On any given day, as I weigh news against each other, I am left ensnared in the play of words while the real story plays hide and seek. The front page of ‘Times of India’ says, “Coalgate : 10.7 lakh crore scam.” The Hindustan Times does not talk about it. The following day HT informs, “CAG trashes report, says it is misleading.” The Times of India, however, sticks to its breaking story.
My cynicism takes roots after reading the morning newspaper. That is when I end up scratching my head. You see, I subscribe to two national dailies and both repeatedly push me on the ‘muddle path’! To an extent that I have started reading a third newspaper! Sigh!
The confusion has compounded. The third newspaper (Mail Today) says , " In its final report CAG will at best, replace the term ‘loss’ used in the draft report with ‘unintended benefit’ that could have accrued because of faulty allotment of coal blocks between 2004 to 2009.
The story is old. I remember, last year, Hindustan Times had initially authenticated the Bhushan tapes, whereas the Times of India had rubbished them. One newspaper had screamed, ‘Aseemanand and four others charged’, while the other said, ‘Aseemanand is a political pawn’.
Hell, what is the freaking truth? By the time truth appears the flip-flop kills the story. The only thing shorter than public memory is public enthusiasm.
The overlap between politics and journalism is increasingly evident. Just as skepticism crept into cricket following match fixing allegations, the Radia tape revelations and the cash-for-vote scam have made me cynical about news. Fueling my cynicism was Vinod Mehta’s anthology, titled, ‘Mr. Editor, How Close Are You to the Prime Minister’? The cherry on the cake was an eminent editor’s sweeping comment, “Hamam mein sab nange hain”. That’s Funny. But unfortunate. I am not sure whether some scribes are in bed with politicians and lobbyists, but surely, they are present in their bedrooms.
Is this how the cookie crumbles? Is this how a story ‘breaks’ on TV? A channel repeatedly denounces government double speak and continues to rap it on its knuckles night after night, giving the opposition an unfair advantage. Whereas another refuses to come out with the truth on cash for votes scam, thereby salvaging powerful reputations. Hello? I can sense back scratching in the backdrop. When the anchor quotes his ‘sources’ I wonder who the source is! Dinesh Trivedi’s resignation was a known fact in the media circles. Much before he actually resigned. The mighty ‘source’ knew it all!
Here is my problem with media’s presence in the politician’s bedroom: The news gets biased and prejudiced. The back scratching is understandable. A positive coverage is the brahmastra for political resurrection. In early 2011, the cameras projected Anna as Gandhi incarnate. A few months down the line, the same cameras pulled Anna down from the pedestal by evaluating his ‘flog the drunkards’ comment. Direct telecast of Modi’s sadbhavna farce / fast did bleach some stains of his starched kurta. Since, media glare can make or break reputations; it makes sense to keep media houses in good humour.
The question that begs to be asked is: Can journalists become political mouth pieces? Night after night, on television, Vinod Sharma (affiliated with HT) more often than not, defends the Congress. Chandan Mitra (associated with Pioneer) clearly acts as the spokes person for the BJP. Wasn’t it the BJP that nominated Mr Mitra for the Rajya Sabha seat? Any quid pro quo is eminent. Ideally, scribes and political affiliations should not go hand in hand. But when did we live in an ideal world? A pity! If one can do it for a Rajya Sabha seat, another can do it for a Padma award. Who doesn’t love a reward for the unflinching support? And aren’t such awards doled as largesse by those in power? The maara –maari for Rajya Sabha seats is out in the open.
At the end of the day journalism is business. To be fair to television channels, they have to survive. The moral in the market place is to protect business interests and make money. Undoubtedly, money and power go hand in hand. So even as the media houses are acquiring muscle, the halo of morality is diminishing. Both in print as well as in pixels.
Busy in our stressful lives we let the media think for us and unobtrusively mould our thought processes, not realizing that media is no longer dispassionate. Today, I am conscious of any hanky- panky as the TV anchor steers my thought process in the direction he deems right. I do not let an article in the newspaper play with my mind, giving the illusion of helping me form opinions. Leisurely viewing, unfettered by serious contemplation is a luxury we can ill afford.
Akhilesh’s is bigger than Rahul’s. The nose that is!
There are moments when political events in the states portend larger trends in national polity. Akhilesh’s landslide victory in UP sent a clear signal that the remote control, which became a metaphor for governance at the center; of being powerful without being in power is defunct. ‘No, backseat driving please’ is what the voter seems to convey.
A hyperventilating media, on the eve of poll results repeatedly asked Akhilesh, ‘What have you got that Rahul hasn’t? ”
“A wife!”
No, that’s not what Akhilesh said. Instead he tried to evade the question.
Apparently the voters were disenchanted with the politics of statues, widespread corruption, NRHM scam, caste politics and lack of any other credible state leader. However, most importantly, what Akhilesh had was the insider card, the easy camaraderie, earnest communication skills and the promise of power with accountability. And when a senior Congress leader announced that UP will be remote controlled, the janta rushed into the waiting arms of Akhilesh Yadav - the local boy who knew the state, its people and its aspirations.
