12 April,2011 09:24 AM IST | | Sachin Kalbag
The television coverage of three recent events -- social activist Anna Hazare's hunger strike at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, the 2011 Cricket World Cup and the fourth edition of the Indian Premier League -- underscores this point. Everything about the three events was loud, and sadly, the noise virtually killed any voice of sanity that may have wanted to emerge.
u00a0The coverage of Hazare's hunger strike, for instance, was jingoistic and hardly, if ever, objective. Any voice of dissent was effectively silenced by either not giving it air time, or, if on air, giving it little time to put forth any view.u00a0
u00a0We could debate endlessly whether Hazare's fast was indeed a rallying cry for a national consensus on corruption, or whether it has kickstarted a perhaps dangerous trend where this nation's citizens can bypass its democratic institutions such as Parliament and its election process to get their demands met. If it is the latter, then what the last week has convincingly shown to the millions of news consumers in India is that television news channels have become a willful partner in this process.
It is in this context that the search for "silence" assumes greater importance. While the television medium has provided an effective platform to Hazare and his colleagues to get their demands met on the Lokpal Bill, it has not introspected enough on its role in this process. Should Hazare, however clean and well-meaning his crusade is, be allowed to create a parallel system of governance; one that is populated by unelected representatives of civil society? Should the media, also clean (perhaps) and well-meaning, be allowed to perpetuate the myth that a parallel system of governance that is led by civil society activists, including Magsaysay Award or Nobel Prize winners, will necessarily be more effective than the current establishment?
The answer, to any well-meaning Indian citizen, should be in the negative.u00a0 Hazare's fight is not against the state, it's against one aspect of governance. He quite possibly knows this. The question is: is the Indian media aware of the difference between "government" and "the state"?
A brief period of silence would have allowed television media houses to reflect on this question. Admittedly, when your news cycle extends to all 24 hours of the day, there is very little time left to dwell upon this question. If five years ago, there were only a couple of dozen news channels, today, there are close to 200. Where, indeed, is the time to get a little perspective?
The character of Howard Beale in Sidney Lumet's Network was, therefore, right. Perhaps the time to scream, "I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore," is upon us.
