Update and Clarification: On Mint and ethics

Raju Narisetti, former editor of Mint, has kindly taken the time to respond to my blog post on Mint and ethics. Raju points out that GLV Rao stopped writing for Mint once he joined the BJP formally and full time.

That point is duly noted. However, as I write in my response, in my understanding of the matter, even if Rao had the BJP as one client among many while he was writing for Mint, there is still a conflict of interest. I also think this fact should have been made clear in description of his affiliations under his columns. What they say is "G.V.L. Narasimha Rao is a political analyst and managing director of a Delhi-based research consulting firm. Your comments are welcome at thebottomline@livemint.com"

I would, in light of Raju's point, amend two sentences in my original post as follows to correct the matter.

a) That conflict pertains to Mint columnist GVL Narsimha Rao's double role as (a) media pundit and psephologist and (b) a provider of polling services to the BJP as one client among several.

b)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, he was also providing his expertise in psephology to the BJP as a client.

I am reproducing the discussion in the comments section of the earlier blog post, here, as a post of its own. Notwithstanding the difference of opinion, I very much appreciate the fact that Raj has taken the time to respond to the post.

The original blog post is here

raju narisetti said...

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

June 19, 2009 10:15 PM

My response
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

June 20, 2009 12:44 AM

raju narisetti said...
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.

June 20, 2009 12:29 PM