Bharat Bhushan: Nervous government explores ways to 'manage' media
The leaking of the alleged Report of Group of Ministers (GoM) on Government Communications is an exceptional event for a government that prides itself in being successfully opaque. Reminiscent of McCarthyism, the report suggests "neutralising" journalists who write against the government and spread "false narratives". An incredible proposal from an establishment journalist suggests that journalists should be colour-coded into Black (against the government), Green (fence sitters) and White (pro-government).
The report exceeds the media outreach
efforts that most governments make by recommending tracking and countering of
journalists who write critically, and promoting pro-government hacks. No
previous government has suggested isolating, targeting and ‘neutralising’
critical media. The report also betrays the nervousness of a
government unable to sell its ‘positive’ governance narrative at home and
abroad.
More posts on censorship
The existence of the report has not as yet been denied by
the government. Except for a few bald denials, the journalists who actively
collaborated in the project of converting the media into
a propaganda machine have been silent. There is little doubt that the storm
raised by the report has blown away their fig leaf of neutrality.
The quest for a positive narrative is misguided because
people tend to recognise government propaganda and find ways to go beyond it.
Jettisoning official propaganda of once-credible newspaper and TV channels, a
majority has already started sourcing news from social
media and independent digital platforms.
Perhaps recognising this, one pro-government journalist
apparently even suggested to the GoM that the government must, "stop
op-eds by ministers and top bureaucrats" because they are not read.
Newspapers opening their opinion columns to official propaganda has become so endemic
that they were cautioned by the veteran journalist and one-time Bharatiya
Janata Party minister Arun Shourie that while publishing ruling politicians may
buy immediate peace, "when the assault comes, none of them will help
you".
The involvement of External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar,
who famously said that "my (India’s) reputation is not decided by a
newspaper in New York" as well as former diplomat and minister Hardeep S
Puri in the GoM, points to the government’s special concern that the world is
not buying its ‘positive narrative’. Reeling from bad press globally, they
suggested focused attention on influencing foreign media.
In the leaked report, the government has volunteered the information
that it had limited foreign direct investment in digital
media platforms to 26 per cent in December 2019, "to ensure that
news reporting in digital
media is not biased primarily due to its foreign investment
component". Unsparingly, the so-called "supportive journalists"
suggested drastic measures such as the government stopping all interaction with
foreign media.
The rejection of the government’s narrative by the youth
seems to be another cause for concern. This has been demonstrated by the
protests they have led against the citizenship law amendments, the turmoil in
universities, and the arrest of student leaders and youth on sedition charges.
Witness the countrywide anger against the arrest of 22-year-old environmental
activist Disha Ravi, of youngsters Nodeep Kaur and Shiv Kumar, the constant
effort of the government to keep Umar Khalid, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal
and earlier a pregnant Shafoora Zargar in jail, for example. That none of them
has either repented or been contrite and that Nodeep went straight to re-join
farmers’ protest after getting bail suggests that fear tactics have not worked
with the youngsters as easily as they may have with the media.
Since both audiences — international and the youth — rely
relatively more on digital and social media, the government wants to especially
target them. The problem they pose is severe enough for the government to have
brought in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 to curb their
freedom of expression. However, the government’s ongoing battles with
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube show that it is searching for yet
newer ways to control them.
Given the GoM’s scope and membership, this controversial
exercise is clearly not a routine one. Yet it is in line with the government
and the ruling party’s treatment of other critical voices like filing FIRs and
harassment through the judicial process, government agencies and trolls.
Recall that more than a dozen government ministers,
including the prime minister, had given a miss to a Global Business Summit
organised by a leading media house in Mumbai in 2017 at the last minute, citing
"security concerns". This led to widespread speculation whether this
was to make official displeasure known over adverse reportage by the media
group and a Modi spoof broadcast regularly on the FM radio station run by it.
The editor of another leading newspaper was asked to leave as the government
was ostensibly unhappy over running of an online "national database on
crimes in the name of religion, caste, (and) race." Since 2014, several
editors have been forced out of their jobs ostensibly under government
pressure.
The limited imagination of the GoM exercise is evident in
the repressive solutions it offers to improve media coverage. Not even one
minister or complicit journalist seems to have suggested that the government’s
communicator-in-chief, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, should put his shoulder to
the wheel and start holding press conferences. He has not held one since coming
to power in 2014.
The leaked report has damaged both the Modi government and
its cheerleaders in the media. In democracies, governments thrive on critical
public feedback. This allows an elected government to correct itself and lend
it stability. Attenuating this in favour of a single official narrative is a
step towards totalitarianism. Public opinion does
not exist in totalitarian societies. Such states also become paranoiac and
intolerant of anything but a ‘positive’ narrative. Setting up an architecture
of surveillance technologies and punitive measures is then used to
"neutralise" those with different views.
Could this be the path that the Modi government has embarked
on? If that is indeed so, then the journalists who have put their shoulder to
this effort are as guilty as those who lead the government.
