While I mostly agree with what Mr.
Aarcee is trying to say (see
my reaction here), I take
exception to his assertion that
businessmen should not be allowed to
own newspapers or other news media
and there should be a constitutional
amendment to enforce this what I
consider a draconian, completely
unnecessary, measure.
Mr. Aarcee appears to have an axe to
grind against capitalism - it's bad,
it's evil, and it must be avoided at
any cost. Well, what form of 'ism'
do you suggest Mr. Aarcee? Socialism
has failed throughout the world, we
all know that. Communism - the less
said the better. Government
controlled? Ever heard of government
censorship? NGOs running newspapers?
They all have their own political
agendas. I hope you are not
suggesting any of the above.
While capitalism may not be the
perfect 'ism' either, it is the best
we have got given today's world
condition.
What's wrong with big businesses
owning newspapers or TV channels as
long as they are reporting the news
to the world with reasonably less
bias and in a reasonably fair
manner? New York Times, Washington
Times, CNN (arguably the most
popular news channel on the planet
today, was started by billionaire
and businessman Ted Turner), Fox
(owned by Rupert Murdoch - another
billionaire), Birlas and Dalmians
and Goenkas - they all have stakes
in world's leading newspapers.
In my opinion, the reporting so far
has been by and large fair and
reasonable. No doubt bias do creep
in in reporting political news but
that's the nature of the business -
these media houses are being run by
people like you and I and not by a
bunch of emotionless robots. While
CNN, New York Times are widely
perceived as 'liberal'
conglomerates, Fox and Washington
Times are known for their
hard-hitting, right wing
conservative viewpoints. Some prefer
to get their news from CNN while
others choose to trust Fox. Both
complement each other and maintain
the much-needed semblance in today's
fast-changing, sensitive political
environment.
It's up to the readers of these
newspapers to decide what to trust,
what to believe and what not to. I
personally don't see any problem
with big media houses running
newspapers and TV channels as long
as the reporting are not so skewed
from the reality that they cease to
remain news and take shape of
'National Enquirer' type reporting
like "Woman impregnated by
green-headed Martian; delivers
2-pound, six-footed horse in New
York subway". Some may even argue
that such tabloids even serve
certain purposes.
Just like the media should have its
own freedom regardless of who owns
it and which way it leans to, the
readers have, and should have, the
freedom to choose what to read and
what to watch. You don't like this
channel? God created remote control.
You don't like the style of
reporting of a particular newspaper,
don't subscribe to it and instead
fill out the subscription card to
some other newspaper or magazine
that makes sense for you. If even
then you are not satisfied with the
reporting, start your own newspaper
or TV channel. (Then someone else
will be complaining about your style
of news reporting and coverage!). -
Aninda Bose - Nov. 27, 2005
Aninda Bose has very incorrectly
deduced that I have any "axe to
grind" against Capitalism. I firmly
believe that it is the only system
that has worked best so far. But the
issue here is the freedom of press
and not my leanings to the left or
right. Also, forget the tabloids. I
do not consider it media, nor should
you!
One thing that can be said about the
Indian Media, which Aninda Bose
chooses to ignore, that Indian Media
does not lean to the left or to the
right - thus polarizing the society.
Imagine half of the press becoming
sympathetic to Ranvir Sena and the
other half to the Naxals. That does
not happen in India and it should
never be allowed to happen.
The suggestion that Press should be
independent of Business Interest
only stresses that if people who run
the press become campaign donors (as
most businessmen are), the
objectivity of the press is lost.
Some in the media business start to
lean left and some to the right.
When Mr. Bill O'Reiley could, in a
nationally televised show, welcome
foreign elements to attack San
Francisco (as a reprisal to their
vote banning military recruiters in
high schools and colleges), it not
only showed the abuse of the freedom
of speech by one individual. It also
showcased a segment of the media
willing to carry such ideas to the
misguided people like Tim McVeigh
who tend to bring to such mindless
rambles to fruition.
