Dear Rajdeep...

Hope you are enjoying your time away from Twitter. I understand on Twitter praises are showered but there are twice as brick-bats - but that's a professional hazard. Perhaps you had it enough. And your decision is respected. But what is not clear is the reason you mentioned for doing so:

This is what you wrote:

My timeline suggests little space for healthy debate/discussion on twitter. So will no longer raise any political issues on the medium. Will continue writing/talking on issues of natl interest in print/tv, but not on twitter. Will continue to write in print/speak on tv. But will no longer seek twitter as a medium for public debate. Had hoped to interact; failed. A journalist has only his integrity/credibility. That has been abused on this medium for too long by unknown people. Time to switch off.

I don't know you personally, but you appear to be a good individual. And I love your personal side too -  cricket fandom, interest in health and fitness, films, pun intended political commentary every now and then, drinking Old-Monk and enjoying old bollywood songs - in fact, I would love to have a peg with you. But I would like you to know that I separate you as a person from you as a journalist.

From what I observe, as a journalist you are not the kind who is particularly fearless. What is the number of investigative stories which CNN-IBN reported in the past year? What's the average? One per month? Did those stories have considerable evidence against influential politicians or corporate's? You just hold debates which have no value whatsoever, have a peg, and then sing an old bollywood song before going off to sleep. Of course, your channel cannot take on the high and mighty - for instance Mukesh Ambani - because he has investments in your group.

Today, Arvind Kejriwal is doing more investigative stories than most of your news media put together - and the kind that are truly representative of the "real, free, and fearless Fourth Estate". The news media questions the evidence he presents, and his motive, and his intentions, but at least he is not presenting the made-up "sources" stories which your brethren make up on a daily basis. Do you question the evidence/fact these made-up stories hold? Or write about it in your columns?

And by the way, no matter how much ever integrity you may claim to have, for me, this one instance raises a lot of questions. When you were the President of Editors Guild of India you presented a shocking defense  on  the Barkha Dutt incident and her alleged involvement in Nira Radia case. Eventually, you became the butt of all jokes - "Editors Guilt of India". What did the "credible" and "integrity-minded" journalist in you tell you then? You could have ordered an internal investigation but you appeared to be in a hurry to defend. It is better to share your haplessness with people than defend.

Now coming back to Twitter:

Your decision to go off is nothing but your inability to handle criticism - if some of them are abusive, you can always block them - it's as easy as cleaning your nose. But what is the point of alienating those who ask valid questions? For some time I have been demanding that all news channels and publications must put online the editorial guidelines they follow. This is how BBC does it. Isn't that a valid question? Do you read an abuse in this question? I am yet to get your response.

India is a huge country with so many castes and religions and so many issues. Indian news media needs to formulate and put in public domain the editorial guidelines which it follows - more than any other country in the world. Having such an editorial guideline out on the web will help a common man refer to the channels formulated editorial guideline and question the channel when it tows it's own line. Aren't other channels accountable to people? Isn't the channel you work for accountable to people?

I am happy that "you" the journalist has left Twitter. You couldn't make much use of it anyway - rarely responded to valid questions. And perhaps, like the Indian government, you also like the "top-down" hierarchical model of communication.

The above criticism was for you as a journalist - but for you as a person - this is a Jagjit Singh ghazal which I would  like to dedicate"Baat Niklegi Toh Phir.... Door Talaq Jaegi..". Goes well with an Old-Monk.

What does “Haath main chudiya pehen ke rakhi hai kya” really mean?

"Haath main chudiya pehen ke rakhi hai kya" is a phrase worthy of a discourse analysis - it is a unique example of gender discrimination.

In December 2012, during the Delhi Gang-Rape protests some women were reported to be shouting this - "these men have worn bangles" (see the screen shot below). 

 

So why exactly is it wrong to use such an expression? 

Whenever a human being wants to ridicule or abuse someone he or she resorts to comparisons with lesser things - things that would effectively humiliate a person. For example, saying - “you are a pig”. What this sentence does is 1) It assumes that a “pig” is essentially a dirty loathsome creature 2) It implies that you are as loathsome and dirty as a pig. 

