Where media does the job of P.R. firms.
Given how some sections of Indian media say exactly what the government wants them to say, there is no need for press releases anymore.
Recently, the chief minister of West Bengal said that she will fund her next election campaign (which is four years away) from sales of her paintings. This is hard to believe. Elections in Bengal, a state on the eastern border with Bangladesh, are messy and expensive affairs. Unless she suddenly starts getting paid like Picasso, her paintings, devoid of any notion of abstractness or idea, will be perhaps enough to cover her household utilities bill. The story does not mention it - perhaps out of respect to the chief minister.
Another story mentions that Kolkata, the capital of Bengal, will house Asia’s second laboratory to study supernova conditions. The story also mentions that the lab will take over 15 years to build. If you consider India’s record in getting big projects done, it might well take twice the time and double the projected cost. However, there is not a mention of that in the story.
Lest you think I’m talking only about news out of Bengal, here is one out of Bangalore, India’s information technology capital, where subway work started five years ago. Today, the only progress to show for is a 8 kilometer track. What does the media have to say? A recent report says how majestic one of the stations is going to be.
What’s going on? India was supposed to be the land of the free and fair media. Unlike the United States, where print media declined 47% in last five years, growth of papers in India has grown by 17%. There are around 107 million newspapers in the country, most of them in regional langauges. Low internet penetration has made it easier for newspapers to expand and it is unlikely that the internet will pose a threat in the near future. So, newspapers are the harbingers of news good and bad, along with news channels.
But most of the media is anything but fair: afraid of asking the most basic of questions to the government. It is not hard to find the reason.
The government has been the major sponsor of advertisements in newspapers for years. Even after economic reforms in 1991 when many sectors of the economy were opened up for foreign investment, the government still retains the top slot, accounting for around a quarter of all print ads. Most of the advertisements are tenders of projects big and small.
One of the criticisms levelled against the media is its corporate ownership. That might be justified to an extent, but political owners cause more damage. Papers in southern states like Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are mostly owned by political parties and reflect their views, quite like Venezuelan papers who reported nothing against Hugo Chavez. Overall in India, more than a third of media firms are owned either by politicians or their cronies. Around 60% of cable news channels are owned by politicians.
Obviously, news in such publications and channels becomes crucial during election time, and they do influence the outcome. Which is why they are prized assets for politicians. And with no regulator in sight, and rife corruption, this trend is likely to rise significantly. Public relations agencies might as well exit the space. The politicians in power, or in the opposition, do not need them. They have their newspapers and channels.
