the militant “patriotic” nationalistic line. They deliberately make it difficult for people to question the nation-state or the military. Third, television news channels be it Hindi or English language channels, operate in the same record of aggressive nationalistic identity. They largely spoke in favor of a militant aggressive nationalism, within the background of defense and security of the nation-state.

2.3 Media Reporting Demonetization

Being recent event, demonetization coverage by media lacks attention from researchers. There are very limited studies on the topic. The researcher therefore includes articles published on a few trusted news sources. Articles of experienced authors and editors are taken in account.

Author Pamela Philipose (2016) in her article ‘Money (Demonetization) Talks, But Did the Media Listen?’ stated that “demonetization story loomed over the media horizon like the super moon.” There was coverage of public distress largely confined to helpless people in queues outside banks and ATMs with occasional glimpse of elderly citizens in the queue suffering heart attacks. News reporting highlighted three scenarios. One is ensuring that those behind this move could continue to enjoy a peaceful sleep that they doggedly searched for. Second is, interview of common people by ‘live’ media. People were flashing their support for demonetization for the fear of being identified or punished. Third scenario is Prime Minister’s legendary ability to ply his solitary being and communicate his lone struggle for

20 the country’s security, prosperity and morality. The author points that every effort was made to ensure that the third scenario prevailed as there was a pressure from the government.

Reddy (2017) on the other hand pointed out two rich strands of media coverage that was developed during one to two months of demonetization. One was the reporting of many aspects of demonetization 2016 and its fall-out. Another strand was India going digital for payments. Author said Indian press showed what journalism ought to be. There was a clear hunger for news among people and the media satiated it. Media channels worked hard with no geographical area left uncovered. Not only words but striking photographs of elderly person crying in pain to get their money out of the banks also conveyed the message clearly.

A study on imapct and role of media on society during demonetisation was done by Pandey & Singh in 2017. Their study conducted a survey of 300 respondents wherein they found that is the most used medium among the respondents. But television is the most used medium at the time of demonetization. Panel discussions, chat shows, interviews etc., helped public understand the noteban issue. More than 80% of the respondents felt media is helpful and informative when it comes to situations like economic crisis. Complete percentage of the respondents know the term ‘demonetization’ because of media.

Fernandez and Gomes (2018) study emphasized on framing of demonetization by media. They found that there were insufficient information published and infogram-centric articles with loads of statistical data which were unanalyzed and published in multiple folds. Data given in government websites were copied but not cross-checked which resulted is fake evaluations providing false perspectives and confused readers. This also led to anxiety, panic and stress leading to aggression among the citizens of the country. Whether negative or positive, effects of demonetization have been exaggerated in several articles published by the Indian print media.

Sen, et al.(2018) in their study found expert comments and opinions which is very important for situations of crisis were ignored during this cash crisis. News media was found giving maximum coverage and importance to powerful politicians and political parties with noticeable negligence to expert opinions. Sentiment analysis was done by the team of researchers of Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, which showed politicians from opposition parties expressed opposing views about the policy of demonetization. This was obvious but there is

21 variation in expressing opposed views across different news sources. BJP bagged maximum coverage by the news media followed by Congress party politician. Minimal importance was given to non-political elites.

2.4 Research Gap

The researcher while her quest for literature on ‘Media Ethics’ found that there is ample amount of studies and books on the topic. Effort have been put more in defining and explaining media ethics rather than analysing a variety of cases and situations.

Analysis of news reports for highlighting instances of ethical violation is more. There are more criticisms than efforts for investigating the reason behind a particular news report. Interviewing journalists or the media organization responsible for that news report being questioned is hardly witnessed in the studies reviewed. This study on media ethics in time of demonetization attempts to interview journalists who were a part of the content analysed for this study.

There are enough case studies on media functioning dubiously. Most of them emphasized on sting operations and media trials. Studies on 26/11 Mumbai attack and Aarushi Talwar are mostly available. However, very few suggested solutions to it.

Studies are limited when it comes to crisis coverage by media in India and across the world. Studies on media covering economic crisis is hardly found despite of several incidence that the world has faced. Also there are very limited studies on media ethics in times of crisis. Numerous statistical reports, articles and studies are available on demonetization but barely any interpretive research on media covering it. ‘Demonetisation and Media’ is a topic yet to be explored. This study is an effort to bridge these research gaps; provide knowledge not just on media coverage but ethics involved in it. There were excessive news reports and excessive discussion and debate on various aspects of demonetization by the television news media. However, only one study is found analysing TV debates on demonetisation. Studies on television debates are limited in general.

22 2.5 Research Objectives

The study aims at re-visioning journalism and journalistic ethics in the time of crisis. White (2014) states that there is no time more important for ethical journalism to prevail than within times of crisis. This study particularly talks about broadcast media, particularly television news channels and does not intent to generalize news media. Demonetization as an economic crisis is taken as the subject and the researcher solely focuses on its media coverage. Keeping in mind the above mentioned research gaps this study have the following objectives:

1) To analyse the role of Indian TV news media during demonetization.

2) To analyse how demonetization was portrayed by Indian news channels.

3) To analyse if ethics were followed while discussing demonetization by Indian news channels

4) To understand the pressure on journalists while reporting a crisis like demonetization.

It is envisaged that the study will make a theoretical contribution to the body of knowledge of journalistic ethics during crisis coverage. With emphasis on situation faced by reporters during crisis, pressure imposed on them by various sources and ethical dilemma they find themselves in, the study will provide answers to these questions posed on the work of journalists.

2.6 Research Questions

In order achieve the objectives this study will answer the following research questions:

RQ1: How demonetization was framed by two popular Indian TV news channels NDTV 24x7 and Times Now?

RQ2: Did the TV news channels have a balanced discussion or debate on demonetization?

RQ3: Did the channels abide by the broadcasting standards/ethics given by NBA?

RQ4: What role did the anchor play while discussing demonetization?

23 RQ5: What kind of pressure was put on journalists and by whom while reporting demonetization?

24 Chapter 3

Theoretical Framework

Journalism means interpreting the world. It focuses on communication as a process of making sense of the world (Brüggemann, 2014). The basics include gathering news, processing it and disseminating across the globe. However, there are enough clues in the recent past that give us an indication of changing parameters of newsgathering and delivering. Major conflict has shifted towards what audiences expect, and what news media are able to provide (Sambrook, 1999). Journalists are not only the decision makers. The news gathered goes through a certain hierarchy where the decision to broadcast or publish news in a way is taken by the gatekeepers. Domingo in 2008 (as cited in Hanitzsch & Hoxha, 2014) referred to news production as a generic process that includes access, selection (filtering), processing (editing) distribution and interpretation. Later inspired by Domingo, Hanitzsch & Hoxha (2014) came up with a three-step circular model of story ideation, story narration, and story presentation. Story narration is about the storytelling function of journalism with three important aspects of story narration for production of news - the story, the perspective from which to tell the story and the story framing. Story framing is embedding a story within an established interpretative framework.

Interpretation or framing of the news is important. Journalists believe framing is important to fit a broad concept into something definite and to place it within the field of meaning. To loosen up complexity of multifaceted issue interpretation of news by the news delivering organization is obligatory. However the ‘grey’ area lies when one lets their personal views pierce the process. Framing sometimes gains a quality of communication that leads public to accept one dominant meaning over the other (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). The study undertaken by the researcher is very comprehensive in relation to the Framing Theory of Mass Communication; specially framing the issue of demonetization by news channels in India. The concept of framing is closely associated to the Agenda Setting theory but expands the research by focusing on the essence of the issues at hand rather than on a particular topic (Framing Theory, 2017). Framing theory explains that the media create frames by introducing news with

25 predefined and narrow contextualization. Frames are to enhance understanding and create cognitive shortcuts to link stories to the bigger picture (Arowolo, 2017).

The event in this study is demonetization. This study aims to find how demonetization was framed by Indian news channels. This research assumes that journalists inevitably framed or structured demonetization events in a way that is accessible to a larger audience. Literature points five ways in which news can be framed : (a) conflict frame - emphasizing conflict between parties or individuals (b) human interest frame - focusing on an individual as an example or by emphasizing emotions (c) attribution of responsibility frame - attributing responsibility, crediting or blaming certain political institutions or individuals, (d) economic consequences frame - focusing on the economic consequences on people and society and (e) morality frame – relating news to classic social and religious beliefs (Roberts, 2013; Valkenburg, Semetko, & Vreese, 1999; Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1992; An & Gower, 2009). This study will examine how demonetization as a crisis was portrayed in any of these frames by Indian news channels.

In order to analyze that portrayal of demonetization by the news channels is objective, accurate and within the ethical boundaries this study takes on ‘Theory of Deontology’ by Immanuel Kant. This theory supports only the act and not its consequence of good or bad. It is one normative ethical theory that prescribes a ‘correct’ way to act morally (Pellegrini, 2017). Deontology theory promotes binding to the rules. In this study rules means ethics that television news channels and its journalist must follow. With the values of ‘deontology’ this study also takes into account the fundamental principles given by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) especially for the broadcast media. Findings of this research will be interpreted on the grounds of both deontology theory and following principles given by NBA -

 Media as trustees of public; mission to seek truth and report fairly

 Maintain highest possible standards of public service and integrity

 Do not select news for the purpose of either promoting or hindering any controversial public issue

26  Educate and inform people about events and allow them to make their own conclusion

 In presenting controversial issue, time should be allotted fairly to each point of view

 Impartiality and Objectivity

 Ensuring neutrality

 Privacy

This study further assumes that framing demonetization and abiding by broadcasting ethics can be affected by certain pressure on the journalists and the organization. This pressure can be from within or outside the organization. Studies states that there are ways in which politics and economy influence how the media works. Political Economy Theory of Communication is therefore taken as the third theory here. This theory analyzes the power relationships between politics, mediation, and economics. It says elite control of economic institutions affects social institutions like mass media. Political economists accept the Marxist assumption that the base dominates the superstructure (Naveed, 2017). It is believed that control by the powerful groups like political parties and business houses limit or bias the forms of information produced and distributed through the media.

This study tries to establish a link between these three media theories.

27 Chapter 4

Methodology

The study of ‘Media ethics in times of demonetization’ utilizes two methods. In order to understand how the issue of demonetization was discussed and portrayed by news channels in India the researcher does a qualitative analysis of content broadcasted in two selected television news channels. Debates on demonetization broadcasted by ‘NDTV 24x7’ and ‘Times Now’ is analyzed here. The period of 8th November, 2016 right from the announcement made to 28thth February, 2017 when the commotion settled to some extent is taken into account. Debates analyzed here are selected on the basis of common themes/topics that both the channels chose to debate or discuss.

Additionally in-depth interview of media experts throw light on understanding media ethics today and particularly in times of crisis. Why it is needed, how it is reflected or not reflected by media through its content, were ethics followed while reporting demonetization and related questions are answered by the experts. Semi structured interview with 14 journalists around the country was conducted. Findings after analysing demonetization debates are also validated by a few experts.

Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to answer the following questions regarding the methods chosen to carry out the study.

4.1. Why NDTV and Times Now?

On the night of 8th November 2016 when the Prime Minister of India appeared before the nation in an unscheduled live TV address, and announced demonetization of INR 500 and 1000 notes with immediate effect, that sudden and economic nature of the announcement had far-reaching repercussions on media. It became a widely discussed & viewed event on television (BARC, 2018). Viewership of television news channels increased enormously and among them the two English news channels that gained maximum popularity are NDTV 24x7 and Times Now.

28 A graph below gives us the impression of the Indian English news channels from August 2016 to February 2017. Using BARC data on weekly impressions ‘The Quint’ published a report on television viewership on 2017. The same is considered in this study to understand the viewership pattern of the English news channels in India during demonetization.

Fig 1. English news channels weekly impression (Source – The Quint)

Here ‘Impression’ refers to the number of individuals in 000s of a target audience who viewed an "event", averaged across minutes. This is also known as TVT (Television Viewership in Thousands). The numbers starting from 35-6 are the weeks marked from August 27, 2016 to February 10, 2017. The impressions of all the four English news channels are shown in colored dots ranging from 100 to 1400 in thousands. In this study the researcher is mainly focusing on the period when demonetization was announced. The month of November comprises week 46, 47 and 48 with the announcement of demonetization and its immediate effects seen in television viewership.

Times Now was the leading news channel of that time with a visibly huge gap between it and all the other channels. On a closer look NDTV 24x7 gave a tough competition to CNN News 18 and India Today TV and secured the second most watched news channel of that time. The

29 impression of Times Now and NDTV 24x7 seemed to be higher than the other channels in the graph in November thus giving the researcher a reason to conduct a study on the content of these two most watched English news channels of the country during demonetization.

4.2 Why Content Analysis?

Content analysis is considered both a quantitative and a qualitative research method. The overarching goal of much of the research using this method is to demonstrate and understand how an issue is presented by media as ‘content’ for viewers/readers to consume. Unlike research that examines how individuals’ patterns of media consumption shape their attitudes about the issue being covered, content analysis appraises the meaning and messages within the media sources themselves.

Content analysis is more than watching TV or movies, or reading newspapers or comics (Kort-Butler, 2016). How the story is told and how characters are portrayed are often more specific plot points here. Content analysis requires systematically watching or reading with an analytical and critical eye, going beyond what is presented and looking for deeper meanings and messages to which media consumers are exposed.

Television news, discussion or debates are messages conveyed in words, voice, facial expression, visual symbols and camera techniques. The qualitative analysis of these video begins with choosing analytical units that meet one’s theoretical goals but which do not violate the nature of the content in hand.

Content is analyzed on the following parameters -

 Visual: To understand the appealing factors of the channel and how the chosen issue is portrayed by them through colors, pictures, texts, graphics, visuals and screen divisions. These are visual elements that work as tools to suggest meanings. For e.g. Color can help catch viewer’s attention. Studies say color can communicate information in an active visual environment and help viewers relate to a product (Sherin, 2012). Warm colors like red attract more attention than cold colors like blue (Breuer & Rumpf, 2015)

30  Duration: To analyze the duration of the entire programme, duration of the visuals and reports (shown in between), time and chance given to each panelist to speak. This will determine the importance given by the channel to a particular topic/issue and exposure given to a panelist.

 Context: To critically analyze the context of demonetization discussion in debates of the two news channels. For this debates will be analyzed under sub parameters like panel, anchor’s take, repetition of words or statements, extreme responses, frames and hashtags. This will help determine the channels approach towards the issue.

Analyzing debates under these parameters and sub parameters will not only explain framing of demonetization by news channels but also find out whether or not ethics were followed.

4.3 Why Expert Interview?

An expert has special knowledge related to their professional field. They can provide explicit as well as implicit knowledge about work, rules of decision-making, collective orientations and other social aspects (Littig & Vienna, 2013) In this study, talking to experts in the exploratory phase is considered to be more efficient and concentrated method of gathering data than participatory observation or quantitative surveys. Expert interviews can also shorten time- consuming data gathering processes, particularly if the experts are ready to give practical insider knowledge and are interviewed as surrogates for a wider circle of players (Bogner, Littig, & Menz, 2009; Henriksen, Larsen, Storm, & Ryom, 2014).

Ethics in media is the analysis of the practice of journalism and application of its principles to situations and issues. Journalism ethics investigate the problems of what individual journalist should do in particular situations and the problems of what news media should do, given their role in society (Dixit, 2012). With the limits of free speech, accuracy, fairness, privacy, proper presentation of news, media ethics is a vast and subjective area with each media worker having their own definition. And it is important to understand the perspective of the people who have worked and are working actively as experts in this field of media.

31 The experts in this study answered a few preset open-ended questions. The questions were based on the area of research divided into two parts that is ‘media ethics’ and ‘covering crisis’ especially demonetization, 2016. In order to have the interview data captured more efficiently, audio recording is done with proper consent of the experts.

Interview responses of the experts are analyzed on the following parameters.

 Theme : Identifying the theme

 Keywords: To find the words repeated or predominantly used by the experts during interview

 Definitions: To analyze the definitions provided by experts to understand the media terms better. E.g. media ethics

 Commonality: To analyze what is mostly understood, followed or accepted by the experts in the name of media ethics in times of crisis.

 Role of media: To understand the role of media during demonetisation through instances and experiences shared

32 Chapter 5

Data Analysis and Findings

5.1 Content Analysis

The content analyzed in this study are the debates on demonetization broadcasted in two very popular English news channels in India, NDTV 24x7 and Times Now. Twenty debates were carefully selected from the two channels based on topics or themes that both the channels chose for conducting debates. Ten episodes from each were analyzed based on the following topics –

1. First debate after the announcement 2. Divided opposition or united opposition 3. Asaduddin Owaisi against BJP 4. Change in rules for cash transactions 5. PM’s New Year speech 6. GDP growth after demonetization 7. Political Funding

5.1.1 Analysis of demonetization debates on NDTV 24 x 7

Debate 1 : 8th November 2016, Day of announcement

Programme : Midnight Strike on Black Money (Special Edition)

Duration : 20:01 minutes

Anchor : Manisha Natarajan

Topic : Cash cleanup for cleaner economy?

The topic of discussion in this debate is in the form of a question. The government’s decision to demonetize high denomination currency, INR

33 500 and INR 1000, primarily to curb black money and end corruption was not blindly accepted as a great move but questioned by the channel. Without any appraisal, keeping in mind the problems that the people in the country would face due to noteban, the channel proceeded with its very first debate on demonetization 2016 right after it was announced by the Prime Minister of India.

Visual appeal : The first thing that a viewer notices is a clean and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. The ‘opening sequence’ or the ‘opening title’ is of old notes being replaced by new notes. The visuals of old 500 and 1000 notes transitioning into new notes in a way tickles fear in the minds of people of losing out money that they have in hand. Although it gives a clue that new notes will be introduced to replace the old ones. The debate was a phone-in programme that allowed common man to question the experts and understand what the issue of demonetization is. How to get their money exchanged, where it can be used in case of emergency were questions answered in the debate.

Transition in between the segments of the debate very quickly promoted the topic being discussed, that is, 500 and 1000 notes are being scrapped by just an announcement of the Prime Minister of India. Black and red colored, bold uppercase letters were used in texts stressing on words that described the event. Texts run during the discussion be it lower ticker or graphics were in uppercase for more visibility and clear reading.

Four types of text dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) nameplates of the panelists c) graphics and d) transition text

Panelist mostly appeared in a single window when speaking or making their points on the debate. Single window either with the anchor or the panelist was accompanied by graphics in one side of the screen. The screen was further divided into 3-4 windows for visibility of each panelist and the anchor participating in the programme. Reasonable exposure was

34 given to each panelist and there were no clash or overlapping of voices.

Visuals of old currency replaced with new currency were played during the discussion.

Durations : 18 seconds of old notes and 24 seconds of new note visuals were put in the programme of 20 minutes. The visuals were a proof and relief that one need not panic as there is a way to exchange it in every possible situation.