Does this young woman (quoted in the screen shot above) assume that women are weak? And why did she use references associated with feminism, and that too being a woman herself? with an intent to ridicule someone? 

It only suggests that there are some rather deep subconscious notions and ideas existing in our society and minds.

Men use this phrase to tease the ego of another man or to rouse someone “for not being daring”. And the man on whom this phrase is thrown at, is expected to get offended. 

So far, I have used this blog to support AAP, but I would like to make some critical remarks so that protesters and activists, particularly representing AAP, are aware of what inferences their actions can make. This is one photograph which I came across and this method of protest should not be used. 

These kind of expressions have seeped into our society over centuries, the underlying assumption of which is that women are weak. Volunteers and members of AAP I hope that next time much thought will be put into symbolism used during protests - of course, no use of bangles anymore.

What is the truth behind report of AAP-NCP alliance?

On April 20, 2013 – there was a report doing rounds in the news media that AAP and NCP will be forming an alliance in Arunachal Pradesh. This was discussed mainly on the basis of a Press Trust of India (PTI) report - link here 

It is important that you study this report critically – what does it say? on what basis does it say what it says? Who is quoted? Who are the sources? If you read this PTI report critically, you’ll notice it gives no names – just mentions “sources”. Whenever you come across a news-report whose only spine is “sources” – doubt it.

PTI is a news agency, the reports which it publishes are brought by newspapers and websites of TV channels all over India and abroad – depending on the requirement of the newspaper or publication. The same news was seen in Hindustan Times (link here) - it perhaps brought PTI’s news report and  I say this because the credit in HT report is given to PTI (always see who has written the news report). However, there is a cache – though Hindustan Times says it’s a PTI report (which only based it's report on “sources”), HT report comes with “names” and gives credit to PTI – how is this possible?

It is also job of AAP to investigate who this “combined media secretary Kaling Jerang” quoted in Hindustan Times report is, and if he has any power to release any statement on behalf of AAP.

It is my request to all AAP supporters – be critical of all news reports you either read or hear about AAP in news media. If it is positive – don’t go gaga over it. If it is negative, be critical – question the source of information and demand evidence. A sizable amount of money is spent not just in gagging voice of AAP, but also in spreading false propaganda.

Other newspapers have picked the same PTI story - DNA and Economic Times

How can activists use Twitter to report a protest?

Twitter is a fascinating tool which protesters can use to disseminate information. While reporting an event on Twitter, these are simple general guideline's you must follow - your reports would be better than reports from TV channels or news websites

The information you tweet must have one or all the elements mentioned below - you can make one tweet, or you can make several tweets addressing different aspects of the protest.

WHAT

What do you see around you? What is happening at the site of protest? What are protesters saying or discussing? What is police saying or discussing?

WHEN

When did you come to the protest site? Has some untoward incident happened like beatings by the police? When did it happen? You may also add how did it happened - describe it, make pictures.

WHO

Is any police officer/officials or political parties involved in creating trouble? Who is it? Identify the person - name or political party and make pictures or video.

WHERE

Where is the protest or incident happening? Tweet the exact location and the picture and time. If silent protesters are beaten up - where were they beaten up? You can also describe how they were beaten up, and by whom.

WHY

Why are people gathering at the protest site? Why is police beating protesters? (if they are!) Make small clips and put it online.

HOW

How many people are there? How is the police behaving? Are there protesters from other political parties? What is their behavior like? What exactly are they doing? If possible - make pictures, and upload it.

Recommendations - TV news channels and news media cannot be entirely trusted as a lot of false propaganda is being spread. Please report with hash tag #AAPreport  or any other consistent hashtag which makes it easier to find news related to protests.

Keep your mobile phones, camera's, audio recorders for any evidence - up and running.

Tripping on Manmohan Singh's speech at NDTV Indians of the Year Award

OPINION

On April 15, PM Manmohan Singh had something up his sleeve which was quite rattling. He gave a speech at the NDTV Indians of the Year Award Function. Since he was on the "turf" of his hosts NDTV, he obviously had good (imaginary) things to say about it. You can find his full speech on pmindia.gov.in – I am excusing myself from analyzing the customary "ladies and gentlemen..." and the three hour pauses between them.

