TELEVISION NEWS IN INDIA
31 DEC 2020
RATE THE DEBATE
1
Contents
Introduction ...... 3 Today’s Context ...... 3 The Distorted Media Lens ...... 4 Rate the Debate ...... 6 Methodology ...... 6 Appendix A –Anchor Analysis ...... 9 Appendix B – Media Trial Analysis ...... 16 Appendix C – Rate the Debate Team ...... 24
2
Introduction
In a rare conversation in 2012, BCCL Managing Director Vineet Jain told The New Yorker the philosophy underpinning the transformation of the newspaper The Times of India – “We are not in the newspaper business, we are in the advertising business.”
There-casting means that readership became the product: deliver a newspaper that attracts subscriptions, and you can sell the readership to advertisers in a variety of ways. It cemented what The New Yorker described as changes in the newspaper initiated by then Vice Chairman Samir Jain – less politics, more sports, more Bollywood, more colour, lower necklines, and few book reviews.
This inversion of relationships, in which the product is the readership, not journalism or news, might also explain the transformation of Television News Channels this decade. Viewership is a product, used to drive advertising revenue up. The means, again in Vineet Jain’s words when he described Times Now, of attracting the TRPs that get advertising attention was to make “talking heads argue, not discuss.”
Today’s Context
This strategy might have paid hand some dividends to the owners of newspapers and news television channels. Over the decades however, it eroded the principles and ethics that one normally associated with journalism. Simultaneously, news channels in India are increasingly owned by organizations and individuals with conflicts of interest – it is now evident that the presentation of news is tainted by the business and political interests of the owners.
News Television has always been the medium through which most Indian voters and citizens hear a set of panelists interactively convey their points of view on the issues of the day. This has been undercut in two ways.
The issues discussed are no longer the administrative, political, economic, social and cultural developments crucial to the well-being of Indians. One news anchor recently underscored this troubling malaise. A panellist prefaced his comments in the debate –
3
which happened to be on the tragic demise of an actor – by calling attention to the most pressing news that day: the cataclysmic GDP contraction and further Chinese aggression on the LAC. The anchor responded and we quote: “Go read tomorrow's paper... Don't waste your time, the nation's time or my time.”
Some news channels also skate on the thin ice of sociallydivisive issues, spanning hyper- nationalism, religion and communities. The facile labelling of individuals and groups as enemies of the state or society has worrying parallels in the actions of media that supported Fascist and Nazi regimes.
The second concern is of the anchors taking overt positions on debates and suppressing views that counter theirs. They dominate the speaking time themselves, pack panels with vocal supporters, and constantly interrupt or counter the minority of the panellists who oppose the anchor’s stances.
It is not surprising either that most anchors find their views magically mirroring those of the political party in power. Central government spending on advertisements and publicity (Rs 5909 crore over 2014-19) constitutes a significant percentage of news television revenues, not to mention that the owners of several channels also own businesses that can be impacted by government spending and policy decisions. In 2019, the Modi government was accused of using its ad spend as reward and punishment.
The Distorted Media Lens Issues of ownership, conflicts of vested interest and the unquenchable thirst for advertising income aside, there are two grave developments that need highlighting.
One is some media houses being accused of manipulating the only viewership rating system in the country. Allegations about interference and underhanded techniques to game the measurement framework are not new – competitors had detailed several unfair means by which an English news channel (again in the dock in recent revelations) had gained advantage back in 2017. The gravity of potential malfeasance is enormous – the periodic impressions data provided by BARC are the basis on which news (and other genre) channels decide what to charge advertisers. For instance, during the period currently under investigation, Republic Bharat overtook a rival to take pole position in
4
the Hindi news genre and three weeks later raised its ad rates by as much as 50%. With regulatory oversight on the sector being sub-optimal, it is tragic but inevitable that the judiciary becomes involved.
The second development is one that has already reached the courts –the blurring line between “investigative” journalism in the “public interest” and media trials. Civilization has always struggled with mobs and individuals assuming extra-judicial roles of investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners. The media transgresses too, and the problem is exacerbated by the “24x7” nature of news media which constantly demands new content, the fierce competition to break a story first and the relatively new pressure introduced by the media’s desire to attract attention on social platforms.
