Mr Kejriwal’s shoot and scoot style

No sooner did Arvind Kejriwal’s statement about how the media was corrupt and if his party came to power it would jail journalists hit the airwaves, the following things happened — the social media (which reacts promptly, even before the facts can be ascertained) burst into its 140 character per tweet discussion, television channels went into their usual “Breaking News” mode and journos began chasing down Aam Aadmi Party spokespersons for their reactions. In short, it became a media spectacle, dwarfing everything else, including the ongoing mystery of the missing Air Malaysia aircraft.

While AAP’s representatives held a press conference (conducted by two journalists who are now AAP candidates — the irony!) and in their usual “we are always right” told off the reporters, Mr Kejriwal himself said he had never said such a thing. “How can I ever be upset with you (the media)?” The furore however refuses to die and now a new narrative is emerging, at least if you follow that worldwide addas, Twitter and Facebook. And a smiling Mr Kejriwal has ensured that he remains on the front pages.

A sample of some comments — “Isn’t it true some journalists are biased and support Modi?”; “Shouldn’t media criticise itself too?”; “Isn’t there something called paid media?”; “Doesn’t big business now control newspapers and television channels?” The answers to these questions are — Yes, yes, yes and yes. These very issues have been discussed and debated by journalists who are watching with dismay the gradual debasement of professional standards. What Mr Kejriwal has said is nothing new — so why are journalists upset with him?

Mr Kejriwal has developed a style, which depends on two crucial elements — shoot and scoot and a gross over-simplification of a complex issue. This works very well with his growing band of wide-eyed devotees, fanatics almost, who have now begun to think of him as a messiah. He is the man who will deliver them from a host of problems, ranging from corrupt cops to corporate scams to yes, biased journalists. He feeds into not just people’s personal experiences but deep personal prejudices. There is a perception, and not wrongly either, that the “media” is compromised and tends to favour one and oppose another because it has sold out. Naturally Mr Kejriwal’s blanket statements strike a chord.

But Mr Kejriwal is wrong, very wrong and his one-stop-solution — “we will send them to jail” — is positively dangerous.

To begin with, let us talk about paid media. In the last general election, a worrying trend was noticed. Media houses were offering to carry favourable reports about politicians in return for cash. This wasn’t your ordinary “we will cover you if you give an ad” level of corruption; these deals were conducted according to a proper rate card, thus formalising the whole arrangement into a business transaction. This was brazenly unethical behaviour and went against the grain of what the media should stand for. The point however is that no journalist was making money on this. Paid media, therefore, doesn’t describe a corrupt journalist, but a management monetising news space. (Again, it is very important to know that not all media houses indulge in this pernicious practice.)

As for journalists, who blatantly show bias in their writing and on television, this too, unfortunately, is true. In these polarising elections, some journalists have leaned in one direction or the other, even going hammer and tongs against parties they don’t favour. Occasionally this lack of balance and objectivity is glaringly obvious, other times it is subtle. Many an “independent commentator” in panel discussions is blatantly partisan and any viewer reasonably intelligent can discern this in a moment. Are they all corrupt? Probably not in the sense that they take money for coverage, but corruption takes many forms. They could be expecting favours in the post-election scenario, for example. Or they may be genuinely convinced by the ideology of the party. The AAP should know — it has several journalists in its fold who have apparently joined up because they admire what the AAP stands for. One might legitimately ask if their coverage during their professional years was biased towards the AAP.

One of the more troubling trends in recent times has been the investments made by large corporate groups in media houses. Since big business is, at this moment, supporting Narendra Modi, the question arises — have the staffers of those newspapers and TV channels been asked to do pro-Modi stories? This was what Mr Kejriwal was alluding to, and he has a point. Except that he did not ask, or raise doubts — he right away called the media corrupt and threatened to jail journalists; not media owners, mind you, but journalists. And then, when the heat got too much, he backtracked, after smugly making his point.

Mr Kejriwal should be honest and admit that his party would not have got the nationwide publicity it had it not been for a supportive media. Indeed, the media had then not just shown credulity but a willingness to give his utterings free, unquestioned publicity like when he attacked Robert Vadra, Mukesh Ambani and several others. He got away lightly, while building a reputation for being anti-corruption and getting tens of thousands of people to join his party. AAP-friendly journalists did their bit to push the cause, forgetting they were professionals, not activists. Now the man has the temerity to accuse and warn journalists.

Some angry journalists have suggested blacking him out, but censorship of this kind is never the answer. Others have said that it is time to debate some of the issues he has raised; by all means, and let us not forget that these are being discussed all the time. But while there are black sheep in the profession, the vast number of journalists young and old do their job honestly and objectively. Mr Kejriwal needs to be told that he has gone too far — he is welcome to have an honest debate but wild accusations will only earn him the wrath of media professionals. Now this is something he, with his love for being the centre of attention, wouldn’t want.