So here are some troubling highlights of the speech he made – toh shuru karte hai, leke prabhu ka naam.  My commentary (bracketed) is in italics bold.

PMs speech at NDTV Indian of the Year Award:

(starts) I have been told that today happens to be the 25th anniversary of the establishment of NDTV (Accha) NDTV’s successes and achievements in its journey of 25 years owe a great deal to another outstanding individual and its founder Dr. Prannoy Roy (Okay, I understand - kiske ghar jao toh unki buraiyi nahi karte - chalo #Theek hai - granted) Twenty five years back he ( bole toh, Prannoy Roy) had

the courage of conviction to enter untested waters. This boldness and his talent, and the talent of many other men and women working with him have resulted in a media brand that is widely respected for its professionalism and ethics (Sirji ye thoda jyaada ho gaya). I congratulate Prannoy and his team for the high standards they have maintained.

Dr. Manmohan Singh, for your lack of research, and for speaking from the top of your head, this is what you must know.

(1) NDTV's stance on important issues in past has been questionable. Take for instance the time after Abhishek Manu Singhvi's CD made it on the public domain. Then, he was the chairperson of Parliament Standing Committee on Law and Justice and the charges against him were of extremely serious nature - of allegedly appointing judges in the Supreme Court of India. Most of the media had to keep mum due to the court order, others who spoke gave it a kind of spin which was not representative of a 'sound' fourth estate. NDTV did this story - Do public figures have right to privacy? How was this a "private affair" when the allegations were against a person holding a public position? And when the alleged activity allegedly took place in a government premise? If this is not agenda setting than what is? Also, it seems NDTV always has access to all the officials particularly of Congress, including the PM. Is NDTV open to do a "we the people" with PM taking questions from people of India? Access should not be a problem right?  

(2) NDTV's Group Editor Barkha Dutt has a questionable professional past - Open Magazine and Outlook had done an extensive expose on her alleged involvement in Niira Radia case. In journalism, once's a question mark floats on someone's credibility - its over. 

(3) Forget asking the right questions, on occasions  it was social media which brought to the notice of NDTV news website about its lack of research on different news stories. The most recent one was this - Naredra Modi was a "Union Railway Minister" - the text is updated here - but the website doesn't feel it is important to inform readers about the changes made. You may also like to read this.

-----XX----

The PM goes on to add:

The period of 25 years that NDTV has been in business is also broadly the period of economic reforms in our country (wait a minute... business? shouldn't it be journalism?). The media has both been a partner and a beneficiary from the reform process. The need for enhanced communication because of

increased economic activity, and advancements in telecommunications technology have led to a rapid growth in the number of television channels in our country. At the time when NDTV pioneered the idea of a private television company, our country only had Doordarshan as a public broadcaster. Today, we have more than 800 channels in nearly two dozen languages. Television sets have now reached more than half the households in our country (Yes Sirji, but what work are they doing? Padho, please padho) .

---XX----

Then PM, in an absolute failed attempt to sound "balanced" adds:

I have always believed that the media has a very important contribution to make in the processes of nation building in our country (Nation building? news media? Kya bol rahe ho?). We expect our media not only to just report accurately on what has happened but also to highlight social and economic injustices and thus pave the way for their redressal. We expect the media to educate public opinion on what is advisable and what is not by informing the people of the benefits and adverse consequences of following a particular course of action (news media se advise? majority are owned by politicians sirji - what kind of advise will they give?. We expect the media to point out the shortcomings of the government and thus help in improving the effectiveness of the administrative set up in our country (now this is the part which I like - read this letter by a certain Shriman Mukesh Ambani - who gagged the media when Arvind Kejriwal did the duties which should have ideally been done by a journalist. Btw, on one occassion Shriman Mukesh Ambani had also alledgedly said that "Congress toh apni dukaan hai" - Dr. Manmohan Singh - what does this say about "administrative set-up of the country?". If you didn't know, Ambani also has "preferential access" to content of Network18 group channels like CNN-IBN, IBN7, IBN Lokmat etc.) This is indeed a formidable list of expectations (considering all this, indeed... indeed... absolutely).