Panelists : The panel comprised of experts having knowledge and background on economics. Panel include -

1) Monika Halan, Consulting editor, Mint 2) Dhirendra Kumar, CEO, Value Research Online, and 3) Anshuman Magazine, CBRE

Chance given : 1) Monika Halan, consulting editor, Mint - 6 (to each 2) Dhirendra Kumar, CEO, Value Research Online - 4 panelist) 3) Anshuman Magazine, CBRE -5.

Figures differ on number of times a panelist spoke but analysis say that reasonable chance was given to each panelist to speak. Monika Halan and Angshuman Magazine answered to the viewer’s questions through phone call that added to their figures

Context : Market is down, property prices, stopped transactions, domino effect, short term pain and long term gain; these are a few words and phrases repeatedly used in entire demonetization debate. Big questions related to these issues were answered by the experts. Not only cash distress but topics like property prices, real estate, gold prices etc were also taken into consideration by the anchor and the panelists. Legal ways of getting a hold on people’s hard earned money, borrowed cash, and NRI’s problem in exchanging money were also discussed and answered by the experts here.

There were no arguments or fight between panelists and the anchor. Calm

35 and very short duration debate was conducted by anchor Manisha Natarajan in NDTV 24x7.

The anchor was neutral on the demonetization move, neither supporting nor opposing the government’s decision at the beginning of the debate. Concerning about the problems people of the nation might face due to demonetization was objective on her part. However as the discussion progressed, Natarajan turned to be positive about the government’s move quoting Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on ‘long term gain’ of demonetization. No social media appeal or hashtags was used in this debate.

Frame : Human interest and economic consequences frame

Debate 2 : 16th November, 2016

Programme : The Buck Stops Here

Duration : 20:07 minutes

Anchor :

Topic : Note Ban storm in the Parliament: Can divided opposition take on the Government?

Reports came of cash vans being looted, farmers pleading banks for their own money and people waiting in queues are actually dying. The ‘Buck Stops Here’ looked at the politics of the cash ban on the first day of winter session of Parliament. The debate discussed about Trinamool led opposition marching to the President to voice their protest. As only Congress and Aam Admi Party joined Bengal chief minister Mamata for her march to the President’s house protesting demonetization while other opposition parties were not invited, the question raised ‘does opposition

36 unity ends here?’ Some parties demanded demonetization rollback while others were bad-tempered about its implementation. The channel through this debate asks - Is the opposition truly united in taking on the government on the cash ban?

Visual appeal : Again, what is obvious is the cleaner and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. The debate started with the anchor accompanied by visuals of clash in the Parliament followed by CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury’s comment on demonetization while addressing the speaker of the parliament. The clash symbolized a big fight between the ruling and the opposition party on note ban.

Transition in between the debate said ‘notebank politics.’ This portrayed demonetization as a political move. BJP through note ban might have cracked down the unity of the opposition claims the channel.

Black and red coloured, bold letters were used in texts stressing on words that described the news or the information that the programme wanted to convey to its viewers. The texts appearing on screen during the discussion were in uppercase for more visibility and clear reading.

Four types of text dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) nameplates of the panelists c) graphics and d) transition text

Panelist or the anchor was always put in single window while speaking. Single windows mostly appeared on one side of the screen while the other side was for visuals and graphics. Double windows were used to show two panelists responding to one another or the anchor and a panelist answering to counter questions. The screen was further divided into 3-5 windows with panelist and anchor occupying one window each. Reasonable exposure was given to each panelist and the single window helped viewers to directly relate to the person speaking.

Visuals of clash between politicians in the Parliament was shown in the

37 programme.

Duration : A total of 3.24 minutes of parliament session, 1.30 minutes of Bengal Chief Minister Mamata's march, 50 seconds of opposition’s meeting with President and 55 seconds of ATM queue visuals were played during the discussion. Almost 7.30 minutes of visual ran in a debate of 20.7 minutes. The visuals were of recent happenings in the country during demonetization.

Panelists : The panel comprised of mostly politicians. An expert also joined the debate to comment on banking issues due to demonetization. Panelists are - 1) GVL Narsimha Rao, BJP 2) Sushmita Dev, Congress 3) Mahua Moitra, Trinamool 4) Abhay Aima, Director HDFC Securities

Chance given : 1) GVL Narsimha Rao, BJP - 4 2) Sushmita Dev, Congress- 3 3)Mahua Moitra, Trinamool)- 2 4) Abhay Aima (Director HDFC Securities)-2

BJP spokesperson gets the maximum chance to speak as more questions were put to him by the anchor.

Context : Divided opposition, storm in parliament, stories of the poor; these are words repeated in their talk and texts. These words indicated division in oppositions unity, fight in the parliament between ruling and the opposition, stories of poor unheard and no sign of constructive debate on the issue of demonetization in parliament. The channel labeled it to be a ‘stormy start’ to the winter session of the parliament.

There was a minimal argument between BJP and Congress party representative on criticizing the stand of Rahul Gandhi in protest against

38 note ban. Anchor Vishnu Som questioned the position of the government in solving problems of common people caused due to sudden decision of demonetization. Questions raised were based on allegations by others and studies done on ground realities by the channel as well as other media organizations. However the anchor at times supported and defended the Prime Minister against opposition’s criticism. No social media appeal or hashtags were used in this debate.

Frame : Human interest and responsibility frame

Debate 3 : 21st November, 2016

Programme : We the People

Duration : 53:19 minutes

Anchor : Barkha Dutt

Topic : Black Money Debate: Counting on Change?

The topic of debate again is in the form of a question. Another question that NDTV in this debate raises - ‘is demonetization PM Modi's Masterstroke or Mayhem?’ ‘We The People’ looked at the politics and economics of demonetization. Was demonetization about hit at black money or digitise the economy? What is its real aim? Will it net the big fish? Here Big Fish meant most corrupt rich people residing in the country with unaccounted money and perceptibly devoid of any note ban effect. The channel terms demonetization as ‘Modi government's gamble.’ Stories of the debate revolved around people struggling to cope with this move as well as those who have adapted to the digital economy.

Visual appeal : Clean and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. The debate opens with a red banned mark on old notes as the opening title, people

39 standing in ATM queues and political fight. The sequence indicated harsh reality of ‘no cash’ and crisis like situation in the country. Listening to common man’s problem, portraying it in news for the people in power to see, raising voice on behalf of the people suffering was what NDTV was doing in this debate. The debate was carried out in a big set with seven guests discussing the big questions related to the crisis and surrounded by public who had the opportunity to put across their stories, ask questions and seek answers on the spot.

Black and red coloured, bold letters were used for texts appearing on the screen for viewers, stressing on words that described the news or the information that the programme wanted to convey. Texts were in uppercase for visibility and clear reading.

Five types of text dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) nameplates of the panelists c) graphics d) tweets and e) text narrating stories of the victims

There were no screen divisions in windows. The anchor and the panelists appeared in single bust shot frames and at times full shot of the studio.

Duration : No visuals were used in the debate

Panelists : The panel comprised of academicians, author, technical advisors and business people with a well built background on economics. A ruling party member and an opposition party member were included to view the issue from all possible sides. Panel included -

1) Arving Gupta, BJP 2) Jayati Ghosh, Centre for Economics and Planning, JNU 3) Gurcharan Das, Author and commentator 4) Devangshu Dutta, Technical and Equity Analyst 5) Shailaja Chandra, Former Chief Secretary, Delhi 6) Gaurav Gogoi, MP, Congress

40 7) Bipin Preet Singh, Co-founder Mobiwik

Chance given : 1) Arving Gupta, BJP - 8 2) Prof Jayati Ghosh, Centre for economics and planning, JNU - 4 3) Gurcharan Das, Author and commentator - 4 4) Devangshu Dutta, Technical and Equity Analyst - 3 5) Shailaja Chandra, Former Chief Secretary, Delhi - 4 6) Gaurav Gogoi, MP, Congress -5 7) Bipin Preet Singh, Co-founder Mobiwik - 3

Arvind Gupta gets maximum chance to speak as he represented the government and was responsible to answer a variety of questions raised on demonetization issue by the anchor, public and other panelists in the debate.

Context : Pain, gap, banking system, informal economy, private hospitals, farmer’s struggle, individual stories, big fish, implementations; were words repeated in their talk and texts indicating problems in the ways banks operated during the cash crunch period. The informal economy has been affected immensely by this decision, debate claims. Individual stories of people struggling, cases of families losing their members as private hospitals denied to take old notes, pain of the farmers, etc were critically discussed and questioned by both panelist and the anchor on behalf of the common people.

There were no extreme responses or arguments among people taking part in the debate. Barkha Dutta was critical on the move and chiefly questioned the government spokesperson on issues of common man. She calls it ‘gambling’ by the Prime Minister. Whether this gambling is for the corrupt’s to fall into trap or gambling to damage opposition’s image and strongly build his own was the confusion. The debate was moderated in a way that emphasized on flagging and bridging the gaps in government

41 policies.

No social appeal or hashtags used in this debate.

Frame : Human interest and responsibility frame

Debate 4 : 12th December, 2016

Programme : The Buck Stops Here

Duration : 49:18 minutes

Anchor : Barkha Dutt

Topic : Notes Ban: Owaisi's Religious Twist, Mamata's Warning To 'Modi Babu'

Here NDTV claims that AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has given a religious twist to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's move to demonetization. He alleges that cash is not being disbursed in Muslim- dominated areas. The Buck Stops Here, questions AIMIM chief for introducing a communal divide in the demonetization debate. NDTV calls it irresponsible politics. Also West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s question on safety aspect of digital India initiative after hacker attack on journalist’s account steals the limelight. The big question in the debate was- just over a month of demonetization, is it still advantage BJP? And is the opposition failing to wrest the narrative from the government?

Visual appeal : Clean and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. ‘Cash seize in new notes while raid on advocate Rohit Tondon’s law firm’ called for attention. On one side there were people who did not have access to their own money, struggling in banks to withdraw the limited amount announced by the government and on the other side there were big trunks loaded with new notes found in a law firm. Such news would not only

42 ignite anger but distrust among common citizens on secrecy aspect of the entire demonetization scheme. The money in new notes allegedly belonged to the politicians, said the reports.

Black and red colored, bold letters were used in texts stressing on information that the programme wanted to communicate to its viewers. The texts running on the screen were in uppercase for more visibility and clear reading.

Three types of text dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) nameplates of the panelists and c) graphics.

The anchor and panelists appeared in a single window while speaking. The window occupied one side of the screen while the other side was for visuals and graphics. The screen was further divided into 5-7 windows with panelists and anchor occupying one window each. Reasonable exposure was given to each panelist and single window helped viewers to directly relate to the person speaking. There was no clash or overlapping of voices.

Duration : There was a live report on the cash seize by NDTV reporter for a total of 4.13 minutes. Visuals of new note seize ran for a 4.24 minutes, followed by visuals of ATM queue for 46 seconds, gold bars for 9 seconds and compilation of photographs of demonetization struggle for 2.48 minutes. The visuals mainly portrayed injustice and problems caused to people due to demonetization.

Panelists : The panel comprised of mostly politicians from the parties directly related to the topic of discussion. Two experts participated in the debate to evaluate and provide rational explanation to the twist brought in by AIMIM chief. The panelists are -

1) Nalin Kohli, BJP 2) Sachin Pilot, Congress

43 3) , Sr. Journalist 4) Sunil Alagh, Independent Strategy Consultant 5) Mahua Moitra, TMC 6) Imtiaz Jaleel (AIMIM)

Chance given : 1) Nalin Kohli, BJP - 7 2) Sachin Pilot (Congress) -3 3) Shekhar Gupta (Sr Journalist) - 4 4) Sunil Alagh (Independent Strategy Consultant)-2 5) Mahua Moitra (TMC)- 3 6) Imtiaz Jaleel (AIMIM)-2

Nalin Kohli gets the maximum chance to speak as more questions were put to him by opposition party members and the anchor to clarify the governments take on it.

Context : Big untold story, money belongs to politicians, demonetization as homeopathy, digital India safety; these are a few phrases repeated in the discussion.

There were absolutely no arguments or extreme responses in this debate despite of controversial, communal or discrimination blame on the government. Bakha Dutt questioned BJP to the issue of 13.6 crores of news currency seized from office of advocate Rohit Tondon on post demonetization raid. Digital India security and hacking of journalists account was also questioned in general without any emphasis on Barkha’s own account being hacked. Anchor clearly opposed Owaisi's comments saying this is communal divide and irresponsible politics on the part of AIMIM as there was no proof as such. Not welcoming communal and religious aspects in a sensitive issue like demonetization was objective on anchor’s part. No social media appeal or hashtags were used in this debate.

Frame : Responsibility frame

44 Debate 5 : 15th December, 2016

Programme : The Buck Stops Here

Duration : 48:18 minutes

Anchor : Barkha Dutt

Topic : Owaisi Vs BJP on Notebandi. Communal Politics or Digital Divide?

The topic is a question to understand what AIMIM is trying to bring out by opposing demonetization and attacking BJP. Whether there was real discrimination? Demonetization triggered a discrimination debate between communities, religion and politicians, claims the channel. AIMIM's chief Asaduddin Owaisi claiming that not enough cash is being disbursed in Muslim neighbourhoods was a topic that NDTV 24x7 decided to debate for a second time. In ‘The Buck Stops Here,’ debate is between Owaisi and the BJP and the channel is questioning if this is a communal politics or a digital divide?

Visual appeal : Clean and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. Breaking news of attack on RBI Governor Urjit Patel at the very beginning of the show called for attention. The day Bengal's ruling party Trinamool Congress declared that the Central government's currency ban had resulted in nearly a hundred deaths, governor of the Reserve Bank of India came within an inch of being shoved at the airport by angry Congress workers. With a beginning like this the debate proceeded to discuss a topic that had no relation to it.

Transition between the shots said ‘notebank politics.’ This indicates that note ban is more a political move. Texts in red boxes with white letters were used to highlight the big question asked to both the parties. Red colour was used for words stressing on information that the programme wanted to convey. The texts in between the programme were in uppercase

45 for more distinct reading.

Four types of text dominated the debate – a) lower tickers b) nameplates of the panelists c) graphics and d) transition text

Anchor and panelists were put in single window while speaking. The window occupied one side of the screen while the other side was for visuals and graphics. The screen was also divided into two windows with one panelist each debating face to face on the issue. The screen was further divided into 5-6 windows showing all the participants of the debate. Reasonable exposure was given to each panelist and single window helped viewers to directly relate to the person speaking. There was no commotion or overlapping of voices.

Visuals : The visual of Urjit Patel attacked in Kolkata was played for not more than 30 second despite of controversy and hype it could create among viewers. Visuals of usual ATM queue, note exchange were run for about a minute in the entire show. This indicates that visuals weren’t given much importance in this debate.

Panelists : The panel comprised both politicians and experts as channel’s attempt to view the issue from all possible sides. The panelists are -

1) Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMIM 2) Sambit Patra, BJP 3) Rakesh Sinha, Historian/ RSS Ideologue 4) Abid Rasool Khan, Chairperson TSMC 5) T.K Oommen, Sociologist

Chance given : 1) Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMIM - 8 2) Sambit Patra, BJP) - 5 3) Rakesh Sinha, Historian/RSS Ideologue - 4 4) Abid Rasool Khan, Chairperson TSMC -2 5) T.K Oommen, Sociologist - 4

46 Here Asaduddin Owaisi gets the maximum chance to speak for questions bombarded to him by the anchor as well as the other panelists for making fuzzy comments like discrimination with the Muslims during demonetization.

Context : Communal politics, digital divide, Muslims, religious minorities, banking system, financial inclusion, etc, are the words repeatedly used and discussed in the debate.

There were no arguments or extreme responses. Barkha Dutt maintained her stand on critically opposing Asaduddin Owaisi for his comments on discrimination and injustice done to the Muslims. She claimed that taking demonetization as a cover AIMIM chief is into communal divide. Every innocent person in this country is having problems due to demonetization irrespective of caste, creed and religion. Owaisi’s points based on the statistics and reports were not considered enough to prove discrimination on Muslims. By not allowing Owaisi to bring in a communal divide Barkha appealed people to have a greater focus on all marginalized group and not only Muslims. Stating India as a deeply unequal country the anchor requested all to recognize fault lines without politicizing every conversation. No social media appeal or hashtags used in this debate.

Frame : Conflict frame

Debate 6 : 19th December, 2016

Programme : Left Right Centre

Duration : 14:13 minutes

Anchor :

Topic : Rules Changed Again, Reflects Poor Implementation?

47 The topic of debate is yet again in a question form. Ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi dramatically announced the end of the 500 and 1,000 currency notes on the night of November 8, there have been more than 50 notifications by the finance ministry and the Reserve Bank of India on the rules of withdrawing and depositing money. The Prime Minister and the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said people need not rush to banks to deposit old notes as they had time till the end of December, But the government changed its mind again. On 19th of December Reserve Bank of India announced 52nd notification that people can deposit over 5,000 rupees in the old notes only once. When they do, they will have to explain it to at least two bank officials why this could not be deposited earlier. The question in the debate is - Have the constantly changing rules helped or hurt ordinary people?

Visual appeal : Clean and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. The debate opens with the anchor announcing new rule by the RBI on demonetization to make it more difficult for the people already suffering. The shot opens with a huge RBI logo and the announcement in graphics.

Texts and some special words were highlighted in red coloured box. Usual black and red coloured, bold letters were used for words that described the news or information the programme wanted to convey. The texts in between the programme were in uppercase for more visibility and clear reading.

Three types of text dominated the debate – a) lower tickers b) nameplates of the panelists c) graphics

A news report on changing rules of the government and its effect on the people was run in between the debate.

Anchor and panelists were always put in a single window while speaking. The window occupied one side of the screen while the other side was for

48 visuals and graphics. The screen was further divided into five windows showing faces of all the participants. Reasonable exposure was given to each panelist and single window helped viewers to directly relate to the person speaking. There was no commotion or overlapping of voices.

Duration : News report titled ‘#CashBan: Flip Flop Rules’ played for exactly 2 minutes. It was the only visual in the debate.

Panelists : The panel in this debate comprised of mostly politicians and one expert. Economist Arun Kumar was to analytically assess the policies of the government. Panelists were -

1) Sambit Patra, BJP 2) Prof. Arun Kumar, Economist 3) Rakesh Sinha, RSS Ideologue 4) Salman Soz, Congress

Chance given : 1) Sambit Patra, BJP - 1 2) Prof. Arun Kumar, Economist -1 3) Rakesh Sinha, RSS Ideologue -1 4) Salman Soz, Congress – 1

Equal chance was given to each panelist to speak.

Context : 52nd notification, changing rules, poor implementation, are banks police stations? These were the most repeated words and phrases during the discussion.

