The total spending for the 2009 Lok Sabha elections is pegged at a whopping Rs. 10,000 crore.The breakup of this spending throws up some interesting insights too.
Rage Against The Media
Recently India witnessed two issues where the ethics and integrity of political journalism was called into question.
The first was the
Radia tapes affair where a corporate Public Relations Officer (PRO) was witnessed speaking to Barkha Dutt, Vir Sanghvi and many other prominent editors of Indian media. The topic of discussion was DMK’s role in formation of the Congress led government in 2009. The Corporate PRO, representing Ratan Tata and Mukesh Ambani, seemed to be keen in pushing A Raja as the Telecom Minister of the Union Cabinet. Radia was promoting the prospects of some DMK personalities as well as the gas interests of one Ambani brother and the spectrum interests of the Tatas. What if the
2-G scam is related to it!
The second issue was when WikiLeaks published a series of unedited documents that have brought almost every major authority of this world into question. Much debate has ensued on the issues related to publishing unedited documents without prior permission and followups.
These issues are more than ethical. They are legal. Ethics take a backseat when the law comes into the picture. This is why both these issues are debated in courts. As a freelance writer who claims to be unbiased, I really don’t want to add another obvious comment here. Rather, I would like to take up a larger issue that has gone unnoticed – that of unbiased journalism.
Let us examine the roots of journalism. Consider a situation when a journalist is covering a riot. People are dying around him and he has a dilemma. He can drop his camera, jump in and save a few lives. But a real journalist will just cover the episode, however ironic it may sound. He will report the real situation. That is his job. However, he will strive towards a greater objective – that the masses get to know about what has happened so that such riots may stop altogether.
What I am getting at is, a journalist has to be unbiased in his reporting.
He cannot take sides and make emotional choices, not even politically. Well, according to one of my favorite journalists,
Swapan Dasgupta (da), a political journalist often has to do a trade off here. Let me elaborate:
Swapan da elaborates the importance of political ‘contacts’. Journalists rely on these ‘contacts’ for stories. Establishing these ‘contacts’ requires the building of long term relationships. The relationships, however, are based on understandings. The ’source’ may tell you everything that has transpired in a crucial, closed-door meeting. But if he tells you that you can’t write a word about it, you are obliged to respect his wishes. The price of violating the understanding is future exclusion. To survive in political journalism you can’t spit and run.
Very often political journalist develop cosy relationships with sources. This is the price journalists often pay for knowing the truth. These sources can end up as friends and these personal attachments potentially jeopardize journalistic independence.
I strongly believe that a journalist’s primary focus should be knowing and bringing out the truth. He should never lose sight of his motives. Personality or ideology driven journalism is still acceptable (and often interesting). But journalism driven by material favours is pure corruption.
Swapan da himself is considered close to the BJP. But I can not think of an incident when he has not criticized BJP when the need arose. However, the case with Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi was different. Vir Sanghvi referred to congress as ‘we’. Barkha Dutt was never far behind in going gaga over everything congress did. She was even accused of sensationalizing the coverage of the
Mumbai Terrorist Attacks. Her broadcasts were used by terrorist handlers in Pakistan to relay orders back to their team in Mumbai. The credibility of Ms. Dutt and Mr. Sanghvi was always in
question. The day the media had to confront the crisis was long overdue.
This day in Indian media was inevitable!
I see it as a success of my nation that we read of a controversy which is being
driven by the media against the media. As the nation progresses, the rotten eggs will crack. The question of
Outlook publishing unedited data is as elementary as that of Wikileaks, and debate will never cease on the matter. But the greater question on the impartiality and objectivity of the media needs to be answered as soon as possible. The sooner we do that, the better it will be for us.
WikiLeaks cables “inspired” anti-corruption campaign in India
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said the “tremendous” anti-corruption movement “building up” in India is a result of the publication of “cablegate” revelations by The Hindu in recent weeks.
Citing the campaign, led by Anna Hazare, as an example of the impact of WikiLeaks cables, he said what was happening in India was “something that has not happened since the time of Gandhi.”
Mr. Assange singled out The Hindu‘s coverage of the leaked U.S. diplomatic cables while speaking in a debate organised by the Frontline Club and New Statesman here on Saturday.
Stating that he could “speak for hours” about the reverberations sparked by the cables around the world, he noted: “Just yesterday [on Saturday], the Editor of The Hindu, the most respected paper in India, brought over 21 front pages from the past six weeks that were based on cablegate material. Indian Parliament walked out four times and there’s now a tremendous anti-corruption movement that has been building up in that country — something that has not happened since the time of Gandhi.”
Making a difference
Mr. Assange, making a rare public appearance, said the WikiLeaks cables were making a difference in ways that many Britons wouldn’t have heard about. And, then, he referred to the developments in India following The Hindu‘s reporting of WikiLeaks documents.
A 900-strong audience in the packed Kensington Town Hall in central London listened as Mr. Assange defended the need for anonymous whistle-blowing, arguing that it made the world a safer place. The “bloodbath” in Iraq could have been averted if someone had had the courage to speak up.
Dynamic feedback
Challenged over WikiLeaks’ own transparency, he said: “We are directly supported on a week-to-week basis by you. You vote with your wallets every week if you believe that our work is worthwhile or not. If you believe we have erred, you do not support us. If you believe we need to be protected in our work, you keep us strong. That dynamic feedback, I say, is more responsive than a government that is elected after sourcing money from big business every four years.”
Mr. Assange, who is fighting extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault, said whistle-blowing was essential in a democracy because “the only way we can know whether information is legitimately kept secret is when it is revealed.”
He also referred to the plight of U.S. marine Bradley Manning, now in prison over allegations of leaking thousands of classified American documents.
During the debate, “This house believes whistleblowers make the world a safer place,” Mr. Assange was challenged about his website’s source of funding and style of operation.
mona 
