Even though the ideological orientation of Mint is a little too uncritically pro-market and pro-business for my tastes, I have generally enjoyed reading much of what the paper has to offer. I greatly respect Raju Narisetti's journalistic vision, and thought it unfortunate that he left Mint to join the Washington Post, in the wake of the controversy over his decision to publish an anonymous-- and scathing--letter from an Indian bureaucrat to the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In response to an article I had written in Interjunction, about the politics of global media, Narisetti had pointed out that Mint was the only newspaper in India with a clearly articulated Code of Journalistic Conduct, and one that took its ethics/values very seriously. While I did not agree with all of Raju's criticisms of my article, some of his points were well-taken, as I acknowledged.
But, as a friend of mine pointed out, Mint has been guilty of what can only be called a clear ethical contradiction. My friend cancelled his subscription to Mint in disgust as a result. That conflict pertains to Mint columnist GVL Narsimha Rao's double role as (a) media pundit and psephologist and (b) a member of the BJP's executive council and their very own personal psephologist. (I am not sure whether Rao is still writing columns for Mint; his name does not show up in the list of columnists as of today's edition, when I checked.)
On the one hand, GVL Narsimha Rao was happily predicting, in many of his Mint columns, the victory of the BJP in various elections. Thus, in his May 5, 2008 Mint column, he 'predicted' that the BJP would win in the Karnataka state assembly elections. On the other hand, as this article by Kapoor notes, he was also busy doubling up as the BJP's 'in-house psephologist'. Kapoor also points out that Rao was given a Tata Indigo by the Madhya Pradesh government and conferred with a de facto designation of Minister of State.
Given Rao's political affiliations, what measure of distance, fairness, and working objectivity could he have had as a columnist assessing possible election outcomes? Or to put it more bluntly, how can any Mint reader-- among whom I counted myself one till very recently-- be sure that Rao was not simply spewing propaganda in his columns? That this propaganda was clothed in the pseudo-scientific language of poll numbers and statistics only makes the deception worse.
Neither the false claim that psephology is an objective science nor the argument that Rao has the right to present his 'opinion' as a 'columnist' convince me that he is not guilty of an egregious ethical violation. The same accusation may be levelled at Mint in hiring him as a political commentator.
In fact, Rao's case is a textbook example of the ethical problems that arise when media autonomy is compromised by the links of media professionals to political parties. Indeed the undergraduate textbook, Media/Society, by Croteau and Hoynes, that I teach makes this argument categorically and compellingly. Media analysts also note that polls are often self-fulfilling prophecies that do not necessarily reflect any underlying reality but rather strive to shape that reality in the image of what they predict. In light of which, Mint's decision to keep Rao as a columnist raises some troubling questions about its understanding of autonomy.
In any event, the limits of GVL Rao's psephological vision have been discovered by the BJP. Apropos of Rao's predictions about the recent Indian general elections, Kapoor points out:
"Throughout the campaign Rao kept the BJP leaders happy by painting a rosy picture of the party's chances. He predicted an overall tally of between 160 to 170 seats for the BJP. After the BJP's dismal performance, the party was brought down firmly to the ground—many hold the psephologist responsible for raising their hopes. Rao's stock is now at an all-time low and the MP Government does not know what to do with him."
I wonder if Rao had intuited or predicted this might happen?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
By the same token, it occurs to one to wonder about the propriety of Swapan Dasgupta's appearing on television channels in the capacity of 'independent analyst' after a far-from-secret involvement with the BJP's election campaign...
Nakul:
Thanks. I completely agree. There are far too many Indian journalists who are way too cozy with the people they are meant to 'independently analyze.'
I also find equally suspect the actions of journalists who are forever pontificating about the rich-poor divide, social justice etc, yet happily hobnob with elites and page 3 types.
Best
Rohit
This blog promises an examination of history through alternate experiences. I am sorry to say that it also appears to be a case of criticism based on alternate reality.
For starters, GVL Narasimha Rao ran a private firm that did polling and has done so for years. His paid clients include members of the BJP, other politicians, industrialists and companies and research and government institutions.
As editor of Mint, I was fully aware of all of GVL's business interests at all time. So was Mint's Managing Editor. In addition, I have personally known GVL for 25 years.
Because of his accurate polling--there was no other pollster who predicted Mayawati's stunning Assembly win and two other elections prior to national elections, for instance--GVL was one of the most astute observers of Indian politics and that was the reason he was asked by Mint editors do write a column. The column was always edited directly by me or Mint's Managing Editor and the topics of each column were picked together in conversations with GVL. It served Mint readers very well throughout the time he wrote the column.
