Retributions  

Barkha Dutt ko gussa kyun aata hai

Much debate has happened in the US recently on “objective journalism.” Some journalists, citing the examples of the likes of Fox news and MSNBC, lament the death of non-partisan journalism with shrill anchors like Keith Olberman and Bill O’Reilly dominating the ratings. Others argue that objective journalism is a meaningless goal—indeed, in their opinion,  the likes of Olberman have actually improved public discourse since their biases are not hidden but find the fullest expression.

But even within the realms of opinionated TV journalism, there are some differences. For instance, Olberman bats openly for the progressive cause and by default the Democratic party. O’Reilly on the other hand adopts a more populist tone ranting against all the bums in Washington D.C. (Of course, in practical terms, there is little difference since in  O’Reilly’s world view, most of the bums tend to congregate on one side of the political divide.)

Applying this lens to Indian news shows, it is clear that Indian acnhor/journalists have preferred the O’Reilly routine. There is a carefully crafted demeanor of political neutrality with the shows reflecting a peculiar mixture of populism and public angst. The anchor is not a bridge between the people and the elite but adroitly positions herself as the face of popular opinion. In other words, Barkha Dutt represents the teeming voiceless millions. Not for nothing is Barkha Dutt’s most popular show called “We the People”!

It is a clever device which has largely worked well. Our populist princess rants against the corrupt politicians looting the nation and protects the people from the profit-driven industrialists. These politicians may escape the law or voter retribution but can they survive the incessant grilling of Barkha Dutt—on our behalf? While little of note changes on ground, the average middle class Indian sleeps a little better at night having partaken in his greatest fantasy: Public lynching. To borrow from Marxist theology, it is a member of the bourgeoisie fighting for the proletariat while seeking to preserve the status quo.

Now this shctick is a sham of course. After all, how many of ‘We the People” are on first name terms with Gulam Nabi Azad? Or receive late night calls from prominent corporate lobbyists? But this device—shambolic as it is—is essential for these shows to succeed. After all, we are outsourcing our outrage to TV anchors. They are us. So when it turns out that those who represent “We the People” appear to have been co-opted by the  very system they ostensibly challenge, it militates against the populist impression of Barkha Dutt as a warrior for the people. It may not be a surprise for some of us. But for those not yet robbed of their trust,  the fraying of comport between the people and their TV representatives robs these shows of their raison d’etre.

Now, that by it self is not an indictment of Barkha Dutt. Many would label this blog elitist and in any case, Retributions has little interest in provoking class warfare. But perhaps it does explain, at least partially, Barkha Dutt ko gussa kyun aata hai. Those raging against her on Twitter are challenging the very essence of her television persona.

A couple of additional points. In her “final word” on the Radia tapes, Barkha Dutt writes that lobbying by definition implies a quid pro quo. This is an exceedingly legalistic defense which has been repeatedly been offered by Barkha Dutt. No one is calling for the prosecution of Ms. Dutt on the basis of what has been reported in the public domain. And yet, the critical question here is of perceived impropriety. Most media organizations of repute bar their journalists from receiving any favors including such minor ones like tickets to important games or a free dinners. It would be hard to draw a direct link between say a sumptuous dinner and a flattering portrait of  that individual in the next day’s paper. Yet to guard against any impression of a quid pro quo, such gifts are prohibited. Barkha Dutt has seemingly failed to grasp the important difference between legal and ethical behavior; what may fall foul of ethical requirements may be perfectly legal.

It is possible, as Barkha Dutt has claimed, that there is really an innocent explanation for her conversations with Ms. Radia. That possibility must at least be considered. Then why this deep skepticism? Perhaps, Ms. Dutt and her ilk should also reflect on the fact their credibility has been damaged because the media is seen to protect its own. Despite expressions of concern from many journalists, paid news has received little attention in the mainstream media. It is hard to imagine a true journalist—and there are many in India—who is not deeply offended by this obnoxious practice of selling editorial space for monetary considerations. But except for occasional expression of concern via tweets, the media prefers to maintain a silence. Even in the present case, Ms. Dutt has done little except drop dark hints about other journalists also featuring in the Radia tapes? In that case, why not organize a “We the People” and expose those unethical practices? If you have a reputation of not acting against the black sheep in your community, public skepticism is only understandable.

Imagine if a similar scandal broke out at The NewYork Times. There would be a public debate, a comment by the ombudsman, and the The Times would in all probability assign a reporter to cover it independently. Not lengthy statements by the accused exonerating themselves!

It is touching to watch many media personalities warning against painting everyone with the brush. It is a message Retributions heartily endorses. Indeed, Retributions has warned multiple times that blaming everyone–-hamam mein sab nange hain—only allows the accused to escape accountability. It is hoped that those who now warn against this tendency would remember it the next time a corruption scandal breaks. Or a terrorist incidence happens.

Finally, it is amusing to note that Ms. Dutt has labeled her comment as the “final word.” So while the debate rages on and some people worry about the state of the fourth pillar of democracy, Ms. Dutt has already moved on. Above the fray. Unconcerned with what “We the People” may be thinking.

Not much of a populist princess in this case!