The ‘Kejriwal is Naxal’ propaganda

Some politicians labelled Kejriwal as Naxal - this is classified as 'name-calling' in study of propaganda. Motive is to denigrate someone.

Let’s have a look at some news stories first:

(1) Naxalite in Anna Hazare’s team

(2) Anna must cut ties with Naxals

The above link (2) is particularly interesting because it is aimed at creating differences - suggesting that Anna is good, but Kejriwal is bad (read: a Naxal)

(3) Subramanian Swamy calls Kejriwal’s aide Naxalite

(4) Kejriwal offered Anna Hazare around Rs. Two Crores

There are some stories - like the one above (4) which do not come with byline (name of the journalist). If the byline is missing, if people quoted in the news story are only mentioned as “sources” and the story includes things like “inputs from agencies” - you must ask yourself, and in fact, feel free to write to the editor of newspapers or online publications- “Which agencies exactly?” “Why was the name of the source not revealed?”.

Well, there would be many other examples. However, one thing worth observing is- What really happens after a politician sets-off the “name-calling” propaganda?

Here's a chain of events which follow:

(1) Journalists more often than not go berserk - and the next time they get to meet Kejriwal at a press conference, they ask his opinion -“What do you have to say about Swamy’s allegation about you being a Naxal?” The controversy around the subject, intentionally or unintentionally, remains or is kept alive. A benefit of this tactic is that the name/label (ex: Naxal) seeps into the public memory - harped over and over again.

(2) Asking opinion is fine - but next to it, have you ever thought why journalists don't consider investigating the truth themselves? After all, it is their job to tell the people whether there is substance to the allegation made. And if there is, a journalist must do an investigative story. But that defeats the purpose of  "name-calling" - because “name-calling” propaganda sets off an entirely different chain of events - one which is not constructive to the public and political debate. It is like building castles in air. If I were to use an analogy to explain what follows - it would be of two pick-pocketers working in an organised manner - where one pick-pocketer keeps his target busy by engaging him in needless conversation, and the other pulls the main trick of fishing out the wallet. This trick can be easily pulled by politicians who have stake or influence in media. The purpose of the “name-calling” propaganda is to divert the issue and disturb the consensus by leveling false allegations. One way to recognize this is asking yourself - is the person who is leveling the allegations supporting it with any evidence? Providing any sensible leads at the least?

(3) But more often than not, the journalist is busy toy-toying like a tennis ball from one part of the court to the other, and feels he is doing a great job by letting the people know "opinions". Albeit, they are not even "opinions" - they are "allegations" - which are neither cross-checked by the journalist, nor dropped if it lacks substance. Some journalists realize this, and are idealistic, but many don’t - the path of investigative journalism, of finding the truth by their own - is rarely followed.