The government spokesperson was agitated on questions regarding frequent change in rules of withdrawing and depositing money in banks. There was a minimal argument between Sambit Patra and the anchor blaming each other to be frantic on the matter. Anchor Nidhi Razdan was questioning the government for frequent change in rules and does that reflect poor implementation. While attempting to seek answers Razdan

49 was critical on the panelist.

#Cashban and #Noteban were the two hashtags linking to the news report broadcasted in the middle of the debate.

Frame : Responsibility frame

Debate 7 : 27th December, 2016

Programme : The Buck Stops Here

Duration : 14:11 minutes

Anchor : Vishnu Som

Topic : Rahul Gandhi leads fractured opposition on Note Ban, DeMo advantage NaMo?

A divided opposition, only 8 out of 16 parties turned up for the Congress joint press conference on demonetization. Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in this meeting said the Prime Minister should resign because 50 days is going to get over and demonetization is still a pain. The Buck Stops Here debated demonetization deadline and if it is advantage Modi?

Visual appeal : Clean and subtle appearance of channel with minimal texts. The debate opens with an announcement to demonetization deadline.

Transition says ‘notebank politics’ referring demonetization to be more a political move. Black and red coloured, bold letters were used in texts stressing on words that described the news, statements and allegations of others and information that the programme wanted to convey. The texts in the programme were in uppercase for more clear and visible reading.

50 Four types of text dominated the debate – a) lower tickers b) nameplates of the panelists c) graphics and d) transition text

The anchor and panelists were put in single window while speaking. The window occupied one side of the screen while the other side was for visuals and graphics. The screen was further divided into 3-4 windows showing all the participants. Reasonable exposure was given to each panelist and single window helped viewers to directly relate to the person speaking. There was no commotion or overlapping of voices.

Visuals of political leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Mamata Bannerjee were run during the debate portraying their protest against demonetization.

Duration : Visuals of Rahul Gandhi, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Mamata Banerjee, appeared for almost one minute each. Opposition party meeting was shown for about half a minute. Not much importance is given to visuals in the channel.

Panelists : The panel comprised of politicians only as the topic was on opposition party’s protest against demonetization. The panelists comprised of protesting opposition party, ruling party and non protesting opposition party

1) Pavan Verma, JDU 2) GVL Narsimha Rao, BJP 3) CR Kesavan, Congress

Chance given : 1) Pavan Verma, JDU- 3 2) GVL Narsimha Rao, BJP - 2 3) CR Kesavan, Congress -3

Protesting and non protesting party representative got more chance to speak as questions were put mostly on them requesting to clarify their stand on demonetization.

51 Context : Opposition unity bubble has burst, Mamata-Rahul lead charge, JDU not invited, Sahara Birla scam; there were a few mostly repeated and discussed matters in the debate.

There was a minimal argument between BJP and JDU party member on protest against demonetization. Vishnu Som in the debate was neutral questioning the current position of the both protesting and non protesting opposition parties.

No social media appeal or hashtags used in this debate.

Frame : Responsibility frame and conflict frame

Debate 8 : 31st December, 2016

Programme : The Big Fight

Duration : 57:54 minutes

Anchor : Vikram Chandra

Topic : Special analysis of PM Modi's speech on note ban

Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a televised address on New Year's Eve said his unexpected decision to cancel high-denomination notes has dealt "a serious blow" to black money, terror-financing and tax evasion. Shielding his demonetization drive, Prime Minister in a 45-minute speech said, "There is no precedent globally to what India has done" and thanked the people for "redefining the concept of sacrifice." Through his speech he announced a cluster of new schemes for cheap housing for the poor along with special financial programs for small business, women and farmers, all of which could boost his party's chances of winning Uttar Pradesh which will vote soon for its next government describes the channel.

52 Visual appeal : Clean and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. The debate was live with Commerce Minister of the country, Nirmala Sitharam commenting on Modi's speech.

Transition in between the debate called for attention saying – ‘The New Year Special with PM Modi.’ Red boxes, usual black and red colour, bold letters were used in texts stressing on words that described the news and information that the programme wanted to convey. The texts in between the programme were in uppercase for more clear and visible reading.

Four types of text dominated the debate – a) lower tickers b) nameplates of the panelists c) tweets and d) transition text

The anchor and panelists appeared in a single window while speaking. The window occupied one side of the screen while the other side was for visuals and graphics. The screen was further divided into 2-3 windows with anchor and the minister and anchor and the reporters about reactions of people and political parties right after the speech. As the panel consists of more number of guests the screen split into 8-9 window providing exposures to each panelist participating in the discussion. Reasonable exposure was given to each panelist and single window helped viewers to directly relate to the person speaking. There was no commotion or overlapping of voices.

Visual of PM’s New Year speech, reaction of Amit Shah, live report by two reporters on reactions after the speech from different parts of the country were added to the debate.

Duration : PM Modi’s speech was played at the background for exactly 3 minutes during discussion. Amit Shah’s soundbite was played for 2 minutes and the reporters reported live for almost 4 minutes. Visuals of PM delivering speech did not get much importance in this debate.

Panelists : The panel was a mixture of political party representatives, authors,

53 political commentators, senior journalists and others. The channel attempted to evaluate the speech from all sides possible.

1) Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of State, Commerce and Industry 2) Rakesh Sinha, RSS Ideologue 3) Arun Kumar, Author and Columnist 4) Mihir Sharma, Senior Fellow ORF 5) Pawan Khera, Congress 6) Gurcharan Das, Author and Columnist 7) MK Venu, Founding Editor Wire 8) TV Mohandas Pai, Political Commentator 9) Sunil Alagh, Political Commentator 10) PN Vijay, BJP

Chance given : 1) Pawan Khera, Congress - 2 2) Rakesh Sinha, RSS Ideologue - 2 3) Arun Kumar, Author and Columnist -2 4) Mihir Sharma, Senior Fellow ORF -2 5) Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of State, Commerce and Industry -1 6) Gurcharan Das, Author and Columnist -2 7) MK Venu, Foundig Editor Wire -1 8) TV Mohandas Pai, Political Commentator -2 9) Sunil Alagh, Political Commentator -2 10) PN Vijay, BJP -1

Almost equal chances were given to each panelist to speak and put forward their views on PM’s speech.

Context : Disappointment, budget advance announcement, 50 days of demonetization; money laundering, crooks able to launder money; corruption, waiting for RBI data; tax, honest people suffering; these were the words and phrases repeated and discussed critically with the panelists

54 of the debate. The words clearly indicated that PM’s New Year speech on demonetization was disappointing.

There was an argument between Pavan Khera, Sunil Alagh and Rakesh Sinha on no sign of black money coming back to the system and no action on terror funding.

Anchor Vikram Chandra was critical on the speech delivered by the Prime Minister. He clearly stated that it was disappointing after a long wait of 50 days for PM to not address the nation with good results of the so called bold move. The speech was nothing but an advance announcement of budget. Summarizing the speech at the end, RBI reports with complete evaluation on the move is expected, he said.

No social media appeal or hashtags were used in this debate.

Frame : Economic consequences frame

Debate 9 : 11 February, 2017

Programme : The Big Fight

Duration : 46:42 minutes

Anchor : Vikram Chnadra

Topic : Who funds our Netas?

Demonetization was aimed at curbing black money. But it is not a secret anymore that a substantial portion of it is used for political funding. Emphasizing a prohibition on that the government reduced the limit for cash donations to political parties from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,000 and issued electoral bonds which hoped to ensure any donation above the threshold has to be paid in cheque or through digital means. But the channel asks - Is

55 this enough to clean the electoral funding? Can there not be complete transparency to ensure that black money is not routed through political parties?

Visual appeal : Clean and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. No controversial news report or visuals were used in the debate. The topic of discussion is itself very appealing and crucial one. Audience question and suggestions were welcomed during the programme.

Red colour, red box and bold letters were used in texts stressing on words that described the problem. The texts simultaneously running with the discussion were in uppercase for more clear reading.

Four types of text dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) nameplates of the panelists c) graphics and d) social media appeal

The panelists and the anchor always appeared in the single window while speaking. Screen was also divided into double window for panelists debating against one another. There were full shot of the studio with live audience.

Duration : No visuals or reports were played during the debate.

Panelists : The panel comprised of mainly experts related to the field of politics and elections, fund management, finance and others. Political party representatives were also added to clarify their stand on this new limit for donations

1) Yogendra Yadav, Social activist/President Swaraj India 2) Milan Vaishnav, Author 3) Dr. SY Quraishi, Former Chief Election Commissioner 4) Jagdeep Chhokar, Founder Association of Democratic Reform 5) Surjit Bhalla, MD Oxy Fund Management 6) Sambit Patra, BJP

56 7) Rajeev Gowda, Congress

Chance given : 1) Yogendra Yadav, President Swaraj India – 5 2) Milan Vaishnav, Author- 3 3) Dr. SY Quraishi, Former Chief Election Commissioner- 3 4) Jagdeep Chhokar, Founder Association of Democratic Reform- 7 5) Surjit Bhalla, MD Oxu Fund Management- 4 6) Sambit Patra, BJP- 4 7) Rajeev Gowda, Congress -2

Jagdeep Chhokar gets the maximum opportunity to speak as his organization reports exposed who actually funds our Netas. Huge percentage of funds comes from unknown sources for political parties revealed by ADR (Association of Democratic Reform).

Context : Transparency, electoral bonds, anonymous or unknown sources, black money, parties value muscle power because it brings money with it, corporate money, crime records, amendment, criminals among politicians, demonetization; are a few words repeatedly used and discussed during the debate.

There were no arguments or extreme responses among the participants of the debate.

Vikram Chandra was neutral throughout the debate allowing panelists to mostly keep forwarding their views and suggestions.

Appeal was made to the viewers to write to bigfight@.com on what should be the steps that the government needs to take to ensure complete transparent funding of political parties. No hashtags were used in this debate.

Frame : Human interest, economic consequences and responsibility frame

57 Debate 10 : 28th February, 2017

Programme : Left Right Centre

Duration : 20:26 minutes

Anchor : Nidhi Razdan

Topic : Growth stays steady at 7%

The GDP numbers defied expectations as even after the note ban growth was hooked at 7%. However it was the slowest in eight quarters.

Visual appeal : Clean and subtle appearance of the channel with minimal texts. No controversial news report or attractive visuals was used to attract viewers. The topic of discussion itself was contentious as it shocked the entire nation with GDP growth of 7% even after noteban.

Red colour, red box and bold letters were used in texts stressing on words that described the news. The texts running on screen simultaneously with the discussion was in uppercase for more visible and clear reading.

Three types of text dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) nameplates of the panelists and c) graphics

The panelists and the anchor appeared in the single window while speaking. Screen was further divided into 4-5 windows providing exposure to each participant.

A report by Sandeep Phukan was added to the discussion on how those GDP numbers added up.

Duration : Sandeep Phukan report on GDP growth was for almost 2 minutes. This report was important as it gave insights on how these numbers added up to such a growth percentage.

58 Panelists : Panel comprised people with economics background and one government representative. Panelists were

1) Naina Lal Kidwai, Ex President FICCI 2) Arun Kumar, Author, Economist 3) PN Vijay, BJP 4) Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, CMD Biacon

Chance given : 1) Naina Lal Kidwai, Ex President FICCI -2 2) Arun Kumar, Author, Economist- 2 3) PN Vijay, BJP)- 2 4) Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, CMD Biacon - 2

Visibly equal chances were given to each panelist to speak.

Context : No demonetization impact? Note ban impact transitory? Job losses; these are words and phrases repeated and discussed persistently under the main topic of GDP growth.

Argument between government representative and the anchor took place. BJP representative PN Vijay was agitated for questioning on the matter critically.

Anchor Nidhi Razdan was shocked with the figure but stayed neutral during the entire debate questioning the panelists and assessing all possibilities for having such ideal percentage of growth after noteban.

No social media appeal or hashtags were used in this debate

Frame : Economic consequences frame

59 5.1.2 Analysis of demonetization debates on Times Now

Debate 1 : 8th November 2016, Day of Announcement

Programme : The Newshour Debate 1 (Special Edition)

Duration : 36:51 minutes

Anchor :

Topic : PM Modi’s surgical strike on black money

The topic of debate is in the form of an announcement and declaration that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has led the charge against corruption. With much appreciation and acknowledgement towards the Prime Minister, debate proceeded with repeated announcement of rules and regulations to exchange old note and places where one can use them.

Visual appeal : The channels dynamic screen has changed traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing. Traditional texts are replaced by multiple graphic bands like super and snipe. There are superfast animation effects on programme logo and transitions. The screen is text heavy with similar information at the top and bottom.

The transition in between the debate says ‘The Newshour with Arnab Goswami, DEBATE’ which is mostly promoting and creating impression of the programme in minds of viewers. The channel is fixed with blue and red as its primary colours and the same is maintained in graphics, bands and other texts throughout the programme. Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the discussion are in uppercase for more visible, clear reading and impact.

Four types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) window head and d) transition text

60 The screen is always divided into windows as per the number of panelists with the anchor at the centre. Times Now follows a triple window format where panelists are put according to their stand for the topic. The ‘window heads’ or ‘window titles’ explain the stand of the panelists. Windows are divided as ‘supporting the move’, ‘topic of debate’ and ‘questioning the move.’ Anchor sits at the centre dividing panelists as ‘for and against.’ Panelists appear in either ‘supporting’ or ‘questioning’ window while speaking. However this isn’t maintained throughout the programme and there is overlapping of voices coming from other panelists.

Visuals of new currency launch by the RBI and reaction of Congress party on demonetization was played during the debate.

Duration : Visuals of new currency launch was played for just 19 seconds while the Congress party reaction to demonetization was run for more than 4 minutes. This indicated that reaction of politicians were considered important than information required to be put across to the audience.

Panelists : The panel in this debate mostly comprised of politicians. Two experts were invited for the discussion but anchor’s way of dividing the guests into ‘for and against’ invalidated their expertise for the discussion and highlighted their political affiliations. The panelists were -

1) Dr. Sudhanshu Trivedi, BJP 2) MR Venkatesh, CA and Policy Analyst 3) R Rajagopalan, Senior Journalist 4) Dr Ajay Alok, JDU 5) Atul Anjaan, CPI 6) Gaurav Bhatia, SP

Chance given : 1) Dr. Sudhanshu Trivedi(BJP)-4 2) MR Venkatesh (CA and Policy Analyst) - 2 3) R Rajagopalan. (Senior Journalist) -0

61 4) Dr Ajay Alok, (JDU) -1 5) Atul Anjaan (CPI) -3 6) Gaurav Bhatia (SP)-3

The BJP spokesperson gets the maximum chance to speak in this debate for expounding their reason behind demonetization and promoting party’s, especially PM Modi’s ideology.

Context : Major change, PM is a gamechanger, India fighting corruption, war on blackmoney, masterstroke; are a few words repeatedly used during the debate. This clearly portrayed channels support for the government’s move, declaring it to be a success prior to any evaluation.

The debate started with a fight between Arnab and the communist party leader Atul Kumar Anjan for opposing demonetization. Initial 12 minutes of a 36 minute debate was only the fight.

Arnab Goswami was extremely positive towards the move, continuously appreciating and congratulating the Prime Minister for his so called bold step against black money. The anchor was pressurizing the opposition party members to congratulate PM and answer why such step was never taken by any of the political parties in the history despite of fact that demonetization of much higher denomination currency was done twice in India. Arnab was provoking opposition party leaders to fight. He was shaming as well as personally attacking them at the very first place and then blaming them for doing the same with him.

Increasing number of tweets displayed at the top of the screen was a form of appeal to the viewers to join this debate on social media under #IndiaFightsCorruption

Frame : Conflict frame and economic consequences frame

62 Debate 2 : 8th November 2016, Day of Announcement

Programme : The Newshour Debate 2 (Special Edition)

Duration : 32: 26 minutes

Anchor : Arnab Goswami

Topic : Rahul Gandhi against PM Modi's war on black money

The topic of discussion is again in the form of an announcement. INC President Rahul Gandhi ‘opposes war on black money’ claimed the channel. Rahul Gandhi actually ‘opposes demonetization decision by the PM’ explains the party members. The two situations appear to be similar but not the meaning or the message it conveys.

Visual appeal : The channels usual appearance with dynamic screen augmenting the traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing is maintained.

The transition in between the debate said ‘The Newshour with Arnab Goswami, DEBATE’ which was mostly to promote and create impression of the programme on the minds of the viewers. The fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion were in uppercase for more clear reading.

Five types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) window heads d) tweets and e) transition text. One special feature of Times Now debate is visuals of related person or situation is put as the background of the graphics plate.

The screen is always divided into windows with the anchor at the centre. Here the screen was divided into nine windows for eight panelists and the anchor occupying one each. The usual format of triple windows designed

63 with ‘window heads’ for supporting party at one end, anchor at the centre and opposing party at the other end was used. Panelists appeared in one of these three windows while speaking. However this wasn’t maintained throughout the programme.

Increasing number of tweets was displayed at the top left corner of the screen.

Visuals of new currency was played during discussion

Duration : 18 seconds of new currency visuals were run during the debate.

Panelists : The panel mostly comprised of politicians and two others. But guests in Arnab’s debate are divided on the basis of their political preferences or affiliation. The panelists are –

1) Ratan Sharda, RSS 2) Bejon Misra, Consumer Policy Expert 3) Nalin Kohli, BJP 4) Rahul Narvekar, NCP 5) Saba Naqvi, Sr Journalist 6) Tanveer Ahmad, JDS 7)Ashok Sinha, RJD

Chance given : 1) Ratan Sharda, RSS - 2 2) Bejon Misra, Consumer Policy Expert - 3 3) Nalin Kohli, BJP-3 4) Rahul Narvekar, NCP -1 5) Saba Naqvi, Sr Journalist -2 6) Tanveer Ahmad, JDS - 2 7) Ashok Sinha, RJD -1

Panelists supporting the government were clearly given more opportunity to speak.

64 Context : Rahul Gandhi against black money; how much money would an innocent citizen have in cash? common people don’t have black money; inconvenience themselves for national interest; don’t shoot up the shoulders of common people; are a few sentences and questions repeated by the anchor in his attempt to defend the PM for the problems caused to common people because of note ban.

There was continuous provoking, mudslinging and fight between the anchor and panelists questioning the move. The panelists were agitated for continuous interruption by the anchor while trying to put their views and concern for the nation forward.

Arnab Goswami was extremely positive towards demonetization and criticizing Rahul Gandhi for opposition a move so bold and brave.

