So continuing from where I left off in the last post, I wanted to tell you why there were no sting operations in “those times”. Actually, I don’t want to be unfair to those times. There was a lot of fine investigative journalism. When I started reading newspapers, it was exciting times, because the Indian Express under Arun Shourie was taking on Rajiv Gandhi’s government. But no, there were no hidden camera stings, and the few who were taking on the government were some exceptionally brave souls.
Let me go over the reasons why there were no hidden camera stings at that time. Some of them apply even today.
Cable TV did not exist:
The fact that Cable TV came into being in 1991 at all was a failure of regulation. The government had actually forgotten to regulate Cable TV. Seriously! In 1991, it was a pleasant surprise to everyone that it was not in fact illegal to put up a satellite dish, and lay cables from there to homes. It was entirely by oversight that this was not illegal or heavily regulated.
Newsprint was controlled:
Did you know that? The government exercised control over the disbursement of newsprint. It could, and frequently did, use it to put pressure on newspapers to silence criticism, as the Indian Express learnt to its peril
Advertisements:
The power of advertising IIPM wields is nothing compared to the power that the government wields – think of all the tenders, notices, job advertisements and PSU advertisements. The government could and did use the power to withhold revenue if someone picked up a fight with it.
Unclear and intrusive laws:
There are so many laws in India that it is a given that every individual and company has violated atleast a few of them. So anytime the government wanted to harrass a newspaper, there would always be a way. For example, Arun Shourie found that the government opened income tax cases years old and they had to ship truckloads of documents in response to queries – I am not joking. There were really truckloads. Yes, he was a minister in the government that later on tried the same technique on Tehelka. I notice the irony.
Competition was lacking:
Remember that when Tehelka made its defence expose, it was a lone wolf and no one else supported it? The latest expose has been bankrolled by Aaj Tak. What has changed from then to now? One word – competition. The competition between news channels has made sting operations an acceptable part of their weaponry. This is a classic example of how the market functions – a maverick entrant into the market introduces something new, and others play catch up. Yes, in their attempt to catch up, some channels have done stings at the wrong places – they have intruded into people’s personal lives and stuff. But that is no reason to ban sting operations; and if the government got a chance, what do you think it would have banned – sting operations on Aman Varma or sting operations on its ministers? Anyway, the point is, because of a lack of competition, it was easy for the press to simply close ranks and be more Catholic than the Pope.
No internet:
If it weren’t for Sam Pitroda’s liberalized telecoms policy, chances are that the internet, even when it was introduced in India, would have been as restricted as in China. The prevailing instinct was statist, to treat everything as banned unless explicitly allowed.
Press note 18:
This was the ultimate weapon used by the government to keep editors in line.
So Shivam, these were the reasons why investigative journalism was rare in India. You will notice that most of them have to do with the lack of a free market. You may think that it is the constitution that guarantees your free speech. But the constitution is just words. To make free speech possible, there needs to be a machinery in place, and that machinery is provided by the free market.
Thanks for all this info, I knew most but not all of it. I like the condescending tone of the delivery of your information. Remember also there were no hidden digital cameras at the time, at least not as easily available as today. If you are implying I am against free markets, you are wrong, as I have said so many times. As someone standing at the threshold of a journalist career, and in my stories in The Hoot, I have always argued in favour of free speech, against censorship, against government control of the media. The Constitution comes first, the ‘machinery’ later, both are important. If you want me to change the header of my blog into ‘I worship free markets’ I can do that, but I stand by my argument about seeing free markets in their complexity, much as you want to be a PR agent for them.
About media and regulation, see this. I can give you many more examples of media malpractices that go unchecked in the absence of regulation. And as I have explained in my ‘Dear Ravikiran’ post (see the trackback immediately above this comment), regulation does not necessarily (or only) mean government regulation.
But it is not powered by ‘free markets’ much as you might like us to believe. It is powered by ‘imperfect markets’ which is as good as it gets, at least for a very long time.
Are you hearing impaired? Or is it that if one is not a ‘classical liberal’ that means ‘anti-reform’ in your dictionary?
And are you a South Indian? And no, this is not a private joke, it is your public post.
Sting operations are usually brought about because of the urge of a media channel to create sensationalism. That has not changed over the years. The media loves sensation, and Im sure that more than ad budgets, they can make money by increasing their revenues with increased sales. I do not believe that the Government could have supressed the media.