----XX----

Another interesting part from the speech:

I also believe that the media in our country has, on balance, acquitted itself well (Sirji please... you say, "media in our country has on balance acquitted itself well" - "acquitted" of some crime? Ok, if that was inference you were trying to make - I agree. Sorry.) We can be justifiably proud of its vibrancy and its independence (Justice Katju, the karta-dharta of PCI must now post a list of all news media owned/share by politicians in India - will it happen?). There are many newspapers and TV channels that have maintained a very high quality in their work, and have made a conscious effort to take up issues that are of critical importance to our society and country. We witness examples of accurate, fair and well researched reporting everyday on the pages of newspapers and on TV screens (ab aur bhi kuch bolu?). I think that as a whole our media has been successful in its task of informing and educating the people about the state of our society and to our country and the work of the Government (Bwahahahahahaha... bas kar... bas kar).

However, there have been aberrations too. We sometimes see sensationalism driven by personal and political prejudices (You need education in Indian news media). There is trivialization of the serious issues resulting sometime in misinformation (Exactly - you must be referring to Diggy boy?). Reports about ‘paid news’ during the election times should be a major cause of concern to the media. I am of the view that it is for the media itself to find effective ways and means of addressing these concerns problems (What do you feel, all our editor's are Kesari's Bal Gangadhar Tilak? Read about the serious allegations some editors have on them)

YOU are the only PR of Arvind Kejriwal

OPINION

Earlier this week, there were reports which suggested that more than half of Narendra Modi's Twitter followers were fake. Did Narendra Modi's PR agency buy these followers? You may be aware that it is as easy to buy twitter followers as a fancy underwear on E-Bay. 

I do not trust news reports, so I checked Narendra Modi's Twitter followers myself - it is easy to distinguish the real from the fake one's. 

Who really keeps names like @gaurav2981993,  @Vaibhav59384301? These accounts are easy to recognize, and there are perhaps thousands of such accounts following Narendra Modi - they have no tweets. PC mag had written about the business of Twitter followers, and I would encourage you to read it 

Today a news report mentioned that US-based international lobbying agency Apco is helping Narendra Modi - it is quite likely that the hulla-hoop that one hears around Narendra Modi, after all, might not be real, but a result of well-planned PR activity. 

Do you want to know how United States, through use of lobbying firms, establishes leaders and governments which serve their interests?  

Watch this film on youtube - Our Brand is Crisis

There are leaders who resort to using publicity gimmicks and PR strategists to acquire seats of power, and there are rare leaders like Arvind Kejriwal, who do not follow, nor are supported by such lobbyists or PR strategists. Even after he fasts for 13 days among the poor, he is heckled and questioned by media for his intention, called a "wannabe" CM. 

Today, each common man of India, who is a honest law-abiding and tax-paying citizen of India is the PRO of Arvind Kejriwal. 

Time and again, Arvind Kejriwal has shown that one does not need such fancy brand management experts. What worth does a "leader" really have if he or she is depended on fancy PR outfits? Anybody's guess.

What kind of 'Fourth Estate' does India need?

OPINION

It is more or less clear that the news media which presently serves us does not have the "means" to help the society genuinely. It is owned or has investments in it by politicians or corporates.  India as of 2012 has 400 news channels and 86,000 news publications, and perhaps some thousand odd websites - a detailed report by the Government of India should be made to identify which are owned by politicians, and what kind of corporate revenues it depends on. Previous research in media has shown that corporate affiliations or political affiliations can have serious influence on the way a news organisation reports to people.

Arvind Kejriwal in his address to the people before breaking his fast commented on media's role, and ideally how a 'Fourth Estate' should function - and that it should be there to serve the people - but that is quite unlikely in India for reasons I had mentioned in an earlier article.