Increasing number of tweets displayed at the top of the screen was a form of an appeal to the viewers to join this debate on social media under #IndiaFightsCorruption

Frame : Conflict frame

Debate 3 : 16th November 2016

Programme : The Newshour Debate (Special Edition)

Duration : 51:22 minutes

Anchor : Niranjan Narayan Swamy and Tina Sharma Tiwari

Topic : Winter Session- Opposition wants demonetization rollback

The debate discussed opposition’s protest against demonetization demanding for a rollback. The channel claims that the move exposed cracks in opposition unity to go against the government. Political fight in

65 the parliament, Mamata’s march to President supported by only Congress and AAP despite of several other opposition parties were discussed in the debate.

Visual appeal : The channels usual appearance with dynamic screen augmenting the traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing is seen.

There were two transitions in between the debate, one promoting the show and other promoting the hashtag #BlackmoneyDebate.’

Fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion were in uppercase for more clear reading.

Five types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) window heads d) nameplates and e) transition text. The graphics mostly had visuals running in the background.

The screen is always divided into windows with the anchor at the centre. Here the screen was divided into nine windows for eight panelists and the anchor occupying one each. Double window appeared with anchor and a panelist facing each other. The usual format of windows with window head was used. Panelists were put in this format while speaking. However this wasn’t maintained throughout the programme as there were commotion and overlapping of voices coming from other windows.

Increasing number of tweets was displayed at the top left corner of the screen.

Visuals of Mamata Banerjee’s march to the President, parliament sessions, ATM queues and PM Modi were run throughout the debate

Duration : Mamata Banerjee's march to the President's house was run for a total of 7 minutes. Parliament session comprising ministers and leaders like Arun

66 Jaitley, S Yechury, Mayawati and others ran throughout the debate for more that 13 minutes. Usual ATM and bank queue visuals appeared for almost 3 minutes and visual of Prime Minister was for 15 seconds.

Panelists : The panel in this debate comprised of politicians from ruling and opposition parties and one independent guest with political affiliation. Panelists are –

1) Sudhanshu Trivedi, BJP 2) Sunil Alagh, Chairman, SKA Advisors 3) RK Misra, President NBDP 4) Junaid Matoo, National Conference 5) Dr Fuad Halim, CPI (M) 6) Clyde Crasto, NCP

Chance given : 1) Sudhanshu Trivedi, BJP - 4 2) Sunil Alagh, Chairman, SKA Advisors -2 3) RK Misra, President NBDP -2 4) Junaid Matoo, National Conference -5 5) Dr Fuad Halim, CPI (M) -3 6) Clyde Crasto, NCP -3

Figure indicates Junaid Matoo getting maximum chance to speak as he was continuously provoked to fight back by the anchor. BJP spokesperson gets good chance to speak and put forward their explanations and ideologies.

Context : Hawala, fake currency, secrecy, terror funding, rollback, common man bearing the brunt; are a few words repeated and discussed under the main topic of debate.

Yes, there were extreme responses from both panelist and anchors. First is the argument between Clyde Crasto and anchor Niranjan, second is the argument between Clyde Crasto and Sudhanshu Trivedi, third is the

67 argument between Tina and Junaid Matoo.

The initial 12 minutes of a 51 minutes programme was only argument between Junaid Matoo and the anchors. Matoo claims that the channel is under compulsion to defend the government. He also alleges that the anchors are acting as spokespersons for BJP.

Anchors were deliberately defending the government and questioning the opposition to clear their stand on the issue. Attacking opposition leaders of past issues, provoking them to argue or fight, interrupting each time they make a point and time limits given only to opposition party members.

Increasing number of tweets were displayed at the top left of the screen and an appeal to the viewers to join this debate on social media under #BlackmoneyDebate was evident.

Frame : Conflict frame

Debate 4 : 18th November 2016

Programme : The Newshour Debate (Special Edition)

Duration : 48:18 minutes

Anchor : Niranjan Narayan Swamy and Tanvi Shukla

Topic : Political fight continues over demonetization scheme

Another day of business in Parliament was washed out due to demonetization chaos. Political fight was obstructing parliament from having a constructive debate of demonetization and its related problems. The channel questioned the opposition about the reason behind adjourning parliament sessions.

68 Visual appeal : The channel’s usual appearance with dynamic screen augmenting the traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing is maintained.

The transition in between the debate promoted #BlackmoneyDebate.’

Fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion were in uppercase for more distinct reading.

Five types of text containing information dominated the debate - a) lower ticker b) graphics c) window heads d) nameplates and e) transition text. The graphics mostly had visuals run at the background.

The screen is always divided into windows with anchor at the centre. Here the screen was divided into 7-8 windows for panelists and the anchors occupying one each. Double window appeared for panelists and anchor debating one to one. The usual format of triple windows was used. Panelists were put in one of the triple windows while speaking. However this wasn’t maintained throughout the programme as there were commotion and overlapping of voices coming from other windows.

Increasing number of tweets displayed at the top left corner of the screen.

Parliament chaos, politicians in parliament and visuals of ATM queues were common in the debate.

Duration : For a total of 4.14 minutes of parliament chaos, 3 minutes of politicians and 7 minutes of ATM visuals were run throughout the debate.

Panelists : The panel of the debate comprised of politicians, journalists and political analyst. Panelists were -

1) GVL Narasimha Rao, BJP 2) Prafulla Ketkar, Editor Organiser

69 3) Waris Pathan, AIMIM 4) Alimuddin Khan, Political Analyst 5) Clyde Crasto, NCP 6) Rajeev Rai, SP

Chance given : 1) GVL Narasimha Rao, BJP -7 2) Prafulla Ketkar , Editor Organiser -4 3) Waris Pathan, AIMIM -4 4) Alimuddin Khan, Political Analyst -3 5) Clyde Crasto, NCP -5 6) Rajeev Rai, SP -3

BJP spokesperson got maximum opportunity to speak and put forward their point of view, explanations and disappointments from opposition’s act of adjourning parliament.

Context : Debate hijacked by Congress, another day washed out, Parliament stalled, strategy of Congress; these were a few sentences repeated and discussed upon in the debate. It clearly blames Congress for stalling the parliament session.

There was an argument between Clyde Crasto and the anchor for deliberately blaming and commenting critically on Congress party. Anchors were involved in making judgmental comments, claims the panelist.

Both the anchors strongly defended the government. Allegations and reports forwarded by the oppositions with an aim to attack or question the government was not welcomed in this debate. Opposition party members were continuously interrupted and stopped from making comments in government’s response to the issue. Anchor openly took sides and appreciated members that supported government decision to demonetize with clear verbal gestures.

70 Increasing number of tweets were displayed at the top of the screen and this was an appeal to the viewers to join this debate on social media under #BlackmoneyDebate

Frame : Conflict frame

Debate 5 : 21st November, 2016

Programme : The Newshour Debate (Special Edition)

Duration : 53:25 minutes

Anchor : Niranjan Narayan Swamy and Tina Sharma Tiwari

Topic : Opposition will do anything to stall Parliament

Opposition parties were blamed for cornering the government on demonetization debate for 4th day in Parliament. The Parliament was stalled and the deadlock remained. The debate tried to haul out the oppositions plan and reason behind this behavior. The question was- is opposition opposing for the sake of opposing and resorting to anything and everything to stall Parliament? Or is it running away from demonetization debate?

Visual appeal : The channel’s usual appearance with dynamic screen augmenting the traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing was maintained.

There were two transitions in between the debate, one promoting the show and the other promoting the topic and the hashtag #WinterDeadlock.

Fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion were in uppercase for more clear reading.

71 Four types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) window heads and d) transition text. The graphics mostly had visuals running in the background.

The screen is always divided into windows with the anchors at the centre. Here the screen was divided into 7-8 windows for panelists and the anchors occupying one each. The usual format of triple windows was used. Panelists were put in one of the triple windows while speaking. However this wasn’t maintained throughout the programme as there were commotion and overlapping of voices coming from other panelists.

Increasing number of tweets was displayed at the top left corner of the screen.

Parliament chaos and PM’s visuals were played throughout the debate

Duration : The visuals of chaos in the Parliament for almost 16 minutes and visuals of PM Modi for almost 4 minutes were played throughout the programme.

Panelists : The panel comprised of politicians in majority with two independent members with political affiliation and background. Panelists were -

1) Dr. Fuad Halim, CPI (M) 2) Sidharth Nath Singh, BJP 3) Sudhindra Bhadoria, BSP 4) Bejon Misra, Consumer Policy Expert 5) Mohammad Shahid, SP 6) Ashok Sinha, RJD 7) Shahid Siddiqui, President; Inter Faith Peace Foundation (former politician)

Chance given : 1) Dr. Fuad Halim, CPI (M) -3 2) Sidharth Nath Singh, BJP -7 3) Sudhindra Bhadoria, BSP -4

72 4) Bejon Misra, Consumer Policy Expert -2 5) Mohammad Shahid, SP -2 6) Ashok Sinha, RJD -3 7) Shahid Siddiqui, President; Inter Faith Peace Foundation -2

The BJP spokesperson visibly gets the maximum chance to speak, defend, promote and correct the party image.

Context : Obituary reference; opposition running away; parliament stalled; opposition have lost argument. These are a few words and statement repeatedly used and discussed in the debate.

There were arguments between Shahid Siddiqui and anchor, Bejon Misra and Mohammad Shahid on whether opposition really running away from demonetization debate. The anchors were strongly defending the government without hesitant, supporting the points put forward by supporters of the government. Opposition was blamed for disrupting the procedures of supreme legislative body of the Republic of India. Demands of the opposition to bring Prime Minister into the Parliament session were considered irrational. Anchors strongly appealed opposition to have a rational discussion on the Parliament about what so ever concerns they have regarding the demonetization scheme.

Increasing number of tweets displayed at the top of the screen was an appeal to the viewers to join this debate on social media under #WinterDeadlock

Frame : Conflict and responsibility frame

Debate 6 : 13th December, 2016

Programme : The Newshour Debate

73 Duration : 34:17 minutes

Anchor : Navika Kumar and Anand Narasimhan

Topic : Asaduddin Owaisi Vs Nalin Kohli over PM Modi's Noteban

As politics over PM Modi’s remonetisation scheme escalated across the country, AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi attempted to give the whole issue a communal spin. Addressing a gathering at Udgir in Latur district of Marathwada region, Owaisi claimed that Muslims are discriminated by government. Not enough banks and ATMs are provided in several Muslim areas. The channel brings in Owaisi and government face to face and debate over the matter.

Visual appeal : The channel conducted a one to one live debate on air with Owaisi on one side and government on the other. The friction between the two was expected to attract a large audience.

The channel’s appearance with dynamic screen was augmenting the traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing was maintained.

Transition in between the debate was promoting the programme and the hashtag #OwaisiVsBJP.

Fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate. Yellow colour was used in texts to stress on words that channel wanted to convey to its audience.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion were in uppercase for more visible and clear reading.

Five types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) window heads d) nameplates and e) transition text. The graphics mostly had visuals run at the background.

74 The screen is always divided into windows with the anchors at the centre. The usual format of triple windows was used with anchor/visual/text at the centre and panelists at the two ends. Four windows were used for placing two anchors at the centre. Double window was also used to put the two opposing members to debate face to face. There wasn’t much overlapping of voices as only two panelists took part unlike other debates with 6-8 panelists.

Increasing number of tweets displayed at the top left corner of the screen.

Visuals of Owaisi’s speech were played at the beginning of the debate

Duration : Assaduddin Owaisi’s speech with texts was played for almost 2 minutes at the beginning of the debate.

Panelists : It was a faceoff between Owaisi (MP, AIMIM) and Nalin Kohli (BJP)

Chance given : Owaisi, AIMIM Chief- 4

Nalin Kohli, BJP spokesperson - 3

Owaisi was given more chance to speak for more questions asked to him.

Context : Discrimination; only Muslims suffering? Owaisi shifting goal post, political mileage, persecution of minority; these were words and statements repeated and questioned to Owaisi who called Modi a tyrant.

There were continuous fight between Owaisi and anchors. Nalin Kohli’s argument was much subtle one.

Anchor’s opposed and discouraged Owaisi’s attempt to give a religious twist to the entire issue of ‘demonetization’ which they renamed as ‘remonetisation.’ They were sarcastic and cynical towards AIMIM chief, urged him to look at other sides, not polarize politics as the nation is above Hindu vs Muslims. Anchor stressed that everyone is facing problems.

75 Increasing number of tweets displayed at the top of the screen was an appeal to the viewers to join this debate on social media under #OwaisiVsBJP

Frame : Conflict frame

Debate 7 : 19th December, 2016

Programme : The Newshour Debate

Duration : 55:41 minutes

Anchor : Tanvi Shukla and Navika Kumar

Topic : If Deposit More Than Rs 5000 in Old Notes Explain To Bank Officials

The topic pointed out - are rules for common person and politicians different. Why a common man is put into scrutiny for depositing money above 5000 in bank and a political party not even asked for having huge stack of unaccounted money. The matter discussed was whether 'netas' are more honest than us. This topic of debate in a way attacked politicians and questioned the government for such a notification.

Visual appeal : The channel’s dynamic screen augmenting the traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing was visible

The transitions in between the debate were promoting the programme as well as the hashtag used specially for this debate #JantaVsNeta

Fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate. Yellow box were used to put text that had important information or statements that the channel wanted to convey to its viewers.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion

76 were in uppercase for more clear and visible reading.

Four types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) window heads and d) transition text. The graphics mostly had visuals run at the background.

The screen is always divided into windows with the anchors at the centre. Here the screen was divided into nine windows for panelists and the anchors occupying one each. The usual format of triple windows was used. Panelists were put in one of the triple windows while speaking. However this wasn’t maintained throughout the programme as there were commotion and overlapping of voices coming from other panelists.

Increasing number of tweets was displayed at the left corner of the screen.

Visuals of usual ATM queues and party rallies mixed and put together to showcase the difference between them. Where on one side the common people are suffering standing in queues there are politicians on the other side spending crores on political and election rallies. There was Finance Minister Arun Jaitley speaking on new notification.

Duration : The compilation of videos of politicians in election rallies and people in ATM queues was played for more than 20 minutes dominating the entire debate. Sound bite of Arun Jaitley was for 2 minutes.

Panelists : The panel comprised of politicians in majority with two independent members representing the voice of citizens. Panelists were -

1) Srikant Sharma, BJP 2) Shailesh Gandhi, Former CIC and RTI activist 3) Dr Sumanth C Raman, Political commentator 4) Sudhindra Bhadoria, BSP 5) Kunwar Danish Ali, JDS 6) Clyde Crasto, NCP

77 7) TSR Subramanium, Former cabinet secretary 8) Prasenjit Bose, Economist

Chance given : 1) Srikant Sharma, BJP - 5 2) Shailesh Gandhi, Former CIC and RTI activist -3 3) Dr Sumanth C Raman, Political commentator -2 4) Sudhindra Bhadoria, BSP -3 5) Kunwar Danish Ali, JDS -1 6) Clyde Crasto, NCP- 2 7) TSR Subramanium, Former Cabinet Secretary -2 8) Prasenjit Bose, Economist -1

The BJP spokesperson gets the maximum chance to speak for more questions asked to him by panelists, anchor and viewers. Independent members get chance to raise their voice on behalf of the citizens.

Context : Should rules be different for Janta and different for Neta? Are Banks Police stations? Why questions only to the common man? Accountability, transparency; are words and question repeated and critically discussed in this debate.

The debate directly attacked political parties who are never scrutinized for having huge percentage of unaccounted money and even exempted from paying tax if donated fund is below 20,000.

There were arguments between BJP spokesperson and the anchors throughout the programme.

The anchors primarily questioned the government party member for clarification of such a notification. They were critical on all the politicians participating in the debate. Politicians were challenged by the anchors, other independent panelists and viewers to be transparent with their funds. Inconvenience of common people was taken for consideration in this

78 debate.

Increasing number of tweets displayed at the top left of the screen was an appeal to the viewers to join this debate on social media under #JantaVsNeta

Frame : Human interest and responsibility frame

Debate 8 : 30th December, 2016

Programme : The Newshour Debate

Duration : 29:57 minutes

Anchor : Navika Kumar and Anand Narasimhan

Topic : Remonetisation A Winning Card?

The debate discussed the government’s demonetization exercise, the road ahead, and whether demonetization has proved to be a winning card. The debate took place just before the end of 2016 awaiting PM’s New Year speech. Keeping in mind PM’s Digi-Dhan speech expectations were raised for PM’s New Year speech to bring in positive news on what was expected from the move. What could have been done more by the government to redress the grievances was the question that gained maximum attention in this debate

Visual appeal : The channel’s dynamic screen augmenting the traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing was seen.

There were two transitions in between the debate, one promoting the programme and other promoting the hashtag used specially for this debate #PMNewYearSpeech

79 Fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate. Yellow and white boxes were used to stress on information that were of maximum importance for its viewers to look upon.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion were in uppercase for more clear and visible reading.

Four types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) nameplate and d) transition text. The graphics mostly had visuals running in the background.

The screen is always divided into windows with anchors at the centre. Here the screen was divided into 8-9 windows for panelists and the anchors occupying one each. The usual format of triple windows was used. Panelists were put in one of the triple windows while speaking. However this wasn’t maintained throughout the programme as there were commotion and overlapping of voices coming from other panelists.

Visuals of Prime Minister, Rahul Gandhi, market and people with cash were run during the debate. The demonetization issue from the beginning to the end of that historic year is portrayed through the visuals.

Duration : Prime Minister’s visual for 12 minutes. Rahul Gandhi’s visual for 9 secs, market for almost 1.5 minutes and people with cash for almost a minute was shown in the debate

Panelists : The panel comprised of politicians and experts in the field of academics, finance and social aspects. Panelists were -

1) Syed Zafar Islam, BJP 2) Bejon Misra, Consumer Policy Expert 3) Zafar Sareshwala, Chancellor Maulana Azad National Urdu University 4) Dr. Fuad Halim, CPI(M) 5) Dr. V Raghunathan, Former Banker/ academic

80 6) P Chengal Reddy, Former activist 7) Rahul Narvekar, NCP

Chance given : 1) Syed Zafar Islam, BJP - 1 2) Bejon Misra, Consumer Policy Expert - 1; 3) Zafar Sareshwala, Chancellor Maulana Azad National Urdu University - 1 4) Dr. Fuad Halim, CPI(M)- 1; 5) Dr. V Raghunathan, Former Banker/ academic -1 6) P Chengal Reddy, Former activist -1; 7) Rahul Narvekar, NCP -1

Visibly equal chance was given to each panelist to speak.

Context : PM’s New Year speech, growth in digital transactions, demonetization helping or affecting farmers, participatory notes/cash, job created; these were a few words and sentences repeated and discussed on the debate.

There were arguments between panelists criticizing the government and the anchors. The anchors were strongly defending the government, praising Prime Minister for his bold move against black money and openly supporting panelist that hold up the government. Anchors infact addressed themselves as the part of the government. Like the very first debate on demonetization, this debate also succeeded in congratulating the government again on the eve of New Year.