Events following Sushant Singh Rajput’s tragic demise will still be fresh in the minds of those who read this. The media inexplicably seized upon the death to weave a narrative that had constantly shifting villains involved in the death – mental health, financial difficulties, nepotistic film industry, friends, the underworld, politicians, drugs… but many of them reserved the most vitriol for Rajput’s girlfriend, Rhea Chakraborty.
The frenzy had begun as soon as the news became public. A month and a half later, when Rajput’s father filed an FIR in Bihar, some media decided – without any evidence - that Chakraborty had committed a crime of some sort. The result was one of the most sordid episodes of some “news” channels abandoning all pretence at upholding the ethics of journalism.
One cannot ignore the larger sociopolitical landscape in which this narrative emerged as the saviour of a beleaguered administration – Indians were asking hard questions about the Chinese aggression, the surging COVID19 case and fatality counts, collapse in economic activity, the migrant workers walking thousands of kilo metres, the floods… The BJP, in power at the centre, had assumed explicit ownership of the political pressure to arrest someone for what authorities consistently called a suicide–using it to attack the government of Maharashtra (a state in which the BJP is the opposition) and to campaign for the elections in Bihar, Rajput’s home-state.
This is the broader context in which a small group of people decided that a concerted effort was needed to hold the television news media accountable to generally accepted ethics and principles of journalism.
5
Rate the Debate
The systematic subversion of various administrative, autonomous and other institutions in India is compounded by this tacit collusion between the purvey or sofnews & opinions and the political party in government. Most Media, and several television news channels in particular, have combined their profit motive and political leanings to create a servile publicity platform for the people in power. This must change.
Rate the Debate is a campaign to hold television news debates accountable to a set of journalistic standards. Begun on 16th August 2020, primarily through the Twitter platform, the campaign evolved three distinct objectives:
The first was to provide a focal point to what we believe is a widely held opinion–many news debate anchors are biased, pursue topics not of pressing concern to Indians as a whole and serve as a distracting foil to the central government that is mired in its incompetence. Rate the Debate’s social media presence can harness this opinion into a potentially powerful demand from audiences for news debate formats and themes to change.
The second was to present evidence, through qualitative and quantitative analyses, that is irrefutable by the anchor or the news channel. Rate the Debate’s research team has over a brief period of under two months developed a methodology to illustrate debate focus areas and anchor conduct.
The third was to make a scientific attempt to define a Media Trial Index – one that could irrefutably conclude whether coverage of a specific event or individual remained within the boundaries of principled and investigative journalism or violated them, becoming a witch-hunt or trial instead.
Methodology
To achieve the first two objectives, Rate the Debate picked an anchor to evaluate every week. The first part of the analysis concentrated on what subjects the anchor chose to debate over the previous month or so.
6
As already noted, the last few months have thrown up severe challenges to the country – the pandemic has raged almost unchecked, the economy is in a tailspin thanks to several missteps by the central government over the last 4 years, and China has usurped Indian territory at the Line of Actual Control. Besides, floods have ravaged several regions of the country, unemployment is rife, students have been forced to write exams, Jammu & Kashmir continues to exist in a bizarre limbo, scores of people are in prison charged with unsubstantiated crimes under draconian laws, and crores of workers have travelled across the country from workplaces to homes, many walking the entire distance.
Virtually every anchor we analysed chose to ignore almost all of these crises and conducted media trials on Bollywood or fomented religious/communal hate.
Rate the Debate’s research team watched several of the debates held in the period from beginning to end, and recorded various aspects of the debate–how much time the anchors themselves spoke, what they spoke about, what points of view the panellists presented, how anchors allocated time to panellists, who the anchors interrupted and argued with, and how much time was wasted in cross-talk. There search team also noted any comments by the anchor that seemed especially egregious.
Rate the Debate puts the material together into a video that we release on Twitter every week. The response in this short period has been overwhelming. The general reaction has been that it was about time for such analysis to be conducted, and endorsing the methodology we have adopted.
Appendix A contains examples of the data we have collected and visualized through various charts.
Rate the Debate will continue to pursue the objective of bringing sanity to news debates, restoring a sense of purpose nobler than the sale of more advertising time on the news channels and ensuring that Indian audiences receive a balanced perspective on the issues that make the most impact on lives and society.
Rate the Debate also worked hard to outlining a Media Trial Index. Based on our own prior academic and journalistic experience, and perusing extant literature comprehensively, Rate the Debate crafted an Index by which news coverage could be judged.