If rapes and killings are not
reported, if news on crime is
sanitized, foreign investors will
surely come in, but where will the
incentive be for the law enforcement
people to do their jobs ? Let me use
an analogy. Leprosy by itself does
not damage limbs. It is a disease of
the nerves. If you can not feel how
hard you are rubbing your hand
against objects you touch, you will
wear them off to stumps. If the pain
response is gone, you have a sick
body, that will degenerate like that
of a Leper's. The press must hold a
mirror to the face of the society so
that society can clean its face. It
should not hold up a picture of
Aishwarya Rai and tell the society,
"You are the fairest of them all !"
Indian press is good as it is. There
is no need to sweeten the news at
the risk of truth being diluted or
camouflaged. - Aarcee - Nov, 28,
2005
Mr. Murthy may be wrong or right but
it's unfair to blame capitalism for
all things. One should remember the
days where Doordarshan was a
monopoly and we would see only the
figures govt. controlled DD used to
present (which was basically praise
of the ruling party) whereas now
ministers are grilled on various TV
programmes and have to defend
themselves on TV (thanks to
capitalist TV like STAR and Sony).
Last but not the least, all the good
newspapers in India are still owned
by private companies. - Shashank
Prasad - Nov, 28, 2005
Dear Mr. Aarcee:
If I wrongly construed that you are
anti-capitalism then my humble
apologies but if you read your own
message then that's what it appears
to be.
As you can see from my comments to
you and Mr. Indra, I am in agreement
with you about the 'sanitized
version of news' as proposed by
Narayana Murthy and seconded by Mr.
Indra. I, however, took exception to
your sounding off red alert against
the ownership of media by 'rich
capitalists' which is a reality of
the world whether you like it or not
and the world has been moving on
fairly smoothly despite the presence
of the likes of Turners, Murdochs,
O'reileys, Limbaughs, Hannitys, Frankens,
and Mahers for last several decades
since the demise of Hitler and his
Propaganda Minister Joel Goebel.
As for the likes of McVeighs are
concerned, the world is full of them
with or without the hate speech
spewed day in and day out by some
idiot like O'reiley who loves to run
his mouth and is obviously so much
in love with himself.
For every Limbaugh, there is a
Franken and vice versa. It's up to
us to decide who do we trust more
and who we don't, what newspaper to
read and what to ignore; what
channel to watch and what not to,
and what web site to visit and which one
to pass. By making a blanket
statement that the press should be
kept away from businessmen is
stretching your imagination a little
too far.
You say I ignored the Indian media.
No I did not, though I admit, I did
not get into it in great details. I
mentioned Dalmians, Goenkas, and
Birlas who own a number of
newspapers in India and the Indian
press, in your own words, does not
lean to the left or to the right.
Exactly my point. But you paint a
very 'scary' (again, your word),
almost Nazi-like scenario of the
world with media in the hands of
private businessmen. I simply
contested that's not true. Your fear
is highly exaggerated.
You also failed to answer my
question as to who should be your
choice of
individual/group/organization/outfit
who you think is more suitable to
own media. And how do you own a
media if you are not a government
entity or a businessman or a
political outfit (RSS, Shiv Sena,
Communists come to mind)? Someone
has to invest the money and when
someone invests the money, usually
he or she expects return on it and
when you expect return on it, it
qualifies you as a businessman. Or
am I missing here something? -
Aninda Bose - Nov. 28, 2005
I do not understand what concerns
you, Mr. Aarcee. The press will
report what sells and what interests
the reader. There are all sorts of
newspaper who have some affiliation
with political organization or
business house. But mostly they are
not very biased in reporting. It has
been found that any paper which has
heavy political or ideological
inclination or affiliation is not
very popular like Samana from Shiv
Shena or Sangh from RSS.
Now in India we have so many options
to choose from in print, electronic
or Internet-based press. If one
doesn’t like the view of a newspaper
or a news channel he can switch to
another which publishes the news
that interests him. One will
definitely find one as I found out
PatnaDaily.