Hashtag used #PMNewYearSpeech

Frame : Economic consequences and human interest frame

81 Debate 9 : 9th January, 2017

Programme : The Newshour Debate 2

Duration : 43:36 minutes

Anchor : Anand Narasimhan and Tina Sharma

Topic : Arun Jaitley Vs Manmohan Singh over Note Bandi

The debate discussed about former PM Manmohan Singh’s notebandi needle against Finance Minister Arun Jaitley presenting statistics. Opposition and critiques were found slamming selective statistics of government. And the big question was whether India’s growth story was intact? The discussion solely revolved around real tensions on ground vs. statistics of government.

Visual appeal : The channels usual appearance with dynamic screen augmenting the traditional audio-visual experience of news viewing was visible.

There were two transition in between the debate, one was promoting the show and the other promoting the hashtag specially created for the debate i.e. #NoteBandiPostmortem.

The fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate. Yellow colour, red boxes and animation was used in graphics to stress on the information that the channel wanted to convey to its viewers.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion were in uppercase for more clear and visible reading.

Five types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) nameplates of the panelists and d) transition text. Usual format of playing visuals of related person or situation at background of the graphics plate was maintained.

82 The screen is always divided into windows with the anchors at the centre. Here the screen was divided into 8 windows with panelists and the anchor occupying one each. The usual format of triple windows was used but without ‘window heads’ that divided the panelists.

Compilation of Arun Jaitley vs. Manmohan Singh and visuals of PM Narendra Modi was played throughout the debate.

Duration : Compilation of Arun Jaitley and Manmohan Singh was played for 10 minutes; Prime Minister’s visual was for 8 minutes in total.

Panelists : The panel mostly comprised of economists for assessment of demonetization and spokesperson from ruling and opposing parties.

1) Zafar Islam, Spokesperson, BJP 2) M R Venkatesh, CA & Policy Analyst 3) Rajiv Kumar, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research & Founder- Director, Pehle India 4) Rajiv Desai, Chairman & CEO, Comma Consulting 5) Kunwar Danish Ali, JD (S) 6) Prasenjit Bose, Economist

Chance given : 1) Zafar Islam, Spokesperson, BJP – 2 2) M R Venkatesh, CA & Policy Analyst – 2 3) Rajiv Kumar, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research & Founder- Director, Pehle India – 3 4) Rajiv Desai, Chairman & CEO, Comma Consulting - 3 5) Kunwar Danish Ali, JD (S) – 1 6) Prasenjit Bose, Economist – 1

Economists were given the maximum chance to speak and put forward their points.

Context : Loss of jobs, vision to create jobs, government anecdotal references, tax

83 collection, farmers; these are a few words repeated and discussed in the debate. There were economists supporting government’s reports and also some criticizing and alleging it to be fudged.

There was continuous argument between panelists. Every panelist fought for their assessment to be heard. While on the other hand anchors struggled to have a constructive debate on the topic of note bandi post- mortem. Facts and figures of variety of sources were quoted and used to rationally discuss the argument. Anchors were critical on the panelists and at times found defending the government. Their conclusion was an appeal to the government to consider both positive and negative effects of demonetization.

Hashtag used #NoteBandiPostmortem

Frame : Responsibility frame

Debate 10 : 25th January, 2017

Programme : The Newshour Debate

Duration : 42:42 minutes

Anchor : Tanvi Shukla and Anand Narasimhan

Topic : Swach Polls : Are The Netas Honest With Us?

The debate exposed unaccounted funds of political parties. ADR reports revealed that above 70 % of funds for political parties come from anonymous unknown sources which are never put for audit or scrutiny. Is this not absconding? Where cash was banned for a period of time to bring all the money in circulation to the banking system, digitalization and Aadhar cards are linked to bank accounts of common man to have

84 transparency on tax and related aspects, why are our Neta (miniters) exempted from it?

Visual appeal : The channel’s dynamic screen is always augmenting the traditional audio- visual experience of news viewing was seen.

There were two transitions in between the debate, one promoting the programme and other with the hashtag used specially for this debate #NetaKaPaisa

Fixed blue and red colour theme was maintained throughout the debate. Yellow boxes with text in bold letters were used to stress on information and figures that were of utmost importance for viewers to be aware of.

Texts appearing on the screen simultaneously with the talk and discussion were in uppercase for more clear and visible reading.

Four types of text containing information dominated the debate – a) lower ticker b) graphics c) nameplate and d) transition text. The graphics mostly had visuals running in the background.

The screen is always divided into windows with anchors at the centre. Here the screen was divided into maximum eight windows for panelists and the anchors occupying one each. Double windows appeared putting panelists debating against each other or the anchor. The usual format of triple window was mostly used. Panelists were put in one of the triple windows while speaking. However this wasn’t maintained throughout the programme as there were commotion and overlapping of voices coming from other panelists.

Visuals of election rally in the debate.

Duration : Visuals of election rally was played for about 3.5 minutes.

Panelists : The panel comprised of politicians and experts. Panelists are –

85 1) Tehseen Poonawalla, Political Analyst 2) Syed Zafar Islam, BJP 3) Dr Fuad Halim, CPI(M) 4) Syed Waqar, Samajwadi Party 5) Yogendra Yadav, Social activist and President Swaraj Abhiyan 6) Shailesh Gandhi, Former Chief Information Officer 7) Anil Verma, Chief , ADR

Chance given : 1) Tehseen Poonawalla, Political Analyst - 1 2) Syed Zafar Islam, BJP – 2 3) Dr Fuad Halim, CPI(M) - 1 4) Syed Waqar, Samajwadi Party -1 5) Yogendra Yadav, President Swaraj Abhiyan - 4 6) Shailesh Gandhi, Former Chief Information Officer - 2 7) Anil Verma, Chief ADR -2

Panelist Yogendra Yadav gets maximum chance to speak as he was involved in giving out facts about the issue been discussed and also providing suggestions to tackle it which was very much welcomed by the anchors.

Context : Financial transparency, accountability constant resistance against it, Aadhar linking, digital means, why need a law? These are a few words and sentences repeated, discussed and questioned to political parties.

There were continuous arguments between spokespersons and anchors for political party’s constant resistance to transparency.

The debate directly attacked political parties who are never scrutinized for having huge percentage of unaccounted money and even exempted from paying tax if received donation is below 20,000.

The anchors questioned the political party members for clarifying their stand on this. They were critical on all the politicians participating in the

86 debate. Politicians were challenged by the anchors to take a decision to provide transparency of their funds.

Hashtag used is #NetaKaPaisa

Frame : Responsibility and economic consequences frame

5.2 Findings

Findings of both the news channels are put unconnectedly in the following section. Before drawing a comparison it is important to understand their distinct manner of conducting a debate.

5.2.1 NDTV 24x7

 Reasonable exposures, reasonable time and chance were given to each panelist to speak and put forward their points in most of the debates.

 Panel mostly comprised of balanced parties. Guests invited for the debates included educationist, economist, author, columnist, political commentator, banker, editor of the most popular news portals, sociologist, and activist and politicians. No divisions on their political preferences and affiliations were made on the debate except for the members representing a political party. Out of total 52 panelists in ten NDTV 24x7 debates, 27 fall into the expert category and 25 were politicians. A close balance of 52% and 48% was maintained between panelist invited to discuss demonetization.

 Visibility of each panelist was balanced in the sense that one person at a time appeared on screen most of the time. This enables audience to relate with the person speaking directly rather than finding the speaker amid multiple windows.

 Debates were generally of short duration.

 Topics of discussion or headlines were always in the form of a question that the programme made an effort to answer.

87  High for factual reporting. Conversation and discussions were mostly based on factual information gained from credible sources or the channels own investigation. One example would be ADR report exposing unaccounted political funds. Responses of people, allegations made by others, questions posed to PM by opposition also formed a base for demonetization debates.

 Inconvenience caused to the people and the society because of demonetization was the main subject for all the debates analyzed in this research. Discussions were mostly of problem solving nature.

 The channels attempt to influence viewers by using appeal to emotion, stories of common people to favour liberal cause was visible in most of the debates.

 Moderate/ liberal bias. News and discussions were mostly critical of the government or the right wing.

 At times BJP spokesperson or government representatives were given more chance to speak for more questions asked to them.

 A few debates started with a controversial video or a news report. However those reports had little or no relation to the topic of discussion. Moreover no further references or links were made with those reports as the debate proceeded.

 Fight between political (opposition and the ruling) party panelist could not rule the content of the debates. Though there were minimal arguments between panelists and anchor, but no sign of chaos or conflict was witnessed in the news studio.

 The channel maintained a clean, subtle appearance with minimally loaded texts.

 NDTV 24x 7 didn’t crave for popularity in social media neither did the channel wished to expand their discussion beyond television during the days of demonetization commotion in the country. There was no use of hashtags except one debate that talked about change in rules by the government. Appeal to give suggestions and feedback through email was made in one of the Vikram Chandra’s show.

88  This is a programme for general audience looking for information.

 The content of debates first reflects responsibility frame of crisis. Channel was involved in blaming government for the inconvenience caused to the public. Debates emphasized on attributing responsibility to the government for causing and solving the problem.

 Secondly the content of debate reflects economic consequences and human interest frame. Debates used individual stories as emotional angle to the presentation of the event. Personalizing the issue of demonetization by the channel and its people contributed to the narrative character of news. Apart from the public distress, discussion on note ban was on economic consequences the country was likely to face. News were framed either on actual or potential economic impact of this crisis on people and society.

5.2.2 Times Now

 TV screen is augmenting traditional audio-visual experience. The channel’s dynamic screen has changed time-honoured audio-visual experience of news viewing. Traditional texts are replaced by multiple graphic bands like super and snipe. There are superfast animation effects on programme logo and transitions. The screen is text heavy with similar information at the top and bottom.

 The panel mostly comprised of politicians and very less experts. Even if experts are included the anchor divides the panel into parties ‘for and against the move’ before starting a discussion. This invalidates their expertise for the discussion and highlights their political preferences and affiliations. However if comparisons are to be made, out of 62 panelists 25 fall into the experts category while 37 were politicians. That is 40% and 60% approximately. Balance between the panelists invited for debate and their appearance on screen was highly compromised.

 Representatives of the government were getting multiple chances to speak, give explanation, promote party ideologies and correct images.

89  Debates were usually of long duration. Efforts were made to engage viewers for longer time with the channel by extending debate hours.

 Topics of discussion and the headlines were mostly in the form of announcements. These announcements were made with great degree of confidence by Arnab for viewers to retain.

 Demonetization was proudly declared as a successful move and a masterstroke by the Prime Minister of India prior to any evaluation. Hailing and defending Prime Minister constantly against any criticism was the purpose of the anchor after the party spokespersons. This was especially in debates moderated by Arnab Goswami.

 There were instant and populist editorial judgments. Times Now anchors are journalists who openly take sides.

 Damaging image of politicians opposing demonetization was the nature of discussion

 There were fights between political (ruling and opposition) party panelists and also between panelists and anchors. Provoking fight between guests for first 10 -12 minutes of debate, taking pleasure and relaxing over it was clearly visible.

 There were frequent allegations on anchors by panelists for acting like BJP spokesperson representing government in most of the debates.

 Concept of a sober discussion or debate is changed by the channel

 Gate-crashing panelists who were unwilling to speak out or not answering according to Arnab’s will; putting words in panelist’s mouth; announcing on behalf of a political party without proper consent; forcing panelist to take decisions were frequent in Times Now debate on demonetization

 Shaming panelist for being emotional towards public distress was another peculiar trait of the debates. The channel denied suffering of poor during noteban.

90  These debates were carefully orchestrated in the sense that guests repeatedly appeared on the show despite of all the humiliation on air. Some of the examples are Dr. Fuad Halim from CPI(M) and Rahul Narvekar from NCP.

 Arnab taking on politicians was and is still a powerful strategy for both Arnab and the channel. The same proved to be beneficial in demonetization chaos as it helped retain a large audience.

 The debates proved that nothing is better than a loud, verbal slugfest on air.

 There were hashtags for every single debate that appealed to the viewers to join the discussion in social media.

 It is a programme for politics lovers.

 Debates and discussions majorly reflect conflict frame of crisis. It is proved that framing politics as a ‘conflict’ is not confined only to election campaigns but also in situations of crisis. Debates in this channel mostly emphasized conflict between political parties which reduced complex significance of debates to overly simplistic conflict.

 It was a strategy that helped win the debate or sometimes lose the central concern.

 Competition was featured in most of the debates with emphasis on the performance of party spokesperson, panelists and the anchors themselves.

 Content also reflected responsibility and economic consequences frame of crisis. The channel blamed previous government and other opposing parties for corruption issues in India. Also the government was attributed responsibilities for causing and solving the problem. Discussion on note ban to some extent was on economic consequences it will have on the country. News were framed either on actual or potential economic impact on people and society.

91 5.3 Interview

Interview responses of 14 media experts are analyzed here. Semi structured interview with journalists around the country was conducted for their experiences in ethical issues and observations on demonetization coverage by media in India. Questions asked were particularly on media ethics and covering crisis especially demonetization. Audio recording was done with proper consent.

Experts interviewed for this study include experienced journalist from popular media houses of the country. Journalists currently or previously working in NDTV 24x7 and Times Now are also questioned on performance of the channel during demonetisation. Findings of the content analysis are validated by some of the experts interviewed. One section of experts comprises of active and young news reporters while the other comprise of editors, authors and experts in ethical reasoning. Former journalists too were approached to know about their fight for ethics with respective news organizations they once worked for.

Experts include –

1) Paranjoy Guha Thakurta - Former Editor, EPW 2) - Consulting Editor, India Today Group 3) TM Veeraraghav - Former Senior Editor, CNN IBN 4) Niranjan Narayan Swamy - Editor Republic Tv 5) B Pradeep Nair - News Editor, The Hindu (Bengaluru) 6) Harish Upadhyay - News Reporter, NDTV; currently News X 7) Anusha Ravi - News Reporter, The New Indian Express 8) Nischita Verrendra - News Reporter, Wion 9) John Thomas - Former Journalist; Former Editor IBT 10) Joseph Hoover - Freelance Journalist; Former Journalist TOI 11) S.N Sharma - Senior Editor, Economic Times 12) Wasbir Hussain - Consulting Editor, Republic Tv; Editor-in-chief, NE Live 13) Chayamoni Bhuyan - Political Editor, News Live 14) Annirudha Bhagat - News Correspondent , Republic Tv

92 5.3.1 Analysis and findings of interview responses

Theme : Pressure on journalists

Experts reveal that the main reason for journalist not adhering to ethics is the huge amount of pressure imposed on them by the organization they work for. Although other reasons were also mentioned but every reason or explanation sums up to only one word ‘pressure.’

Keywords : Objectivity, neutrality, media freedom, framing news, organization pressure, political pressure, profit motives, low salary, job with responsibilities, financial backing, ownership, democracy

Ethics : Journalists define ethics as ‘ensuring facts either good or bad without personal opinions attached. Journalism as a job should be driven by the passion of social benefits and work for the interest of public. It is doing justice to the information journalists have in hand. One can do justice to every story by applying moral to their work.’

Adhering to ethics : Adhering to ethics does not depend on news to news or story to story. Ethics means sticking to truth and doing justice to the information collected and to people consuming it in the form of news. People have all the right to know the truth. Every situation for reporting a story demands sticking to truth as the primary ethic.

Organization affects the way a journalist can adhere to ethics. Reasoning abilities of a journalist, social background, knowledge and research on the subject can

93 largely affect the way one understands and abides by ethics while news making.

Media Reflecting Ethics : Media today does not reflect ethics in spirit in any of their content, whether news, debate or others. Media has turned into an organization that creates its content based on their editorial line. Each media house can differ from one another. Media in practical is being subjective.

Reason for pressure : Out of several reasons the ones commonly accepted are -

 media polarization  media ownership  political inclusion and pressure  driven by profit motives, commercial compulsions  financial backing  competing for popularity, obsession with sensationalism  choosing sides before studying facts, unaware of the consequences  journalists lured by material benefits  low salary

Twisting of facts : Experts did not deny that there are times when the information they collected and wished to report is twisted. The main reasons behind are -

 desk or newsroom is the filter of raw reports  news priorities/ agendas

94  lack of spice  communication gap when a news is handled by more than one reporter

Covering demonetization : Experts admit that channels did not work objectively. They were deliberately prohibiting constructive discussions on demonetization. Political pressure is the sole reason behind this dubious act of news media. However there were channels that tried disregarding government’s pressure and came out with discussions that to some extent can be considered productive and helped viewers. Others were just about political drama for politics lovers. Media could not severely criticize the move or question the black money argument. Journalists revealed that there were direct pressures from the government. Demonetization discussion was mostly a fight between opposition and the government and most news channels took the advantage of gaining maximum viewership.

95 Chapter 6

Interpretation and Discussion

On comparing results from the analysis of two news channel’s debates, the researcher finds that NDTV 24x7 believes in providing rational exposure to all its participants of the debate. Rational time and chance were given to each panelist to speak and put forward their points on the issue of demonetization in most of their debates. Moreover, the panel comprised of balanced parties with more experts and less politicians to discuss matters of note-ban. According to the channel, discussion on cash crunch and its impact on people needed more of expert advice. Views of ruling party politicians and opposition gained equal importance on the channel. While on the other hand Times Now in their very popular ‘The Newshour Debate’ consisted of a panel of politicians and very less experts. There was continuous effort by the channel to seek political views on a case as sensitive as noteban. Credit for the popularity of a whole new generation of party spokesperson goes to this channel. Enough time and chances were given to the supporting parties for promotion and flaunting of demonetization as a perfect move. The channel was resistant in developing any solution to the crisis, negative consequences on the economy and stories of the poor.

The graph below shows the population of panelists in demonetization debates of both the channels. Visibly NDTV 24x7 had a balanced panel for discussing demonetization with 52% of population comprising experts and 48% comprising politician. Times Now in contrast have 60% of population comprising politicians and 40% comprising experts.

Fig 2 - Panelists 80%

60%

40% Experts

20% Politicians

0% NDTV 24x7 Times Now

96 Getting panelists for debates has become very convenient today. Guest coordinators in channels like Times Now maintain a huge data bank of potential guests. According to them politicians are tricky creatures. They understand that television appearances is very important for their career as it builds a perception and brand value for them and the channel benefits from such mindsets. That is why major political parties have a media cell that provides channels a list of authorized spokespersons on various topics. Depending on the issue to be discussed and the language required, party representatives are provided (Datar, 2014).

Inconvenience caused to the people, poor farmers suffering, entire nation in crisis and emergency like situation prevailing, all due to demonetization. NDTV 24x7 debates by emphasizing on these aspects fought for the liberal cause. If critically viewed it can be a strategy to influence viewers by using appeal to emotion to favour liberal cause. However suggestions that emerged out of short debates (mostly put forth by experts) clearly point towards a problem solving nature of discussion. Times Now debates whereas were usually of longer duration. Politicizing conversation and damaging image of politicians opposing the move was the nature of discussion.

