WHY INDIAN MEDIA CAN’T EMULATE THE US MEDIA
Last week Justice Markandey Katju answered a question that has frequently been put to me. Actually it’s one that a lot of people have started to ask: ‘Is the Indian media capable of standing up to Prime Minister Modi in the same way that the American media has stood up to President Trump?’
Justice Katju’s answer was no. I believe he’s correct but I don’t believe his reasons go far enough. There’s a better and more convincing argument he’s overlooked.
Justice Katju’s answer rests on two arguments. First, he believes public opinion is not mature and independent enough to stand up to supreme authorities such as the prime minister. At such moments it buckles and gives way. This is often true though there have been instances when public opinion has been firm and resolute. The Nirbhaya rape case and the response to Gauri Lankesh’s killing are two.
Justice Katju’s second argument is that newspaper proprietors are unwilling to stand up to government pressure. They inevitably “kowtow”. More often than not, this is because they have other businesses to protect. They know governments can be vicious and vengeful and they want to avoid provoking them.
However, I believe there’s a further, deeper and more comprehensive reason why the Indian media is unlikely to emulate the American. It’s not because individual journalists – indeed, the vast majority of them – are willing to toe the governments line (although a few sadly are) and do not recognise the to stand firm. It’s because they lack economic security. If you challenge the government you run the risk of losing your job.
Yet for many this is not just their livelihood but the anchor of their (and sometimes their families) existence. If standing up to the government means risking your security most people would think carefully and decide against it.
This is where the American media differs. Individual American journalists have the financial wherewithal to stand up for their principles and their conscience. We don’t, which is why we’re forced to compromise.
To some this may be a lamentable conclusion but it’s also God’s own truth. Of course, our profession can boast of some journalists who, at the cost of their happiness or security, will stand up for their principles and refuse to bend, but they are rare. They’re men and women of exceptional character. The majority of us are different. We’re survivors and we need to carry on living. In fact, this is true of many Indian professions but it can create a poignant moral dilemma for journalists.
There are, of course, other failings that come in the way of the Indian media standing up to authority. But these aren’t unique to India. You’ll find them everywhere. Some journalists seek to be friends of the powerful, others allow their personal prejudices to determine their decisions and some are looking for favours that could advance their career or even launch new ones.
Yet this will change and it already is. The initial response to the Emergency was the first example. Bofors and the reaction to the Anti-Defamation Bill was another. Arguably the opposition to Hindutva and its champions is a third.
What Justice Katju didn’t ask is how would our courts respond if the government’s behaviour is legally challenged by journalists. I’d like to believe our judges will be no different to their American counterparts. Justice Katju would know better but on this, alas, he was silent. I wonder why?
AMERICAN JOURNALISTS HAVE THE FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL TO STAND UP FOR THEIR PRINCIPLES. WE DON’T, WHICH IS WHY WE’RE FORCED TO COMPROMISE