A question is - what kind of 'Fourth Estate' does India need? And how can it be achieved? In this post, I am making some recommendations, and perhaps after AAP comes into power, it should seriously consider making major changes which will make the 'Fourth Estate' more accountable. 

Recommendation/Framework:

It appears that majority of the present news media is owned or has investments by politicians or corporates. They may be allowed to continue, but a team of media experts must be formed to keep a 24/7 watch on the channels and check their content for agenda setting and framing and catch any bias. This can be a body within the PCI. In event of framing or agenda setting by any of the privately owned TV channels, the head of this media department will have the power to demand an answer from the erring TV channel. The erring channel must be obliged to give an answer within a stipulated time frame, failing which they must be levied with heavy fine and immediately asked to go off air for few days. After it returns back on air, it must be asked to 'clearly' mention the reason why it was off-air to its viewers in scrolls and by the anchor for the next 7 days. This will establish accountability of highest order - after all, the 'Fourth Estate' works for people, not for an individual or a group. 

It must also be made mandatory for all privately owned news channels to list the name of the political parties or corporates from whom they receive revenues or donations, and also list who has investments/share in the channel. This will establish transparency, and viewers will be kept updated. Editorial guidelines which a news channel, newspaper or magazine follows must be mentioned in as much detail as possible (this is how BBC does it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/guidelines/)

National News Networks (TV/Radio) must be completely changed (for ex: DD), and a new department of 'Developmental Journalism', 'Envioronmental Journalism', 'Investigative Journalism' must be instituted. This network must not be depended on any revenues in terms of advertisements and it must be fully funded by Government of India - this is to keep the essence of 'Fourth Estate' intact, and save it from any kind of revenue-based influence.

Allocating a huge budget at the beginning of such a project should not be considered as wastage - India spends hundreds of billions in buying arms, and hundreds of billions are wasted in scams. This should be considered as a life-long investment which will help the people of India forever. 

A print newspaper, magazine and a news website in all languages must be started which follows strict principles established by a media commission of media researchers, law-makers, veteran journalists and members of civil society. This newspaper/magazine/news website may depend on small classified advertisements for revenues, but nothing from corporates or politicians or political parties. 

A sizable budget should be allocated to this project, and it is justifiable to do so as this network will be expected to be a 'patrollman' of the common man - not a watchdog/pet dog. 

All powers and access mandatory to pursue news stories in national interests must be granted to members of this news network and may also be provided security if it requires. The framework should be made in a way that it will never be influenced by political party in power in future, and each political party or any of the governmental departments will be answerable to this news network equally. 

A new team of journalists must be hired for this project, and journalists from 'privately owned' channels must be categorically denied entry - unless, they have an exceptional track record for insightful and unbiased reportage during their stint. Controversial figures in journalism must be kept out.

Next to this project, the government should encourage citizen journalism and provide workshops, and platform for the same (website, on TV, space in magazine or newspaper) - this will bring to notice issues that have been missed by journalists and enable quick redressal. In schools, a subject 'how to read and question news' must be made mandatory to study. Enabling the future generation to understand basic fundamentals of political discourse and news can go a long way.

I propose to Aam Aadmi Party that after it comes into power, it must show serious commitment in  strengthening the fourth pillar of democracy in a way it is answerable to the people of India - once and for all - and after meticulously studying the present situation. 

Twitter Analysis: Rahul Gandhi's speech - a butt of all jokes?

For the wannabe PM, this might be bad news. I made use of the 'Technology' that Rahul Gandhi was talking about, and registered myself on Topsy.com (you can too - have a free trial, and experiment yourself) to get a general idea about the public opinion on trends.

My first hashtag for this analysis was the neutral keyword #RahulGandhi - this is what the graph looked like:

Well, don't be shocked, the "positive" rise you see - doesn't suggest that everyone was going gaga over his speech. Topsy's analytic's cannot detect ''sarcasm", and sarcastic tweets tend to get categorized into "positive" one's - examples below.

Notice @gappistanradio's response to @jhasanjay :D

For my second analysis, I switched from neutral #RahulGandhi hashtag to the trending #pappucii (created with the intent to pull a fast one on Rahul Gandhi). The "positive" (read: sarcastic) rise remained.