NDTV 2x7 was found to be critical of right wing. They did not consider demonetization as what Times Now claimed it to be. In a democracy, journalism must be independent with freedom and right to be critical of the establishment. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta (Former Editor, EPW) adding to this said - “Journalist commitment is to truth and to his/her viewers. They are supposed to have a critical look at the activities of the government.” NDTV 24x7 anchors questioned the government more than any other participant in the debates. Those questions were mostly on allegations by others, facts and figures of the economic sector and confusion created due to change of bank rules. Times Now on the other hand were euphoric about the move and constantly complimented the Prime Minister of India. Infact panelists in their debates were forced to thank the government for what they termed as PM’s masterstroke or another surgical strike on black money. Times Now was extremely positive about the move and opinionated which reflected in their content.

Debates chosen for analysis by the researcher were on topics common for both the channels. However the way it was framed and presented said a lot more about the channels’

97 editorial line. The topic of discussion determines what channel considers as newsworthy. NDTV’s way of introducing the topic in a question form invited people to make their viewpoints independent of any pressure or preconceived belief. Whereas, Times Now way of introducing the topic as an announcement leaves no space for audience to think. Announcements as such made with over enthusiasm are neither fact nor news. But definitely a tactic for making audience believe in what the channel believes.

Fight between panelists during discussion could not rule the content of NDTV debates. Though there were minimal arguments between panelists and the anchor, conflict or mudslinging could not be enjoyed by its viewers. Times Now panel comprising of a whole new generation of party spokespersons was found contaminating the television programme with their fight. Also panelists were continuously humiliated and gate-crashed when unwilling to speak out or respond according to Arnab’s will. Words were put into panelist’s mouth; announcements were made on behalf of a political party without consent and forced to take decisions on sets. Shaming panelist for being emotional towards public distress was another trait of it. However the same panelist keeps coming back to the channel after all that humiliation. There could be many reasons for their frequent appearance on channels but experts state it is of benefit of both the parties (channel and the panelist). On another note Rajdeep Sardesai (Consulting Editor, India Today Group) points towards the quality of guests invited. He clearly says –

“quality of people coming on the channels are terrible, they are not even experts in that subject, many of them are channel hoping, going from one channel to the other, there is nothing wrong in the format of the debate but the quality of people”

Journalists believe that there is absolute imbalance in television news debates. Anchor pushes an argument restricting flow of independent viewpoints on the show. Panelists who are supposed to fight for an argument are humiliated and in extreme cases rudely cornered. This trend sometimes bounds panelist to walkout when they are not able to counter the moderator on their repeated cross questioning (Singh K. , 2016). While in demonetization debates, the programme seemed to be properly orchestrated where panelists and anchors shamelessly fought over questions asked to

98 them. Channels nowadays package information in hyper mould of debates, controlled by anchors as grand masters who have nurtured their image through signature styles, typically shrill and designed to offend. In becoming creative with basic journalistic norms such as accuracy and gate keeping, the anchor have altered from being a presenter of news to becoming the news themselves (Padmanabhan, 2016).

Often denounced for being too shrill, debates across news channels have hacked to similar formats, featuring agitated panelists, graphics and fast moving on-screen texts (Dore, 2017). This is very much conspicuous in the results of this study. Where NDTV 24x7 is still maintaining a subtle and clear appearance on the television screen, Times Now on the other hand has resorted to dynamic, fast moving graphical outer shell. Television news has continuously been under change especially in terms of their appearance. The reason for analyzing appearance of the two channels is that news today provides a variety of visual and audio stimuli with which viewers are unknowingly affected. Little is known about the consequences of these changes in viewers’ attention and their audio-visual processing. Studies say graphics and heavy text on screens found in TV news channels distract the viewer on a visual level but cause no distraction with regard to the auditory channels. Viewers recall messages of the clean feed version more effectively as they are not exposed to too many texts or instabilities on screen in regard to position of the anchor or the person speaking (Rodrigues, Veloso, & Mealha, 2016).

Another aspect found while analyzing debates of these two channels is the use of hashtags. Hashtags are nothing else but links used to mark tweets that are relevant to specific known themes and topics (Bruns & Burgess, n.d). It is very well known that the target audience today is multi-facet and is no more passive consumers of information. They not only consume content, but also contribute to it, share it and criticize it. The power and reach of social media is very well understood by the news channels today. Times Now is seen to be doing a good job of building the buzz with its social media links to political debates and news videos. Tweets are the right way of getting the message across. facilitates the discussion of controversial topics which affects other media processes and, consequently, agendas (Ortiz, Hamrin, Aggio, & Dalmonte, 2017). Creative hashtags, like the ones used by Times Now for demonetization like #BlackmoneyDebate, #NetaKaPaisa, etc., took discussions beyond television studio. This dive of channels on to the social media is out of a necessity than anything else realizing the competition

99 it has from online forms. Times Now use of hashtags showed their agenda is to shape public opinion away from any criticism of the government. The hashtags used in debates did not directly compliment the government but discussion under those hashtags did. This study finds exactly what Sam Javed (2017) found in her study ‘Times Now and hashtags, a case study of blatant media bias.’ Real issues of the country and its people do not get mentioned. Reluctance to question the government is evident in their hashtags. The focus of the debate quickly shifts from the real problem to the hypocrisy of the opposition. Her study also found that hashtags used by the channel is either in favor of the Modi government or criticizing the opposition. Times Now did use such hashtags like #ModiStumpsRahul and #ModiVsWho in other demonetization debates.

Fig 3 - Hashtags

10

NDTV 24x7

Times Now

2

Hashtags

Times Now had hashtags for all demonetization debates. NDTV 24x7 was not much associated with social media links and hashtags during their discussion on demonetization.

6.1 Framing Demonetization

By selecting what information to include and what to exclude, the news media frame a story (An & Gower, 2009). Framing is viewed as placing information in a unique context so that certain elements of the information get stored in individual's cognitive system (Pan & Kosicki, 1993). Neuman, Just, & Crigler (1992) discussed several types of frames dominantly used in U.S. news coverage. These are conflict, economic consequences, human impact, and morality frame. Based

100 on these frames, Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) in their study ‘Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news’ identified five news frames in order of predominance. Five national newspapers and television news stories were analyzed by them on attribution of responsibility, conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frame. Their findings said that attribution of responsibility frame is mostly used in news, followed by other frames. News frames also depend on type of organization and type of topic. Difference in use of frames is not between the mediums (print or broadcast) but between responsible journalist and a sensationalist.

Even in crisis, similar frames are used by news media. We can refer to An & Gower’s study on ‘How do the news media frame crises’ in 2009. Using similar frames as Semetko and Valkenburg (2000), An & Gower investigated news coverage of crisis events through a content analysis. This study however does not analyze the content only on the basis of the frames explained above. Beyond news frames the researcher attempts to analyze various aspects of news television content as mentioned in methodology chapter of this study. Content analysis of each debate from both the channels reflects four of these five news frames. Morality frame did not reflect in these debates.

As debates are long discussions on issues, direction of conversation may shifts from one frame to the other. For example, a discussion starts with a story of a poor farmer and gradually leads to consequences on the economic sector of the country or vice versa. Unlike news, debates include opinions, worries about future and possible solutions. Therefore content can be put into more than one news frame.

NDTV 24x 7 debates emphasized a lot on pain and sufferings of the common people. Content reflected human interest frame. Human interest frame is about bringing a human face or an emotion to the presentation of an event, issue, or problem (Gabore & Xiujun, 2018). Debates on demonetization used individual stories that sometimes gave an emotional angle to the event. Personalizing the issue of demonetization by the channel contributed to the narrative character of news. A large portion of the population in India was in pain due to cash crunch. Demonetization effect on the poor, sick, old and helpless was for real. Proper representation of it by news media is important. Although one can also not deny the fact that in a competitive media environment,

101 news media find ways to produce a product using emotional appeal that can capture and retain audience interest. Times Now debate talked less about stories of individuals. Their content was mostly under conflict frame. The conflict frame is used in such a way as to reflect conflict and disagreement among individuals, groups, or organizations (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). It is proved that framing politics as a ‘conflict’ is not confined only to election campaigns but also on situations like demonetization. Debates in this channel mostly emphasized conflict between political parties which reduced complex significance of debates to overly simplistic conflict. Also, Times Now information was more of a strategy coverage that at times helped in winning the debate and sometimes losing the central concern.

Secondly, both NDTV 24x7 and Times Now debates reflect ‘attribution of responsibility frame’ of Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000. This frame is defined as “a way of attributing responsibility for cause or solution to either the government or to an individual or group.” Demonetization was presented as an issue in such a way that required urgent solutions for the damage and inconvenience caused to the innocent people of the nation. When reporting crisis, the news media tend to blame some individual or organization or attribute responsibility for the crisis to one or the other (An & Gower, 2009). News media can shape public understanding of who is responsible for causing or solving the problems (Valkenburg, Semetko, & Vreese, 1999). In the case of demonetization, news media attributed the responsibility for problem caused to the government by questioning implementation of the move. Times Now however blamed the opposition more for every issue related to demonetization. NDTV on the other hand couldn’t stop questioning the government for each issue of demonetization. At the same time the channel believed discussion on it with experts and governing bodies can bring solutions. Interestingly both the channels attributed some responsibilities to themselves for solving people’s problem during Noteban.

Third most used frame is economic consequences frame. This frame reports an event, problem, or issue in terms of the consequences it will have economically on an individual, group, organization, or country (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). ‘Common knowledge’ a study by Neuman, Just and Crigler (1992) identified it as a common frame in the news. Apart from the public distress and political fight, discussion on noteban was on economic consequences that the country was facing or was going to face. For demonetization days, news media should have put

102 more effort on discussing issues within this frame. Sober and serious news outlets is believed to make maximum use of this frame (Cmeciu, Coman, Patrut, & Teodorascu, 2015).This type of stories has important news value and news producers often use it to make an issue relevant to their audience.

The graph below shows frames reflected in debates of both the channels. NDTV 24x7 used responsibility frame more for demonetization discussion. 6 out of 10 debates reflected responsibility frame. Economic consequences and human interest frame were equally used followed by conflict frame. On the other hand, Times Now debate and discussions were mostly within conflict frame. 6 out of 10 debates reflected conflict and disagreement among parties, people and organizations on different aspects of demonetization. Responsibility frame secures second most used frame followed by economic consequences and human interest.

Fig 4 - Frames 10 9 8 Human interest 7 6 Responsibility 5 Economic 4 consequences 3 Conflict 2 Morality 1 0 NDTV 24x7 Times Now

Morality frame is not reflected by any of the debates analyzed. This frame puts the event or issue in the context of principles, social instructions and religious belief (An & Gower, 2009). Morality frame is witnessed in news when journalists indirectly through quotations try to relate the issue with religious and classic social beliefs. However at times this is not considered objective.

103 6.2 Ethics

“Journalism is a commitment to maintaining certain standards. It is always about pushing for the truth, how so ever inconvenient or difficult the truth be”– Rajdeep Sardesai (Consulting Editor, India Today Group)

“Doing justice to every story is the only ethic that matters. Treating every story with the right spirit so it hits home to the viewer is most important. There’s no scope for corruption, political compromise and bias” – Niranjan Narayan Swamy (Editor, Republic TV)

Our moral values guide our ethical decision making. Journalism requires continuous and fast decision making especially in broadcast media. Many theories have been developed by philosophers and ethicists but the commonly referred ones are ‘utilitarian’ by John Stuart Mill, ‘deontology’ by Immanuel Kant and the ‘distributive justice’ by John Rawls (Bose, 2012)

This study relates with deontology theory of Kant. Deontology talks about duty. The word ‘deon’ means ‘duty’ in Greek. If an individual or an organization follows rules and principles for their work to get done, they are ethical; if not, they are unethical. It requires holding the truth and being consistent without worrying about its consequences. Immanuel Kant strongly argued for a duty-bound system of ethical behaviour and believed that action taken out of self-imposed duty is ethical. (Merrill, 2011)

One of the main objectives of this research is to analyze whether ethics were followed by the news channels while discussing demonetization. Debate or discussion on topic as serious as demonetization requires considering multiple perspectives. Deontology requires the communicator to view the issue from a multiplicity of perspectives (Bowen, 2013). The news channel and the anchor moderating the debate must welcome views coming from experts, politician as well as public. NDTV to certain extent had balanced discussion on demonetization with equal number of experts and politicians. Government representatives highlighted their agenda behind noteban. Opposition with all efforts to hide their party agenda talked about ill effects of noteban on society and the economy. Public could seek answers to their problems, express their views and also share their stories through the channel. NDTV 24x7 made maximum attempts to answer questions of the common people through direct communication. Discussion

104 also included topics like investment, real estate, gold prices etc. Times Now in contrast believed demonetization as a great move right from the very first day of its announcement. The channel was continuously admiring the government and absolutely intolerant about any form of criticism. Debates in this channel mostly included politicians and the discussion remained within political boundaries.

Deontology also suggests to ‘act in such a way that you always treat humanity’ (Kant, Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, 1964). Any action that harms the dignity or respect for another person is unethical. Findings of the content analysis clearly points which channel emphasized on human issues more. Times Now was found insulting panelists who opposed demonetization. Anchors of the channel directly attacked Indian National Congress President Rahul Gandhi for his reaction to noteban. The channel was extremely in favour of the government and gate crashed panelists speaking against the channel or the ruling party agenda. There are instances where a journalist (panelist) was insulted and forced to sit quiet when talking about problems of the poor. Attack on personal lives of the panelists by anchor and vice versa was witnessed in Times Now debate. NDTV discussions on the other hand revolved around demonetization affects on people. Questions of the channel to the panelists mostly were to seek solutions for the struggling and confused mankind. There were no instances of humiliation in the debates. Minimal argument took place between anchor and panelists even as ruling party representatives were agitated by questions asked to them. There was no invasion into private lives of the participants or people outside studio.

‘If our conduct as free agents is to have moral goodness, it must proceed solely from a good will’ (Kant, Lectures on ethics, 1930). This means that actions with good intent are actions ethical. Times Now again failed to meet the third aspect of deontology because they worked in advocacy or self-interest. What appeared initially was their intension to make viewers understand demonetization as a great move to curb black money. But eventually their portrayal denied their intensions. Analysis finds Times Now debate to be two folded. First their intention was to prove government right, without any investigation and evaluation on demonetization. Second is their common intention to attract viewers by sensationalism. There are instances of anchor provoking fights between parties and also being a part of fight themselves. NDTV as explained earlier was in quest for solutions to the crisis. Their concern for the people cannot be considered as a bad

105 intent especially in a situation like demonetization.

6.3 Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards

If these debates are to be interpreted on the grounds of ethical codes there will be hints of violation of basic ethical standards. Guidelines given by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) to which NDTV 24x7 and Times Now is a part, the findings suggest that Times Now had closed their eyes to some of the most important broadcasting guidelines.

 Seek the truth and report it fairly

Times Now in their debates were resistant to accepting truth about flaws of demonetization. Consequences of demonetization were both positive and negative but the channel chose to be extremely positive about it. This definitely does not ensure fair reporting.

 Highest possible standards of public service and integrity

Times Now debates were continuously promoting and exaggerating controversial issues. Debates were less educative and did not leave a room for viewers to make their own conclusion about the event. Significant points from a few panelists were suppressed by loud voices of anchors and panelists. As findings point, it was a programme more for politics lovers than information seekers. Solutions to handle a crisis situation were missing.

 Presenting all points of view in a democracy

A channel must realize the importance of presenting all viewpoints when the subject has controversy. We can link the theory of deontology that talks about considering multiple perspectives. Government representatives and supporters of demonetization get maximum chance to speak in Times Now debates. As mentioned earlier the channel was intolerant about any form of criticism. Debates in this channel mostly included politicians and the discussion remained within political boundaries. The channel overlooked demonetization’s larger impact on the economy. Figure 3 in section 6.1 shows to what extent economic sector of the country was discussed by this channel.

106 NDTV 24x7 was found abiding by these fundamental principles of journalism. To an extent the channel acted as a trustee of public and emphasized on discussing every possible aspect of demonetization whether positive or negative. Investigations and evaluations by the channel and credible sources formed the base of their discussion. Their content was for information seekers. More and more possible solutions were given by the experts like economists, bankers and industrialists to people on how to survive this cash crunch. Politicians were bound to answer question on sudden implementation of the move and what their initiatives are to solve crisis. Highest possible standards of public service and integrity were maintained through their content and the decorum within the channel’s studio. Every aspect of the move was questioned by the channel rather than announced as a hit. The channel soberly discussed the controversial public issue, answered questions of public, and gave options to choose from when in confusion. This allowed audience to come to their own conclusion. On a critical note NDTV 24x7 was liberal biased. The channel had the tendency to relate to individual stories more and give an emotional angle to the content.

6.4 Experts on Demonetization Coverage

Channels in a serious matter like demonetization found repudiating every necessity for a constructive discussion. They disregarded the serious ethical questions and offered answers that fit only their agendas. They believe that no economic or moral issue is too important against winning viewership. Strong political pressure on today’s media is what is found to be the reason for such reporting of demonetization.

“This government is particularly intolerant towards who are dissenters, who do not agree or not sympathetic to the government. This is not the first government that is like this. Indira Gandhi during the emergency was authoritarian. At that time she completely suppressed the right to free expression. What we see today is a different kind of emergency which is far more subtle” – Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

Experts did not deny the fact that there was direct pressure from the government. The previous literature rightly pointed out the forceful maintenance of prime minister’s legendary ability to alone struggle for the country’s security. The media has been under pressure and scrutiny by the

107 present establishment, perhaps much more than it was under previous establishments in the last two decades.

Responses say that not the kind of message but the way a message is transmitted by TV news today is mostly ‘entertainment.’ Can entertainment be the alternate for rational analysis? Television imposes restrictions on solicitous conversation and solution that is very much needed in a crisis situation. That is why even if a person with rational ideas were allowed to take part in a debate, it would do little help to them but negligible help to the viewers and people will remain confused and distressed. This is evident in Times Now debates.

Everything about television debate is diversion, not rational discussion. Times Now way of presenting content with dynamic screen, images and visuals, appeal to our eyes, not our minds. It lacks propositional content, so they can be viewed without any mental effort. Bier & Bier (2015) said television just create ‘illusion’ of informing the public. Television is anti- intellectual and debates are not about truth but verbal contest. Rationality has no part in this world.