Historically, all forms of expression has always been at a peak when it has been supressed. I believe that this explains the rennaissance, as it explains the constant artistic genius uncovered in West Bengal.
The media cannot be supressed, because if it is, it ceases to be media anymore. Free speech will find its voice somehow. Free press could not have been brought about by the liberalization, however, you are right, sting operations could have been brought about by liberalization.
Hello Shivam Vij,
Good that you are exposing corruption in regional media. Can we see you do a story on how the fanatical Marxist “newspaper” The Hindu spouts Marxist rhetoric and recommends socialism for India while it itself
1) makes money in a capitalist system, especially with a capitalism-betsowed monopoly in Chennai market (at least, till recently)
2) is not even on the stock market, but is closely controlled by an oligarchy
3) and this oligarchy happens to be a family (while even marwari businesses are modernizing and democratizing)
4) and the editor has always come, and must always come, from within this family: that no matter how long an employee of the paper has worked for it, he cannot hope to reach the top ..
Can we see you discuss these issues and recommend measures to combat such corruption?
But it is not powered by ‘free markets’ much as you might like us to believe. It is powered by ‘imperfect markets’ which is as good as it gets, at least for a very long time.
Which is like saying that since we have an imperfect democracy, let’s get rid of it and bring the Stalinists in.
The media cannot be supressed, because if it is, it ceases to be media anymore
It was, actually, during the Emergency, when most editors and publishers made sure they were in madam’s good books.
But I accept the larger point: the media cannot be suppressed through overt and blatant force, because there’s always the courageous, odd rebel who will fight back and bring the edifice of oppression down. But the media can be easily ‘suppressed’, ie, bought over, by covert and traditional methods, such as bribing, and extending it the government’s patronage.
Most of Indian media has a soft corner for the Congress party because over the years this party has bribed journalists in overt and clandestine ways. Subisidized accommodation in government housing, for example. Residential plots for journalists. Subsidized newsprint, etc etc. Which brings us to another question:
Can Shivam Vij publish an article listing all subsidies that the media _legally_ enjoys?
RR: I don’t engage in discussions with anonymous people.
Why?
Shivam Vij, you said:
I have always argued in favour of free speech, against censorship, against government control of the media
Instead, if you had said that
I have always argued in favour of free speech, against censorship, against government control of the media — only with people whose biographies, residence addresses and phone numbers I have on my database
I’d have considered it unwise to make the points I made.
Just a suggestion.
RR, because if you agree markets are imperfect, them they cannot self-regulate.
Perhaps what you say is true for sting operations against those in government,
but lets not forget that other than Govt, the media depends on corporates too for ads.
What are the chances of a sting operation being conducted on an Indian corporate?
***
it might seem like we are more into investigative journalism now, but i cant help feeling its a mirage.
and i think the speed of law also makes a difference.
when I read about fodder scam, I thought, thats it. But then nothing has changed.
among these, what would an investigative journalist choose to carry out a sting operation?
1.a healthcare scam in some remote area which affects 5000 people
2.an environmental violation by a corporate who advertises a lot
3.a filmstar who underwent a plastic surgery.
RR, because if you agree markets are imperfect, them they cannot self-regulate.
And if you agree that sometimes people elect politicians like Lalu Prasad Yadav, then democracy cannot be used as a safe way to set up a government. Dictatorship is definitely the best option.
No you are misquoting me. I am all for free markets but with a little bit of regulations that might be done by watchdogs, courts of the law and the government by the virtute that it ammends the law.
I had a lunch time conversation with someone here in the US, and he brought up the sting operation on his own thusly: “I heard that competition between news channels in India has gotten so bad that they are now bribing MPs so they can generate news.”
Mridula, people are not perfect, democracy (or any voting system) is not perfect and yet we build nations on them. Why not on free, fair but slightly flawed, markets?
I had a conversation with someone here in the US, and he brought up the sting operation on his own thusly: “I heard that competition between news channels in India has gotten so bad that they are now bribing MPs so they can generate news.”
Mridula, people are not perfect, democracy (or any voting system) is not perfect and yet we build nations on them. Why not on free, fair but slightly flawed, markets?