Given the UPA’s penchant for detachment and backseat driving, the electorate reposed their faith in the engaging politics of Akhilesh Yadav. The Congress and its bosses on the other hand, repeatedly shunned communication, distancing the voter further by muzzling the social media and people’s movement against graft. They did nothing to soothe the frazzled nerves of the unconvinced voter. And when they did communicate, they did so under pressure; in typical Inspector Clouseau clumsiness. Clearly their heart was not in it. It appeared as if communicating with the aam janta on a regular basis gave them dreadful headaches. Once in five years was a pain enough. They announced populist measures on the eve of the polls and covertly continued to play the communal card.
Adding to the government’s headache was the small screen. The truth is that it is the middle classes which control the small screen in terms of viewership and opinion making. Any attempt at convincing an irate, intelligent middle class is tough. It is akin to casting Behenji as Chikni Chameli; but it has to be done. And convincingly at that! The UPA spokespersons, living under the shadow of their PM being remote controlled, failed to strike a chord with the people.
Communicating with the intelligentsia is like walking a tight rope. One stray comment can make the balancing act precarious with a large chunk of faith getting decimated. Even mighty Anna's image suffered a setback after one reckless comment,"Ek hi Maara'. Manish Tiwari lost face after his, "Anna is embroiled in corruption from head to toe." Rashid Alvi lost credibility after his "Foreign hand" comment. On the other hand the unassuming Akhilesh, before and after the elections, was a picture of humility and grace. Any trace of vendetta was missing.
Unlike Akhilesh, the comments from other fronts were pompous and reeked of arrogance. ‘Either we will have a majority or Presidents Rule.” Forget clarifications, Congress failed to reassure the people that Rahul wanted involvement and not remote control. Wary of power without responsibility, voters clamored for the accessible and available Akhilesh. In spite of the goonda image! Public memory is short, they say!
Finally, if the Congress wants its share of bouquets for 2014, their leader has to engage with the voter and drop the remote control. The problem with the remote control is that the buck never stops. And people want accountability. Didn’t Nitish tell us that?
Since most of the newly sworn ministers have criminal backgrounds, only time will tell whether Akhilesh’s nose will stop his political ambitions from nose diving! The buck will stop at his door step.
In the telly world where husbands are straightforward, fathers kindhearted and brothers compassionate, disruption comes only from scheming conniving women of the household. Strangely, conspiracy is the fine art which the telly women seem to have perfected. And what’s more? The haranguing, scheming women get their jollies by spinning controversies and breaking relationships of their own children!
Have you noticed a strange contrast? While the big screen has nasty men (Kancha, Rauf Lala) as baddies, the small screen prefers vicious women: Women, who love to waggle their eyebrows, look daggers and smile coquettishly while planning crooked moves. Not the ones to give up, the kohl eyed breed is either aggressively demanding or mysteriously conniving. I once attempted to waggle my eyebrows and smile wickedly in front of the mirror. Couldn’t come close! No wonder, these quirky women get felicitated in far off exotic Macau.
The first half of the last decade was all about regressive women protagonists in Indian soaps. The second half was dominated by the feudal rustic sagas. Even though the bejeweled bahu has morphed into a normal, confident woman with a mind of her own, the impediments in soaps come from nasty women. Earlier it was the vicious daughter-in-law or the carefully coiffed mother-in-law, who played the vamp. However today, doctors, models and corporate bosses are cast in the role of spiteful women. Even though the garish makeup, faux- ethnic ensembles, and heavy trinkets are giving way to normal leading ladies, bitching, viciousness and manipulative character traits fail to fade away.
You disagree? Well, picture this.
“What else do we women have? Only the power of our tongue! If we don’t use our devious instincts, men will trample us,” says an actress in a daily soap revolving around doctors. The tone is supercilious, even contemptuous. And then the stone hearted lady goes on to conspire in most evil ways known to only her. Switch the channel and you have another malevolent matriarch in plotting to break her son’s marriage. She quietly peeps into her forty year old son’s bedroom and connives to stop the newlyweds from going all the way. Forget the fact that after six months and a stretched honeymoon, the tycoon son hasn’t consummated his marriage. So night after night, audiences wait with baited breath to watch if ‘The Ram Kapoor’ goes all the way…
I was naïve to believe that this flawed portrayal is a Hindi soap phenomenon. Only yesterday I happened to catch a glimpse of ‘Desperate Housewives’. And lo and behold, what does the woman on the screen do? ‘Gabrielle’ makes out with the young gardener even as her mother-in-law lands in coma. Later she goes on to advice her friend, “Go and manipulate men. That’s what we do best.”
Hello? Do we manipulate men? Not to the best of my knowledge. If you are a woman reader, you will second me on this one. I am not sure about the men. See, this is what the repeated character assassination does. It creates a myth!
I doubt if ‘You-sicko-go-burn-in-hell’ eyes, snide remarks, waspish smiles come naturally to women. Where are these vicious women in real life? Have you seen them? I haven’t. In reality, I have met wonderful kind women. Unlike the kohl eyed telly women who rock and roll with their eyes. That reminds me of my aunt who loves to gossip and revels in pulling others down. But I seriously doubt if she will ever conspire or plot to hurt anyone.
Are women more akin to the mythical character of Kaikaey from Ramayana? Complicated perhaps! But I doubt if women are a part of the bitching fest unleashed by the daily soaps.