 Examples of some "sarcastic tweets".

So, the "positive" tweets were sarcastic, and the negative tweets were... well, negative? The question is - who really had something good to say? Perhap's this could be a reason why the Indian govt. wants to regulate social media.

And here are some of the top shared/created images...

And these were some of the top trending videos on Twitter (Youtube the video titles)

-Is Rahul Gandhi DUMB? Proof

-I lost it - Rahul Gandhi

-Shocking State of Rahul Gandhi's General Knowledge

-Dumb Rahul Gandhi says politics is in your shirt and your pants

And some more interesting "takes" followed...

 And Sagarika Ghose too joined in... perhaps, a high command order must be waiting for her...?

This is the analysis - a reasonably good indicator of public opinion- which the media won't take into account. They will instead indulge in assertions, and enforce their own interpretations on the people. And then we have journalists posing questions like Modi's ME vs Rahul's US. #CentreStage face-off: Who's vision will India buy?

What can you say about the guy who gives one speech, and the sensex goes down? 

Darling wake-up. Smell the coffee. Maybe India does not have a 'Fourth Estate'

OPINION

Arvind Kejriwal's fast was for unfair rise in prices. Reactions from political corners was anticipated. But it also made the Aam Aadmi understand the tone and tenor of what it calls "media". Since the day of the fast, and till the time all the letters were bundled to be sent to Sheila Dixit, the kind of news reports which were published meanwhile had more in it than what it appeared.

Among those who supported Arvind Kejriwal during this fast, there were cries and shocks about the so called "news media's" role and that it was not giving the movement enough coverage. These "cries" and "shocks" come from layman who also considers a large section of India's news media as the Fourth Estate - impartial and objective. To all the people who are expressing shock and anger, my question is - why do you expect  Arvind Kejriwal to be given any news coverage anyway? The so-called news media is a business enterprise - not a social service. The news media favored Anna (more on that in later part of article) because he brought TRPs. Everything happens only and only if there is a monetary gain. The talk of Fourth Estate, journalistic idealism is now considered "blah" - it died with Lokmanya Tilak - the man who started Kesari (1881).

Let's dive into history.

The Fourth Estate did exists in the spirit that it should exist for 100 odd years in India (from 1881-1980). However, and after the printing technology began to be used for newspaper production (post 1980), operation costs increased, and advertisements were the only savior. Marketing, content packaging, supplements, began to take center stage - and whatever transpired since then, is a part of India's journalism history which is worst than the history of the worst brothel in India.

Our forefathers in journalism had set a good example of practicing high level of ethics. Those 100 years was the period when publishers and journalists had a spine. And it showed. They had an ideology which was not influenced by market conditions, but by passion to provide the masses with unbiased reportage. Kesari was so fearless, that the editors were jailed often (today they are accused for their nexus with corporate's - take the Jindal case or the Nira Radia case). Very often Kesari had to furnish sureties to rescue its staff - it faced the rage of pre-independence British, and the rage of power intoxicated rulers after independence.

Let's look at the present situation now.

As of 2012, India has more than 400 news channels and 86,000 newspapers, and maybe a few thousands news websites - which I am not sure if they are even registered. How many editors have you heard have been jailed? prosecuted for their unbiased reportage? Or lauded or appreciated for their investigative or developmental reports? This is directly proportional to the investigative or developmental stories a news organisation does. India is a developing nation, there are so many news stories and issues - all you see is four faces on News TV - who we are told are "experts". And more than investigative journalism, the trade is about "sound-byte" journalism - aapko kaisa lag raha hai? - 9 out of 10 journalists in India should have done a hotel management course.

The news media trade is also about creating controversies and keeping them "alive" for it brings TRPs. The fact is - news media today does not exists for the service of the people. It exists to make money. And it is a "pet dog" (not watch dog) of the mighty and influential - which is why many politicians and industrialists have invested in it.