The capitalist are only interested
in making profits and they let the
market force decide which thing will
sell at what price. Only Government
is in position to influence the
press like they did during emergency
and so many communal riots what
should or should not be published.
By and large media in India has had
good record and they are getting
stronger with more and more private
players coming in and decline in the
influence/role of the government
over media. In this new age of
internet it is difficult for
Government to maintain same level of
control.
No Narayan Murthy or Vivek Paul can
decide on which page which news will
appear; only we can. So what the
heck. - Prasoon Kumar Choudhary,
USA - Nov. 28, 2005
I am very happy to see that this
topic has generated a lot of debate.
I think that a lot of experience
gleaned from existing institutions
abroad are placed in a forum like
this. I only hope that people who
influence policy decisions in India
(Center for Policy Research et al.)
have a healthy reading habit.
A few things have become very clear
from all the discussions we have
had. Everyone agreed that 'Feel
Good' reporting is dangerous. It
opens the door to manipulation of
the news content. Has anyone
wondered why Mr. Murthy even cared
to make this remark? What was
bothering him? He is an educated
person and any stand that people
take is either guided by their
knowledge or by their convenience. I
will let readers mull that one over.
A parallel debate that sprang out of
my original article seems to have
stemmed from readers apparently not
paying attention to one word that I
used - "other". I never objected to
media being run by businessmen. Let
me repeat what I said, and you can
scroll up and find that sentence in
the original article.
"I think Indians should immediately
amend the constitution that
prohibits press to be owned by
individuals who have other business
interests."
Now this time, did you notice the
word 'other'? I simply meant that if
people owning Pharmaceutical
Companies own the media, or
cigarette manufacturers own the
media, there is a tendency for them
to not report against issues of
price gouging on the cost of
medicines or about the deleterious
effects of smoking. Do you know how
many times "Joe Camel" has been
sneaked in into the magazines read
by young children? Have you ever
wondered where the pressure comes
from?
Also, the erudite readers should
examine the total apathy that
average American has towards news
that guides their lives. Some (now
this is an extreme case) even think
that Al Gore is the President! It is
said, that if the average American
(now don't ignore the word average)
has a bag of chips, a six pack of
beer and a football game on the TV,
he does not care what happens in the
world. He does not care what his
government does, how much the trade
deficit is, or how heavily the
country is in debt. Why is it so?
Aren't the people just as smart as
anyone else? Yes they are! Why don't
they care? Because they have been
conditioned not to! Like the limbs
of a person who stays in space
without exercise begin to atrophy,
people have stopped taking interest
in vital things that affect their
lives. The local level baseball game
means more to many than do major
international issues which influence
their lives! Why is it so? It is so
because the local newspapers are
written on a sixth grade level in
the US. Not only in the complexity
of the language but also in the
content of the ideas. It is passed
off as, "This is what people want to
read." How untrue!
Thankfully today we have access to
international media through the
internet and the increasing role of
bloggers makes it very hard for
anyone to keep a lid on things that
happen around us, but ultimately it
is the content of the local
newspaper and the radio that shapes
people's interest to pursue these
means. Bubba listens to Limbaugh and
tunes everyone else out. The gay man
listens to Al Franken and tunes
everyone else out. Society can't
function like this!
My thrust was that News companies
should be run as businesses but they
should not be engaged in selling
snake oil at the street corner.
Because if they do, you will be led
to believe that snake oil is a
cure-all. - Aarcee - Nov, 28,
2005
Thanks for the clarification and
sorry for any misunderstanding.
However, I still believe that any
attempt to change the constitution
to stop certain group of people from
owning newspapers or TV channels is
an extreme measure with possibly
very dangerous implications
affecting the very core of
democracy. Once you start curtailing
some people's rights, it's nothing
but slippery slope from there
onward.
Thanks again for this discussion. I
think PatnaDaily is doing a
tremendous service to Bihar by
offering this web site. A few people
like them and a good government in
place, I can't see why the state
can't compete with the rest of the
nation. - Aninda Bose - Nov. 28,
2005 |