7
The Media Trial Index we developed defined 4 Primary Indicators. Even before we got to them, we concluded that a trial can never actually take place outside a courtroom. At best, the media might uncover facts that investigating agencies might find relevant and provide a platform for responsible, fair-minded opinions to be aired.
Our primary indicators rely on how the judiciary conducts a trial, assuming that a criminal case has been registered against specific defendants and is being prosecuted. We judge whether those indicators are triggered by a debate or a series of debates that we record and measure exhaustively.
Rate the Debate’s Primary Media Trial Indicators are – Shaping Public Opinion, the Presumption of Guilt, Lack of a Fair Hearing, and the Anchor Sitting as Prosecution, Judge and Executioner over a target or group of targets. The conclusions on whether any or all these indicators of a Media Trial are triggered will be based on a series of mainly quantitative measurements, called Secondary Indicators -
Appendix B contains analysis we conducted of the debates of anchors against these metrics.
8
Appendix A – Anchor Analysis
A few extracts from the analysis Rate the Debate conducted of 11 anchors.
9
AMISH DEVGAN, ANCHOR – NEWS18 INDIA
ANJANA OM KASHYAP (PART 1), ANCHOR – AAJ TAK
10
ANAND NARASIMHAN, ANCHOR – CNN NEWS18
ARNAB GOSWAMI, ANCHOR – REPUBLIC TV
11
RUBIKA LIYAQUAT – ANCHOR, ABP NEWS
RUBIKA LIYAQUAT (PART 2) – ANCHOR, ABP NEWS
12
RAHUL KANWAL– ANCHOR, INDIA TODAY
ROHIT SARDANA– ANCHOR, AAJ TAK
13
RAJDEEP SIRDESAI– ANCHOR, INDIA TODAY
ZAKKA JACOB– ANCHOR, CNN NEWS 18
14
ANJANA OM KASHYAP– ANCHOR, AAJ TAK
DEEPAK CHAURASIA, ANCHOR, NEWS NATION
15
Appendix B – Media Trial Analysis
DEFINITION OF A MEDIA TRIAL
16
SHAPING PUBLIC OPINION
RUBIKA LIYAQUAT – ANCHOR, ABP NEWS
17
RAHUL KANWAL – ANCHOR, INDIA TODAY
18
19
20
21
22
CONCLUSION:
23
Appendix C – Rate the Debate Team
Dr. Kota Neelima, author, researcher and founder of Institute of Perception Studies, conceptualized Rate the Debate. A Delhi University & JNU alumnus, she was Senior Research Fellow at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University. Her research has focused in the past 15 years on distress in rural and urban areas, and an assessment of the role that state and non- state initiatives play in identification and alleviation
Kushagra Saxena co-ordinates the activities of Rate the Debate’s team, ensuring the seamless production and dissemination of our reports. A passionate data scientist skilled in market research, NLP and Neural Networks, he obtained his post-graduation in Big Data Analytics and Data Science from the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, and is a strong engineering professional working in the information technology and services industry.
Ashish Srivastava advises enterprises on business and financial strategies, particularly in establishing and scaling their presence overseas. His extensive experience across banking and financial services enables his unique insights into economic and fiscal policy and operations. A graduate in Computer Science, he obtained his MBA in Finance from IMM, Delhi. A keen follower of political strategy, he loves participating in Election Campaign Management, and watches a variety of sport in his spare time.
Santhosh D’Souza undertakes quantitative analysis and visualization of debate data. His 23 year career in enterprise technology culminated in leadership positions at three product companies. He now consults on technology, while pursuing his passion for current affairs, science and history. He graduated in Electronics & Communication from Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering, Mysore University.
Saptasindhu Basu studies the debates, records the statistics and provides the voice-over for Rate the Debate’s videos. A politically opinionated and passionate citizen, he is studying for his MBA in Marketing at Christ University, Bengaluru and aspires to be a social entrepreneur. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Commerce from St Xavier’s College, Kolkata and his interests include Public Speaking, Writing and Social Media Marketing.
Aditya Garg creates Rate the Debate videos that encapsulate the research. While he is professionally associated with the mining and manufacturing industry, his interests span travel consulting, graphics design, photography and blogging. Graduating from HR College, Mumbai, he earned his Master’s in International Business from Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
24
Stay Tuned To
https://twitter.com/RateTVDebate
https://twitter.com/KotaNeelima
25