Now take into account these examples of politics and news media relationship- Saamna (Shiv Sena), Sakaal (Sharad Pawar), News 24 (Owned by Rajiv Shukla, former journalist, and now congress minister), Prahaar (Narayan Rane), Network 18 (CNN IBN etc., Mukesh Ambani has investments in it), and down south we have the gamut of Jaya TVs (Jaya Lalitha) and Sun TVs (Maran's - accused for involvement in 2G scam) - how can any of these newspapers or TV media provide objective news stories?

The last investigative news story which I felt had some impact was Deepak Sharma's news story on Salman Khurshid. Maybe I am overlooking other investigative stories - let's assume there were hundred investigative news reports in 2012. Which were they? Did they match the scale of Nira Radia expose by Open or Deepak Sharma's expose on Salman Khurshid? Why not? If these 86,000 newspapers and 400 odd news channels were fulfilling the role of "Fourth Estate" as Lokmanya Tilak did with Kesari - India would have been a different country. Today, websites like http://cgnetswara.org/ are doing much better job of exposing and giving platform  to grass root issues in India as compared to anchors who sit in their fancy studio's and expect us to digest their tripe.

The exposes that Arvind Kejriwal made are "investigative stories" - and he could do it because he is not a part of media. The media might question him, but he presented evidences against  Robert Vadra, Sharad Pawar, Mukesh Ambani and many others which could be investigated further. If the 'Fourth Estate' was really functioning as it should, it would be ashamed of its incapabilities. But instead the news media (and because it is so much influenced by corporate's and politicians) ganged-up against Kejriwal and systematic pressure was built up to gag him - read this and see this. Also, what does it have to say about the fictional 'Fourth Estate' of a country where sources having access to evidences against the corruption of the big and mighty prefer coming to Arvind Kejriwal instead of going to a newspaper or a TV channel?

At this point there is something you must know - the Robert Vadra, Sharad Pawar, and many other expose's  would have never been telecast. Yes, you and me would have never known about it. They were telecast because Arvind Kejriwal never revealed the name of the person he was exposing until the time of press conference. The media had no choice, but to come at the place where the press conference was happening, and see who he was exposing - perhaps some news media maybe even regretting it now. But not revealing the name to the media before the press conference was crucial - had he already revealed the name of the person he was exposing - the person who was being accused could have got a court order to stop him and the media itself (knowing it gets revenue support from corporate or politicians) would have backed out.

After all this  - do you feel these 400 odd news channel, and 86,000 newspapers are serving the people of India? And in what way? Forget serving people, imagine the influence these number of news channels and publications must have right now to mold or dilute public opinion. Indian's look at newspapers and news channels with a lot of trust, but there is little suspicion in their mind that it can also be a source of propaganda and misinformation. Our this ignorance, is the 'power' of today's news media. No news channel or publication wears the loyalties of its master on its sleeves, and consequently people rarely can make out with their limited knowledge whether it is a "Fourth Estate" or a "Mouthpiece".

Earlier newspapers harnessed a certain ideology - in case of Tilak's Kesari - it was Swaraj (democracy), boycott (boycotting everything that was contrary to the interest of the country), Swadeshi (growth of indigenous industry, agriculture and commerce by which the money generated in the country would remain in the country and would be utilized for our own country) and national education (education that would arouse patriotism among students and would also provide them training in business, commerce and research that would lead to the progress of the country).

Today, all these so-called "news media" questions Arvind Kejriwal - what is your ideology? I would like to pose a question to these news media conglomerates - What is the ideology of your news organisation? which causes are you addressing to in the society? and how? The fact is - no cause will be taken up unless there is monetary/political benefit attached.

Let me illustrate why the so-called "news media's" role is doubtful.