Media was overlooking the larger impact on economy. News chosen was chosen in a way that would create a controversy said the experts. According to them, demonetization reports on television news channels lacked objectivity. Content did not reflect ethics in spirit. Media in particular was being subjective. Niranjan Narayan Swamy, one of the anchors of demonetization debate in Times Now himself said –

“Demonetization though conceptually a good move may not have been implemented in the best manner. The media took sides on this debate. A lot of disservice and confusion was caused by the media in its coverage of DeMo adding to the chaos in the minds of people.”

On asking about pressure the journalist said that the channel took an editorial stand on demonetization irrespective of the political pressure. TM Veeraraghav on the other hand said –

“Media largely did not severely criticize the move or question the black money argument. The media was cowed down by the government and failed to criticize or question the Prime Minister”

108 6.5 Fighting unethical practices

This is one additional section that the researcher did not expect to gain out of interview responses. Journalists believe that all working in media are fully aware of their responsibilities. The one unable to cope with the situation has to take a stand and refuse to budge rather than compromise. Quitting the organization is always an option if he or she is forced to compromise on ethical grounds. If there are people with dubious unethical practices there are also people who are still keeping their spirits intact. Fourteen journalists in their responses strongly reflected what Sardesai said – “Media today needs a change. It is in urgent need for a better environment.”

On asking, media organizations and professionals are aware of their practices but do not correct them. Why? Experts answered that they are conveniently shying from following these standards by and large because there is no fear of punishment. India Today consulting editor Sardesai added –

“We are doing everything for TRP, not for building standards. By we, I mean most of the channels. Imposing fine is not enough. There must be more naming and shaming and greater punishment including cancelling of license”

Out of several solutions, one solution that is significantly suggested by young journalists interviewed in this study is crowd funding. Journalists accept that the model of media is flawed in our country. Less people believe in paying money in exchange of credible news. Indian public lacks adequate investment knowledge or experience and require strict protection in regards to crowd funding in any field (Nekaj, 2016). With Crowd Funding there are chances of media being less biased. Reduced load on journalist (to please the owner) would reverse the unethical practices of news making. The work of a journalist and the organization will be solely accountable to the public. There is a gap between what journalists and consumers believe as newsworthy. And a very little connection between what consumers read and what consumers actually pay for (Jian & Usher, Crowd-Funded Journalism, 2014). Crowd sourcing supports knowledge search in journalism. It can accelerate knowledge gathering, widen the journalists’ perspective, and create a stronger reader-relationship. Crowd sourcing has the potential to create value in journalistic practice (Aitamurto, 2017). Less pressure on journalist is expected to give quality to news. It can facilitate a sense of responsiveness; bring accountability towards public

109 and larger nature of civic engagement in news content.

A few media organizations in India have decided to go crowd funded and ‘The Wire’ is one good example. Crowd funding is at infancy in India but the potential is incredibly high (Jhaveri & Choksi, 2014).

What senior journalist Veeraraghav (former Senior Editor, CNN-IBN) suggested can also be initiated by media houses. He said -

“Organizations are driven mainly by profit motives and hence compromise on ethics. Ethics according to me is to work in interest of the public. There are well defined core ethics for journalists, but media organizations will have to evolve their own code of ethics. Unfortunately, they have written in letters but failed to follow in spirit, barring a few exceptions”

By evolving own code of ethics the journalist referred to something beyond self regulation. On discussing in detail he lets the researcher know that he means ethics for different situations. Situations faced by reporters while reporting news are never similar but efforts can be made to identify patterns. Standards can be decided for each pattern of situations. Linking to deontological theory as it is rules based and not focused on specific consequences; he believes that news media can attempt to create ethical guidelines to use across cultures, platforms, and specific situations.

110 Chapter 7

Conclusion

The researcher has endeavored in explaining her research findings within the theoretical framework of study. Unlike most research that concludes with a summary, this study discusses third theory of the framework here, that is Political Economy theory of media. This theory will explain the root cause of media functioning in questionable ways that this study has found and discussed.

Theory of political economy analyzes the power relationships between politics, mediation, and economics. It requires identifying the history, establishment and growth of the political economy of media. Chapter 1 clearly explains evolution of television and shift of ownership into corporate and political hands. Further it requires understanding of the regulations affecting media-driven communication environment. Ethics and fundamental principles of journalism are discussed throughout the study.

There is an individual aspect to ethics, but if we look at the bigger picture, the state of journalism in India today, there are pressures on journalists to conform. Journalist needs to research, travel, meet new people and all these are expensive. As mentioned earlier not enough people are willing to pay for quality content and that has an impact on the quality of the work of a journalist. If a journalist has a family and runs his livelihood from the money that is paid by the organization he/she works; it is obvious that one has to abide by the rules of the organization. But it is also true that one has to be more nuanced, when it is not a black and white situation. All depends on the political leadership on how much autonomy and how much freedom they would like to provide to the media.

If we look at the ownership of media a large section of the media is controlled and owned by some of the richest persons, large section is controlled by politicians or individuals with distinct political affiliation. So, that accounts for what is published and often what is not published. However there is a small section of the media which is still free, relatively speaking.

111 Dependence on advertisers and income from sponsorships make media reluctant to criticize who pays them. This is one cause of biased framing practices by news media.

Something new about the present situation in India is affect of recession on the Indian economy. The great recession led to expenditure on advertising and marketing services to be either curtailed or stagnate. The growth has slowed down and this obviously has affected revenue models of media organizations. An organization would always want to protect their financial security. News media organization especially television that spend a lot of money on production and broadcasting technology are bound to stay under pressure of big business and political parties. In the process they compromise transparency and objectivity. There is indeed a strong relation between all the theories mentioned in this study. Political and economic pressure on the media organization affects how information is framed by an organization, biased framing affect media ethics. Political and economic pressure can directly affect ethics of the profession. This further affects how news is framed.

Political Economic pressure

Framing Ethics

Fig 5 – Relationship between theories

But that’s not all. There has been a double whammy because this coincides with the exponential rise of the internet. Internet has become the biggest medium of mass communication and also personalized communication. The problem is that, a large percentage of the consumers of the content do not want to pay for what they read or view. So who pays the writer, researcher or the photographer? Thus, there is a huge crisis in terms of quality of the content and that is why we see a proliferation of fake news and disinformation. This is the new phenomenon. In regard to television report on crisis situation, these are interlinked.

112 Findings of this study indicate that Times Now has acted in dubious ways while discussing country’s big economic crisis. These findings can be linked to what Ofcom found after investigating Times Now’s Newshour during Indo-Pakistan tension in 2016. UK government- approved regulatory and competition authority for broadcasting, Ofcom, found Times Now guilty of presenting news without due impartiality. In response Times Now assured Ofcom that the channel is doing better after Arnab Goswami had left. Anchors are no longer expressing personal views while broadcasting. Interestingly this study also observed what Times Now stated to Ofcom. Demonetization debates without Goswami in the month of January and February had change in context.

Findings of NDTV 24x7 debates can be linked to what Maheshwari (2015) found in her study of media ownership in creation and delivery of news content. Comparing India Today and NDTV 24x7 she found NDTV is neutral in their content delivery, rational and centrist in their coverage. During demonetization NDTV disregarded government’s pressure to showcase demonetization as a big hit and reported independently. Perhaps this threatened the political powers and the channel was attacked right after demonetization in alleged charge of financial misconduct BBC reports. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) raided NDTV’s office and residence of its promoters on 5th June, 2017. A group of influential journalists criticized this act and said it to be one of the government’s attempts to silence the media (India editors criticise raid on NDTV channel, 2017).

The conclusion drawn above is what Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, the journalist, author and filmmaker discussed with the researcher. He always raised concerns on ethics of news media. What Thakurta mostly expressed is deterioration in quality of content in news media. His concern on the gap between what people pay and what people read points towards a need to bridge it. This study has already mentioned about crowd funded journalism as a solution to lessen pressure on journalists. Politics play larger impact on news media. Once accountability of the media houses is shifted from political and business powers to consumers there can be a chance to have a better environment. Also what is gradually growing in India is diversifying revenue model. The model requires cultivating creative financial institutions and channels that offer long-term capital to news agencies, including startups (Mohan, 2018). Networks like NDTV 24×7 and a few online news portals like The Wire, The Quint, Alt News have taken up

113 such measures. It makes them self-managed and financed news agencies.

TM Veeraraghav’s suggestion on evolving situation specific ethical codes might look tough and time consuming. But the idea is practical and can help avoiding confusions when reporting very sensitive issue like crisis, war, sexual violence etc.

European Broadcasting Union’s initiated model of public service media is also something to look up for. Here broadcasting is made, funded and controlled by public, for the public. Broadcasters are established by law but independent and work for the society. The organization is strengthening and supporting media that promises public service by providing industrial aid. In this era of digitization public service journalism can help build a knowledgeable society they believe.

The scope for a rewarding career in journalism and news media in India is enormous but having a solid grip on the principles of journalism and mass communication is essential. Institutions providing courses on journalism and young minds aiming to become a journalist is expected to consider it seriously.

7.1 Limitations of the study

 Media organizations are secretive about their working, especially to do with adherence to ethics.  This study adapted indirect ways of judging whether ethics is at work or not and to what extent.  Ethics as a concept is very subjective.  There was a difficulty in separating individual ethics with organizational ethics/ideology where he/she works.  Findings and ethical comparisons are limited to selected channels and selected debates.

114 References

Agrawal, B. C. (1999). Cultural Invasion from the Sky: Hinduisation of Indian Television? Sociological Bulletin , 48, 269-273.

Aitamurto, T. (2017). Crowdsourcing in Open Journalism: Benefits, Challenges and Value Creation. Research gate .

Amar. (2010, February 2). Setting Up of a TV Channel. Proposal for 24X7 Telugu News Channel . SCRIBD. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/doc/26264375/SETTING-UP- OF-A-TV-CHANNEL

An, S.-K., & Gower, K. K. (2009). How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage. Public Relations Review , 35, 107–112.

Arowolo, O. (2017). Understanding Framing theory. Lagos State University, School of Communication. Research Gate.

Ashley, S., Poepsel, M., & Willis, E. (2010). Media Literacy and News Credibility: Does knowledge of media ownership increase skepticism in news consumers? Journal of Media Literacy Education , 2 (1), 37-46.

Bajpai, S. (2016, July 24). The World Came Home: The history of television in India. . Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/the-world- came-home-2932048/

Bansal, S. (2015, May 21). TV news: The credibility issue. Retrieved from Live Mint: https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/74wFbiXtKnYCQcwkp200pJ/TV-news-The-credibility- issue.html

BARC. (2018a). BARC India Universe Update. Retrieved from https://www.barcindia.co.in/resources/pdf/BARC%20India%20Universe%20Update%20- %202018.pdf

BARC. (2018b). Breaking the News Story. Retrieved from https://www.barcindia.co.in/resources/Breaking%20the%20News%20Story.pdf

Barner, M. (2011). Media and Politics. In G. Lozanov, & O. Spassov (Eds.). Foundation Media Democracy Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

Batabyal, S. (2012). Making News in India : Star News and Star Ananda. New Delhi: Routledge.

Bennett, W. L. (2016). The Politics of Illusion (10 ed.). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

115 Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States. Journal of Communication , 40 (2).

Bhattacharya, A. (2016, November 9). A brief history of India pulling bank notes from circulation. Retrieved from https://qz.com/india/831674/rupee-currency-demonetization-a- brief-history-of-india-pulling-bank-notes-from-circulation/

Bier, D., & Bier, D. (2015, September 20). Television Debates : Not fit for purpose. Retrieved from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/television-debates-not-fit-purpose-374026

Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Introduction: Expert Interviews – An Introduction to a New Methodological Debate. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz, Interviewing Experts. Research Methods Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bonea, A. (2010). The Medium and Its Message: Reporting the Austro-Prussian War in the "Times of India". Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung , 35, 167-187.

Boomgaarden, H. G., Spanje, J. v., Vliegenthart, R., & Vreese, C. H. (2011, October). Covering the crisis: Media coverage of the economic crisis and citizens’ economic expectations. Acta Politica .

Boorstin, J. (2017, April 20). Going cashless to fight rising financial crime. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/going-cashless-to-battle-financial-crimes-.html

Bose, U. (2012). An ethical framework in information systems decision making using normative theories of business ethics. Ethics and Information Technology , 14 (1), 17-26.

Bowen, S. A. (2013). Using Classic Social Media Cases to Distill Ethical Guidelines for Digital Engagement. Journal of Mass Media Ethics , 28 (2), 119-133.

Brüggemann, M. (2014). Between Frame Setting and Frame Sending How Journalists Contribute to News Frames. Communication Theory , 24 (1), 61-82.

Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (n.d). The Use of Twitter Hashtags in the Formation of Ad Hoc Public. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation .

Burkhart, F. N. (1991). Journalists as Bureaucrats: Perceptions of "Social Responsibilty" Media Roles in Local Emergency Planning. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters , 9, 76.

Calvo-Porral, C., Martínez-Fernández, V.-A., & Juanatey-Boga, O. (2014). Mass communication media credibility: an approach from the Credible Brand Model. Intercom, Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Comun , 37 (2).

116 Carter, M. J. (2013). The Hermeneutics of Frames and Framing: An Examination of the Media’s Construction of Reality. SAGE Open .

Chadha, K., & Koliska, M. (2016). Playing by a Different Set of Rules : Journalistic values in India’s regional television newsrooms. Journalism Practice , 10 (5), 608-625.

Chander, R., & Karnik, K. (1976). Planning for Satellite Broadcasting: The Indian Instructional Television Experiment. Reports and Papers on Mass Communication. The Unesco Press.

Christians, C. G., Fackler, M., Richardson, K. B., Kreshel, P. J., & Woods, R. H. (2016). Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning (Ninth ed.). (Ninth, Ed.) Routledge.

Cmeciu, C., Coman, C., Patrut, M., & Teodorascu, F. (2015). News Media Framing of Preventable Crisis Clusters. Case Study: Newborn Babies Killed in the Fire at a Romanian Hospital. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences , 11 (44 E), 42-56.

Coleman, S. (2012). Debate on Television: The Spectacle of Deliberation. Television and News Media , 14 (1), 20-30.

Contractor, N. S., Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Metatheoretical Perspectives on Satellite Television and Development in India. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 32 (2), 129-148.

Cottle, S. (2008). Journalism and Globalization. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen, & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Handbook of Journalism Studies. Routledge.

Crabtree, R. D., & Malhotra, S. (2000). A Case Study of Commercial Television in India: Assessing the Organizational Mechanisms of Cultural Imperialism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 44:3, 364-385.

Daniyal, S., & Venkataramakrishnan, R. (2017, April 27). ‘Proud of all my partners’: Arnab Goswami when asked about BJP influence in new venture. Retrieved from Scroll.in: https://scroll.in/article/835842/proud-of-all-my-partners-arnab-goswami-when-asked-about- bjp-influence-in-new-venture

Datar, S. (2014, May 11). Revealed: How TV news channels prepare for prime-time panel discussions. Retrieved from Mid-Day.com: https://www.mid-day.com/articles/revealed-how- tv-news-channels-prepare-for-prime-time-panel-discussions/15288163

Dated September 5, 1959: Experimental T.V. Service. (2009, September 5). Retrieved from The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/dated-September-5-1959- Experimental-T.V.-service/article16508630.ece

Demonetisation: Nearly 99% of Scrapped Notes Came Back into System. (2017, August 30). Retrieved from https://thewire.in/banking/rbi-board-s-gurumurthy-satush-marathe

117 Desai, M. (2003). Satellite Television in India: Technology for whom, Journey from where? International Conference on Communication for Development in the Information Age: Extending the Benefits of Technology for All. Varanasi: Global Communication Research Association.

Dixit, M. (2012). Modern Journalism and Public Relations. Enkay Publishing House.

Dore, B. (2017, October 2). How Faye D’Souza became the rising star of Indian TV news, without yelling or finger-wagging. Retrieved from Scroll.in: https://scroll.in/magazine/851067/how-faye-dsouza-became-the-rising-star-of-indian-tv-news- without-yelling-or-finger-wagging

Dreijere, V. (2013). How Did the Media Report the Crisis? Analysis of the Latvian National Daily Press. The Centre for Media Studies at SSE Riga.

Dutta, P. K. (2018, August 30). Demonetisation: What India gained, and lost. Retrieved from India Today: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/demonetisation-what-india-gained-and- lost-1327502-2018-08-30

Dutta, S. (2011). Social Responsibility of Media and Indian Democracy. Global Media Journal , Indian Edition (Summer Issue).

Economy slowed down due to Raghuram Rajan's policies, not demonetisation: Niti Aayog VC. (2018, September 3). Retrieved from Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/economy-slowed-down-due-to- raghuram-rajans-policies-not-demonetisation-niti-aayog-vc/articleshow/65655402.cms

Essays, U. (2013, November). Television Public Service Broadcasting In India. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/television-public-service-broadcasting-in-india- media-essay.php

Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fernandez, G. G., & Gomes, R. F. (2018). Framing and the construction of the recent demonetisation by the Indian mass media. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews , 5 (3).

Framing the News. (2009). (Project for Excellence in Journalism) Retrieved from Journalism.org: http://www.journalism.org/files/legacy/framingthenews.pdf

Framing Theory. (2017, January 31). Retrieved from Mass Communication Theory (Online): https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/framing-theory/

118 Gabore, S. M., & Xiujun, D. (2018). Do National and International Media Cover the Same Event Differently? The Online Media Framing of Irreecha Festival Tragedy. Communicatio , 44 (1).

Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasso, T. (1992). Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality. Annual Review of Sociology , 18, 373-393.

Ghosh, B. (2011). Cultural Changes and Challenges in the Era of Globalization: The Case of India. Journal of Developing Societies , 27 (2).

Ghosh, J. (2014). Ethics of Indian News Media: Aberrations and Future Challenges. Global Media Journal-Indian Edition , 5.

Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Holbert, R. L., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). The Changing Nature of Political Debate Consumption: Social Media, Multitasking, and Knowledge Acquisition. Political Communication , 34:2, 172-199.

Gupta, A. (2016, November 9). Note demonetisation: 86% of Indian currency has been frozen overnight. Retrieved from Scroll.in: https://scroll.in/article/821073/note-demonetisation-86- of-indian-currency-and-12-of-gdp-has-been-frozen-overnight

Hanitzsch, T., & Hoxha, A. (2014, December). News Production: Theory and Conceptual Framework. INFOCORE .

Harcup, T. (2007). The Ethical Journalist. Sage Publishing.

Henriksen, K., Larsen, C. H., Storm, L., & Ryom, K. (2014, September ). Sport Psychology Interventions With Young Athletes:The Perspective of the Sport Psychology Practitioner. Journal of clinical sport psychology .

Holtz-Bacha, C., & Norris, P. (2001). To Entertain, Inform and Educate Stiill the Role of Public Television. Political Communication , 123- 140.

Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News That Matters : Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News Coverage of Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion: A Study on agenda setting, priming and framing. Communication Research , 20 (3), 365-383.

