A researcher studying the media's engagement within and with the outside world over the past 30 months may discover that the terms of the debate were set by two individuals.
The first was unquestionably the prime minister whose sheer energy and determination to break a pre-existing chalta hai consensus have triggered both enthusiastic welcome and visceral antipathy. If the media - both mainstream and social - are any guide, there is little space to be neutral towards Modi: you either admire him or hate him intensely. This sharp polarization may not coincide with the real world where politics competes with many other preoccupations for mind space, but this is the world that emerges from a perusal of Twitter at least.
The second individual that set the terms of the debate was Arnab Goswami. That a presenter in an English-language channel, whose viewership is a very small fraction of the Indian TV universe, should set the terms of an engaging national debate is, on the face of it, rather peculiar. At one level it testifies to the importance of the English language in setting the terms of a pan-India discourse in which the middle classes play the pre-eminent role. It is a fact that the themes of the English-language discourse are invariably picked up and replicated - with some interesting variations -in the bhasha media. At another level, the importance of Arnab stemmed from his ability to outpace all his competitors and emerge as the foremost middle class influence. Anecdotally speaking, I have been surprised by the numbers of people who greet me in airports (a hub for a pan-Indian middle class) saying they have seen me on Times Now. The reality is that they have seen me infrequently on Arnab's shows and mostly on other channels. But just as Frigidaire once became the generic name for all refrigerators and Colgate for all brands of toothpaste (at least in India), Arnab succeeded in equating Times Now with all English-language TV channels. This was a stupendous achievement and, quite naturally, generated a sharp reaction from channels and TV anchors who felt seriously left out.
Arnab's huge success, which must have had a significant impact on Corporate India's advertising spend, was not due to glamour - although this is not to undermine his sex appeal. There were a few features about Arnab that distinguished him from the rest of the pack.
First, Arnab formally discarded the sham pretence that the media are neutral. The start of his 9 pm Newshour was marked by an opening statement that left no one in any doubt where he stood on the outrage of the day. He dispensed with subtlety and Anglo-Saxon understatement and bluntly set out the terms of what he regarded as right or wrong.
Secondly, in determining what was wrong - what is right doesn't make for combative discussions -Arnab used the litmus test of what I like to call common decencies. Corruption was always wrong, regardless of which politician of which party was charged with it. But equally, there were certain institutions and symbols that had to be honoured. These included the Indian flag, the Indian military and India's unity and integrity. Like the average Man from Matunga, Arnab had little time for dissidents, contrarians and post-nationals. He resolutely and unambiguously upheld a simple, uncluttered nationalism that liberals saw as crude, jingoistic and lacking nuance. Arnab didn't mind this disdain. In fact, it allowed him to have a go at precisely those who consciously offended common decencies and who saw themselves as a cut above the rest. During the agitation in Jawaharlal Nehru University over the 'seditious' speeches, Arnab chose to champion the street view rather than the common room/ newsroom view. The media protests against the roughing up of some journalists in a Delhi court were as much directed against him as they were for upholding the freedom of speech.
Finally, again unlike a section of journalists who remain committed to everlasting peace and amity across the Radcliffe Line, Arnab's anti-Pakistan rhetoric was blunt and always uncompromising. To many people, the spectacle of the anchor turning on his Pakistani guests and abusing them roundly - and them reacting equally intemperately and unleashing a bout of shrill anti-India utterances - may well have seemed ridiculous and akin to a roadside brawl. But there were others who sat glued to the TV enjoying the spectacle of current affairs as great entertainment.
Arnab got away with his excesses. Indeed, there was a direct correlation between his shrillness and his soaring viewership figures. Viewers seemed to prefer his blunt messaging to the ponderous, but also partisan, approach of others. Arnab's bias was upfront, the others were sly and the viewers preferred honesty. This was coupled by the fact that Arnab, by and large, steered clear of party politics. At no point in his innings was he charged with hobnobbing with any party or with activists. He was unpredictable and this contributed to his reputation for integrity.
Regardless of how Arnab re-enters the TV screens in his new avatar, his contribution to reshaping the media discourse has been seminal. In a media dominated by groupthink, Arnab had the courage to defy the cloistered world of political correctness. And win.
No comments:
Post a Comment