During Anna Hazare's anshan, the Centre for Media Studies (CMS) conducted an exhaustive media monitoring exercise. The exercise was done between 16-28 August, 2011. They monitored two Hindi channels-Aaj Tak and Star News. Collectively, they devoted 97% of total news time during prime viewing hours (7 to 11pm) to Anna's fast. In two English channels-CNN-IBN and NDTV 24x7 the figure was 87%. It is also estimated that through Anna's 13-day fast ,the viewership of English news channels increased by over 70% and of Hindi news channel by over 80%. The news clips were classified by their tone, 5,592 were

positive towards Anna and his cause, while 92 were characterized as negative. You can see a massive imbalance there - ideally, the positive and negative (critical) should have been the same. It is because of such reporting that now many say that "Anna" and "Kejriwal" are creation of media. Did they ask for it? They were doing their job, but the so-called news media had other agenda - and it was NOT supporting Anna's cause. Anna just brought them good TRPs. People were glued to their TV sets. With good TRPs come advertisers who are willing to pay more. But as soon as the so called "news media" realized that for the current political parties this could mean loss of political influence and power, an advisory was released - no more Anna or Kejriwal. The layman has to understand that there is a nexus between political parties and corporates, corporates and media, and political parties and media. They offer their services to each other, and the common man continues to be fooled.

Heres how: 

- Political parties depend on funds from corporates during elections.

- In return, corporates make political parties frame policies in a manner that benefit them - for instance, contracts or subsidy's.

- Political parties and corporate often invest in media, or buy ads - this means a large revenue  source of the  media comes from corporate and political parties. Who will bite the hand that feeds it? (An example of corporate-media relation: http://archive.is/4c1Rr - and the common man knows about it because it went worse)

Soon enough, the reality TV industry jumped on the bandwagon, and took the people of India on the 'Satyamev Jayate' ride hosted by Aamir Khan, and sponsored by Reliance. Will Aamir Khan also do a Satyamev Jayate on topic of corruption? Will he also call Arvind Kejriwal? That would be a litmus test. It perhaps also wasn't because this channel wanted to "contribute" to the society by creating a series like Satyamev Jayate. Perhaps it just made economic sense to ride on the "emotional wave" which Anna's campaign had created, and also fill the "Corporate Social Responsibility" gap (by the way, there was controversy surrounding that too http://archive.is/pFId1). The common man mistakes this as social service and philanthropy but it is also an attempt to "create an image" which can be used as a "testimonial" when questions about integrity are raised against the same corporate's. And by the way, this is also how http://archive.is/17HP3 the television industry was looking at Anna's Janlokpal Bill agitation. 

If you look at the coverage starting from the time Kejriwal went on fast (23 March 2013 to 4th April), you'll notice that the stories are constantly negative, and some of it is plain irresponsible journalism. The common man is unable to put things in context. What happened? It is the same news media which till last year was very enthusiastic about ideologies of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal - suddenly their discourse becomes counter-productive to the nation?

The so-called news media gave space to bloggers whose qualification to comment on issues of politics are not clearly known (example: http://archive.is/oC3dk) - it is a clear effort to manufacture an anti- AAP public opinion. Will the same media give space to bloggers who are supportive of AAP? If not, there is every reason to doubt them for they are not objective. And then there was one columnist  (who does not live in India, but Hong-Kong!) who offered his two cents on First Post (http://archive.is/d3XiL) on the support that Arvind Kejriwal received in the Times Poll - his headline proclaimed "If Kejriwal is influential we are in trouble". I am not sure who did he mean by "we". Perhaps he was referring to his brethren in the paid media industry.

If you look at countries outside India clear rules are established as far as media coverage goes during elections - Norway, France, Denmark, US, UK have "equal media time" access during elections. During the November, 2013 Assembly Elections, you can be sure that AAP won't be given any airtime. In fact a steady campaign to malign its methods and ways will be carried out beforehand. And it is possible that new laws curbing use of social media will be passed.

There was a time when India practiced journalism which gave us much pride. There was a time when publishers, and media owners knew the responsibility they were taking up. There was a time when they all had a conscience. Do you know what the words of Lokmanya Tilak were? The founder of Kesari?

"Kesari belongs to people. Neither have I brought it nor I am going to take it away. All patriots who are anxious for the interest of the country, should keep it going" 

How many so-called news media organisations in India can say the same today?

Also recommended: Pay to Print - How Media Corruption Undermines Indian Democracy - a lecture by P. Sainath