Jaggi, R., & Majumdar, P. (2009). Popularity vs. Credibility: An analysis of public perception of sensationalism in Indian television news. IMS Manthan , 4 (2).

Jawed, S. (2017, May 12). Times Now and hashtags, a case study of blatant media bias. Retrieved from Alt News: https://www.altnews.in/times-now-hashtags-case-study-blatant- media-bias/

119 Jhaveri, H., & Choksi, A. N. (2014). Crowdfunding at India: A study of Indian online crowdfunding platforms. IFRSA Business Review , 4.

Jian, L., & Usher, N. (2013, December 11). Crowd‐Funded Journalism. International Communication Association .

Jian, L., & Usher, N. (2014). Crowd-Funded Journalism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 19.

Johnson, K. (2001). Media and Social Change:The moderninzing influences of television in rural India. Media Culture and Society , 23, 147-169.

Joseph, A. (2017, July 22). Broadcast regulation in the public interest: A Backgrounder. Infochange .

Kalam, D. A. (Performer). (2006, November 16). Press a partner in National Missions. Address at the Press Council of India on the Celebrations of National Press Day, New Delhi.

Kamalipour, Y. R., & Snow, N. (Eds.). (2004). War, Media, and Propaganda: A Global Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield.

Kambhampati, Y. (2016). The role of journalism in India. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Advanced Research Trends , 3 (1 (3)).

Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. (H. Paton, Trans.) New York: New York [etc.] : Harper Torchbooks.

Kant, I. (1930). Lectures on ethics. (L. Infield, Trans.) London, Methuen & Co. Ltd. .

Katju, M. (2016, September 27). Media and issues of responsibility. Retrieved from The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Media-and-issues-of- responsibility/article13059658.ece

Kaul, V. (2011). Globalisation and Media. Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism .

Kidder, R. (2003). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York: Harper Collins.

Kort-Butler, L. A. (2016, September). Content Analysis in the Study of Crime, Media, and Popular Culture. Criminology and Criminal Justice .

Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The Elements of Journalism. New York: Crown Publishers.

Kumar, A. (2016, August 22). The story of NDTV, by NDTV. The Hoot . Retrieved from http://asu.thehoot.org/research/books/the-story-of-ndtv-by-ndtv-9583

120 Kumar, A. (2018, November 8). Two Years after Demonetisation, the Nightmare Continues for India's Informal Economy. Retrieved from The Wire: https://thewire.in/political- economy/demonetisation-two-years-narendra-modi-govt-india-informal-economy

Kundu, I. (2016, 11 2). I worked with Arnab Goswami, this is how he changed Indian TV news. Daily O. Retrieved from https://www.dailyo.in/politics/arnab-goswami-quits-times-now- journalism-ex-employee-speaks/story/1/13788.html

Lanceley, F. J. (2003). Negotiators, On-Scene Guide for Crisis. CRC Press.

Littig, B., & Vienna, I. (2013). Expert Interviews : Methodology and Practice. IASR Lecture Series.

Maanvi. (2017, February 18). 3 Months After Arnab Goswami, How Do Times Now’s Ratings Look? Retrieved from The Quint: https://www.thequint.com/news/india/3-months-after- arnab-goswami-how-do-times-nows-ratings-look-after-republic

Maheshwari, M. (2015). The role of media ownership in creation and delivery of news content: Case study of two English News Channels. International Conference of Communication for Social Change and Development: Imperatives and Constraints. Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla: ResearchGate.

Malhotra, A., & Bright, P. (2009). Mass Communication and Journalism. New Delhi: Bright Publications.

Malhotra, S., & Crabtree, R. D. (2002). Gender, (Inter)nation(alization), Culture: Implications of the Privatization of Television in India. (M. J. Collier, Ed.) Transforming Communication about Culture: Critical New Directions. International and Intercultural Annual , 24, 60-84.

Mankekar, P. (1999). Screening Culture, Viewing Politics: An Ethnography of Television, Womanhood and Nation in Postcolonial India. Duke University Press.

Mass Media Framing. (n.d). (University of Twente ) Retrieved 9 2, 2018, from COMMUNICATION STUDIES THEORIES: https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/communication-theories/sorted-by- cluster/Mass%20Media/Framing/

Mathur, J. C. (1960). Television in India. International Communication Gazette , 6 (2), 249-254.

Mccarthy, K., & Dolfsma, W. (2014). Neutral Media? Evidence of Media Bias and its Economic Impact. Review of Social Economy .

McMillin, D. C. (2002). Choosing Commercial Television's Identities in India: A reception analysis. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies , 16 (1), 123-136.

121 McMillin, D. C. (2001). Localizing the global: Television and hybrid programming in India. International Journal of Cultural Studies , 4 (1), 45-68.

McNair, B. (2018). Politics, Democracy and The Media. In B. McNair, An Introduction to Political Communication (Sixth ed.). Routledge.

McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (Vol. 6). Sage Publications.

Mehta, N. (2015). India and Its Television: Ownership,Democracy, and the Media Business. Emerging Economy Studies , 1 (1), 50-63.

Mehta, N. (2008 ). India talking: Politics, democracy and news television. In N. Mehta, Television in India: Satellites, Politics and Cultural Change. London: Routledge.

Merrill, J. C. (2011). Overview: Theoretical Foundations for Media Ethics. In Controversies in Media Ethics. New York: Routledge.

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utiliterainism. London: Spottiswoode and Co.

Mody, B. (1979). SITE: What was it? Shodhganga .

Mohan, D. (2018, June 29). For the Media to Regain Credibility, the Business of News Needs to Change. Retrieved from The Wire: https://thewire.in/media/for-the-media-to-regain- credibility-the-business-of-news-needs-to-change

Montgomery, M. (2007). Broadcast news. In The Discourse of Broadcast News: A linguistic approach. Routledge.

Mudgal, V. (2015). News for Sale: ‘Paid News’, Media Ethics, and India’s Democratic Public Sphere. In R. S., & W. H. (Eds.), Media Ethics and Justice in the Age of Globalization. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Naqvi, N. (2017). Ethics of Today’s Media. India Opines . Retrieved from http://www.indiaopines.com/5-reason-reintervene-iraq

Narasimhamurthy, N. (2014). Television as a Dominant Source of Infotainment among Youths in Bangalore City. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education , 4 (5), 21-28.

Naveed, F. (2017, January 27). Theories of Mass Communication: The emergence of critical and cultural theories. Retrieved from Mass Communication Talk : http://www.masscommunicationtalk.com/emergence-critical-cultural-theories.html

Nekaj, E. L. (2016, August 18). India’s Top 10 Crowdfunding Platforms. Retrieved from https://crowdsourcingweek.com/blog/indias-top-ten-crowdfunding-platforms/

122 Neuman, W., Just, M., & Crigler, A. (1992). Common Knowledge : News and the construction of political meaning. The University of Chicago Press.

(2010). Norms of Journalistic Conduct. Press Council of India.

Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin. (2017, April 24). Retrieved from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/101227/Issue-327-of-Ofcoms- Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin.pdf

Ortiz, J., Hamrin, S., Aggio, C., & Dalmonte, E. (2017). Television experience and political discussion on Twitter:exploring online conversations during the 2014 Brazilianpresidential elections. Galaxia (São Paulo, online) .

Oyedeji, T. (2006). The relationship between the media channel credibility and brand equity of media outlets. Journalism Studies Division of International Communication Association (ICA). Dresden, Germany.

Padmanabhan, C. (2016, February 21). NDTV's Ravish on the Dark World of News Television. Retrieved from The Wire: https://thewire.in/media/ndtvs-ravish-on-the-dark-world-of-news- television

Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse. Political Communication , 10, 59-79.

Pandey, N., & Singh, G. (2017). Role and impact of media on society : A sociological approach with respect to demonetisation. IJRHAL , 5 (10).

Pandit, S., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2018). Coverage of the surgical strike onTelevision news in India: Nationalism, journalistic discourse and India–Pakistan conflict. Journalism Practice , 12 (2), 162-176.

Pellegrini, D. M. (2017, February 2). Normative ethical theories: Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. Foundation of European Thought: A Business Ethics perspective.

Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (1989). Communicating Threat Information for Volcano Hazards. In L. M. Walters, L. Wilkens, & T. Walters (Eds.), Bad Tidings: Communication and Catastrophe (pp. 47-62). Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Philipose, P. (2016, November 26). Backstory: Money (Demonetisation) Talks, But Did the Media Listen? Retrieved from The Wire: https://thewire.in/economy/backstory-money- demonetisation-talks-media-listen

Prakash, G., & Anand, E. (2016). Indian News Media and Natural Calamities: Case of Chennai Floods. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies , 3 (2).

123 Prakash, M. R., & Ravi, B. K. (2011). Understanding Transnational Television in India: A Critical Analysis of General Entertainment Channels. IJSAS , 4 (1).

Prasar Bharati. (n.d.). (Government Website) Retrieved from Prasar Bharati: http://prasarbharati.gov.in/Corporate/PB%20Secretariat/Pages/default.aspx

Preston, P. (2008). Making the News: Journalism and News Cultures in Europe. Routledge.

Public Service Journalism. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2019, from EBU: https://www.ebu.ch/public- service-journalism

Rai, M., & Cottle, S. (2007). Global mediations : On the changing ecology of satellite television news. Global Media and Communication .

Rajagopal, A. (2001). Politics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India. Cambridge University Press.

Rampal, K. (2001). Cultural Bane or Sociological Boon?: Impact of Satellite Television on Urban Youth in India. Razon Y Palabra , Numero Actual (Numero 31).

Ranganathan, M. (2015). Television Politics: Evolution of Sun TV in South. In U. M. Rodrigues, & M. Ranganathan, Indian News Media : From Observer to Participant. New Delhi: Sage Publication.

Rani, N. U. (2006). Educational Television in India: Challenges and Issues. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.

Rao, D. N., & Vasanti, P. N. (2010). Why Do TV News Bulletins Have To Be Always Cluttered? CMS Media Lab .

Rao, H., & Ravi, B. (2015). Audience Perception of the Credibility of Local News Channels. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications , 5 (2).

Rao, S. (2014). Covering Rape in Shame Culture: Studying Journalism Ethics in India's New Television News. Journal of Mass Media Ethics , 29 (3), 153-167.

Rao, S., & Johal, N. S. (2006). Ethics and News Making in the Changing Indian Mediascape. Journal of Mass Media Ethics , 21 (4), 286-303.

Ravi, B. K. (2013). Ethics and Indian Television Content Portrayals: A Critical Study. Global Media Journal -- Canadian Edition , 6 (2), 53-64.

Ravi, B. K. (2013). Ethics and Indian Television Content Portrayals:A Critical Study. Global Media Journal -- Canadian Edition , 6 (2), 53-64.

124 Reddy, C. R. (2017, November 8). The Readers’ Editor writes: With demonetisation, Indian press shows what journalism ought to be. Retrieved from Scroll.in: https://scroll.in/article/856866/the-readers-

Roberts, J. (2013). Journalists or cyber-anarchists? A qualitative Analysis of professional journalists’ Commentary about wikileaks. University of Maryland .

Rodrigues, R., Veloso, A., & Mealha, Ó. (2016). Influence of the graphical layout of television news on the viewers: An eye tracking study. Observatorio Journal , 10, 67-82.

Rodrigues, U. M. (2015). 24 Hours News and Terror: Did the Media Cross the Line? In U. M. Rodrigues, & M. Ranganathan, Indian News Media: From Observer to Participant (pp. 96- 120). Sage Publication.

Rodrigues, U. M. (2005). Commercial influence on Indian public-service broadcasting. Australian studies in journalism , 219-247.

Rodrigues, U. M., & Ranganathan, M. (2014). Indian News Media: From Observer to Participant. SAGE Publications India.

Roy, S. (2011). Television news and democratic change in India. Media, Culture & Society , 33 (5).

Sambrook, R. (1999). Newsgathering and future technology. EBU Technical Review .

Seemedu. (2018, May 2). What is Broadcast Journalism and How Can I Pursue a Career in It? Retrieved from http://www.seamedu.com/blog/what-is-broadcast-journalism-and-how-can-i- pursue-a-career-in-it/#

Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication , 50 (1).

Sen, A., Priya, Aggarwal, P., Guru, A., Bansal, D., Mohammed, I., et al. (2018). Empirical Analysis of the Presence of Power Elite in Media. COMPASS '18.

Seshu, G. (1999). Media and Kargil: Information Blitz with Dummy Missiles. Economic and Political Weekly , 34 (41), 2917-2919.

Shankar, U. (2015). Indian Television: The Big Picture. In N. Mehta, Behind a billion screens: What television tell us about modern India. HarperCollins Publishers.

Shitak, R. S. (2011). Television and development communication in India: A critical appraisal . Global Media Journal – Indian Edition , 2.

Shrivastava, A., Lodha, P., Sousa, A. D., & Singh, N. (2019). Economic Recession and Mental Health: An Analysis. Advances in Psychiatry , 679-695.

125 Singer, J. B. (2007). The Socially Responsible Existentialist: A Normative Emphasis for Journalists in a New Media Environment. Journalism Studies , 7 (1), 2-18.

Singh, J., & Sandhu, N. (2011). What Interests the Indian Television Audience? An Empirical Study. Asia-Pacific Business Review , 134-145.

Singh, K. (2016, October 4). Who is to blame for panelists walking out of news debates. Retrieved from The Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/web-edits/mita- vashisht-on-pakistan-actors-who-is-to-blame-for-panelists-walking-out-of-news-debates- 3064698/

Singh, P. (1984). AIR and Doordarshan Coverage of Punjab after Army Action. Economic and Political Weekly , 19 (36 ), 1569-1571.

Singhal, A., Doshi, J. K., Rogers, E. M., & Rahman, S. A. (1988). The Difussion of Television in India. Media Asia , 15 (4).

Sinha, N. (1997). Doordarshan, Public Service Broadcasting and the Impact of Globalization: A short history. Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. , 5:365, 365-386.

Soderlund, W., Wagenberg, R., & Pemberton, I. (1994). Cheerleader or Critic? Television News Coverage in Canada and the United States of the US Invasion of Panama. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne De Science Politique , 27 (3), 581-604.

Soderlund, W., Wagenberg, R., & Pemberton, I. (1994). Cheerleader or Critic? Television News Coverage in Canada and the United States of the US Invasion of Panama. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne De Science Politique , 27 (3), 581-604.

Stocking, S. H., & Gross, P. H. (1989). How Do Journalists Think? A Proposal for the Study of Cognitive Bias in Newsmaking. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

Sulehria, F. (2017). DD and PTV as victims of media globalisation. Asian Journal of Communication , 27 (1), 97-112.

Thakurta, P. G. (2011). Manufacturing 'News'. Economic and Political Weekly , 46.

Thakurta, P. G. (2012). Media Ethics: Truth, Fairness and Objectivity (Second ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Thakurta, P. G., & Chaturvedi, S. (2012, February 18). Corporatisation of the Media: Implications of the RIL-Network18-Eenadu Deal. Economic and Political Weekly .

Thakurta, P. G., & Reddy, K. S. (2010). “Paid News” How corruption in the Indian media undermines democracy. PRESS COUNCIL - Sub Committee Report. Press Council of India.

126 The World this Week: The story behind NDTV. (2017, June 9). Harper Broadcast. Retrieved from https://harperbroadcast.com/2017/06/09/the-world-this-week-the-story-behind-ndtv/

Thomas, L. M., & Mariswamy, H. (2017). Impact of globalisation on Indian media: A study of ‘credibility’ of Indian news channels. Educational Research International , 6 (1).

Thussu, D. K. (2007a). News as Entertainment : The Rise of Global Infotainment. Sage Publications.

Thussu, D. K. (1999). Privatizing the Airwaves: Impact of Globalization in Broadcasting in India. Media Culture and Society , 21 (1), 125-131.

Thussu, D. K. (2007b). The ‘Murdochization’ of News? The Case of Star TV in India. Media, Culture & Society , 29 (3).

Trivedi, A. D. (2015). A study on select news channels with specific focus on value, satisfaction and loyalty using statistical tools. shodhganga .

V, A. M., & Ahmed, S. A. (2014). Credibility Perception of TV News and Debate Shows Before and During Election Campaign. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science , 19 (4), 47- 54.

Valkenburg, P. M., Semetko, H. A., & Vreese, C. H. (1999). The Effects of News Frames on Readers’ Thoughts and Recall. Communication Research , 26 (5), 550-569.

Vats, A. (2011, November). The Role of Doordarshan and Private Broadcasters (NDTV) in Social Development in India: A Comparative Study from year 2000 to 2008. Research Gate .

Ward, S. J. (2013, August 19). Why We Need Radical Change for Media Ethics, Not a Return to Basics. Mediashift. Retrieved from http://mediashift.org/2013/08/why-we-need-radical- change-for-media-ethics-not-a-return-to-basics/

When the Media Becomes the Story. (2009). Economic and Political Weekly , 44 (4), 5-6.

Williams, D., & Whiting, A. (June 2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research .

Zandberg, E. (2010). The right to tell the (right) story: journalism, authority and memory. Media Culture and Society , 32 (1), 5–24.

Zayani, M., & Ayish, M. I. (2006). Arab Satellite Television and Crisis : Covering the Fall of Baghdad. The International Communication Gazette , 68 (5-6), 473-497.

Zelizer, B. (1992). CNN, the Gulf War, and Journalistic Practice. Journal of Communication , 42 (1), 66-81.

127 Appendix I

Coding sheet for content analysis

128 Appendix II

Questions for Expert Interview

Questions on Journalism and Ethics:

1. How would you define ‘journalistic ethics’ today?

2. Where does journalism stand on the entire concept of ethics?

3. Do the present media (through their content) reflect ethical standards?

4. Why is it difficult for a journalist to adhere to ethics?

5. Does adhering to ethics depend on story to story or news to news?

6. Do personal ethics of a journalist and organizational ethics differ? If yes what should

he/she as a reporter do in such a situation?

7. What is your opinion on media freedom in India? Is media freedom a right that

benefits all?

8. Is there any self regulation by media of the country?

9. Is journalism a job like any other job?

10. What can be the reason for change or twist in a story from the field (how the reporter

reported) to the newsroom (the way it is broadcasted)?

Questions on Media Covering Demonetization:

1. How reporting in a crisis situation differs from day to day reporting? How a channel or

a media house prepares?

2. What is your opinion on the role of media during demonetization?

3. How demonetization was reported and discussed by TV?

129 4. Did TV news media follow ethics while reporting demonetization?

5. Was there any political pressure on how to report demonetization?

6. Is media still after demonetization?

7. What you have to say on its 1 year completion (1st anniversary of demonetization)

coverage by media.

8. Media today a good or bad influencer for a dicey situation like demonetization?

9. Lastly would like to have your opinion on the ownership pattern of Indian media

houses?

130