The day GVL informed Mint that he was taking on a full-time role for the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister (in January 2009) his column was immediately stopped because, at that point, the editor (by then R Sukumar) rightly concluded that it was no longer a matter of GVL's firm having multiple clients. Since then GVL has not written a column for Mint. So what he did later is nothing to do with Mint.
Yes he called the Karnataka election--accurately. Since when is accuracy in polling a crime by association? And Mint editors were aware of his clients and yet solicited that particular column because it was relevant and Mint's editing systems gave us the comfort and confidence we will do right by our readers. And if you are not aware, Mint is published by HT Media, whose chairperson is a Congress Member of Parliament and whose flagship paper Hindustan Times is often accused of being a pro-Congress paper. So pray tell us how this all adds up in your mind?
I wish those who criticize media ethics first try and get some facts straight before they start making moral judgements in blogs. You do a tremendous disservice to honest debate about media ethics, a topic that is of critical importance, especially in India.
Raju Narisetti
former editor Mint
Raju,
Thanks. We will have to disagree on this issue.
You point out that what Rao does after he leaves Mint is his business. Fair enough. But if Rao had the BJP as a client even among many other clients while he was predicting BJP victories, he is open to criticism on ethical grounds. Notwithstanding the timing issue, I rest by my general argument.
You may have been aware of the relationship between Rao and various clients. But to an outside reader, the situation is still one that is patently troublesome from an ethical point of view.
The issue is not whether you did or did not edit the articles personally. The principle is what matters here. Mint cannot be its own judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense in assessing whether it complies with ethical imperatives. Institutions need to be accountable to others. Internal self-policing is never enough.
As a reader of or subscriber to Mint, the ethical standard I hold Mint to may well be different and higher than the standard to which Mint holds itself.
What you term 'facts' have to do with the internal measures of assessment employed by Mint in its decision to feature Rao as a columnist. That he had multiple clients does not necessarily imply any greater distance from political bias, when the implicit claim in his articles is to evaluate the lie of the land in a manner without such bias.
This has nothing to do with being a media critic. It has simply to do with being a reader and expecting a certain fairness from a publication.
in response to your assertion about the lack of credibility of my reflection:
Similar critiques of the relationship between media and political power, whether in the US or elsewhere, have been made by many scholars, including Pierre Bourdieu, Noam Chomsky, and Herb Schiller.
It is a legitimate and well documented position in many disciplines that media should be far, far more autonomous from both political power and corporate interests than it actually is.
Mint is a publication that does not hesitate to criticize other institutions or ideologies. Offhand, I recall a critical piece on AICTE, strong criticism about distributive justice and state-centered economic policies in India. Mint should be then open, at the very least, to a critical examination of its own choices.
I am very well aware that, in your words, "Mint is published by HT Media, whose chairperson is a Congress Member of Parliament and whose flagship paper Hindustan Times is often accused of being a pro-Congress paper"
How does this add up in my mind, you ask?
I think media professionals, owners, or stakeholders should have absolutely nothing to do with political parties. I don't think they should harbor political ambitions or aspirations.
I do think that these kinds of ties do compromise-- in some way or another -- the autonomy of a media institution. If in no other way, they may translate into pressures on journalists employed by the organizations to engage in self-censorship.
I hold no candle for the Congress, BJP, or the Left. I would have made the same argument about a journalist with links to any political party.
Finally, I find it ironic that the general perception among Indian journalists is that the same nexus between political power and media authorities in India was a factor in your departure from Mint, following your courageous stand in publishing the Athreya letter. I have heard it from friends who have worked for a long time in the Indian media industry, I have seen it on blogs, and I have read about it in online publications like rediff.
That is what is widely believed -- in direct contradiction to the official announcement. In my view, as I have also said earlier, that is Mint's loss. The very fact that there are two narratives about that event -- the official narrative and the popular narrative-- in fact, confirms my larger, philosophical point about media autonomy.
Best regards
Rohit
Rohit
I am all for free speech and by all means exercise it. But criticism has to be based on some attempt at ascertaining facts. If you rely on third hand accounts and use that to then make critical observations, you run the danger of your analysis not being based on facts. And especially when you do that to talk ethics--especially the lack of--then all you make is an argument. I suppose one can take or leave it but if you based it on facts--or an attempt to ascertain facts or when you don't know for sure admit you don't know what the actual facts might be, you will have a much more powerful impact.
Post a Comment