In the daily life of a nation, there are controversies and issues that have a very short life span. The pattern these days is for an issue or a stray remark to be noticed by a few over-zealous individuals, publicised in the social media — the new colloquialism is “going viral” — and then outraged over in the electronic or, more infrequently, the print media. The issue has a life span of anything between 36 and 48 hours and is then forgotten, only to be replaced by the next item of outrage.
Last week, West Bengal experienced such a three-day outrage over a remark by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Maitra. The MP who also combines her constituency responsibilities and national public speaking roles with the more daunting post of being the president of the Nadia district TMC, was undertaking a meeting of polling booth committees in preparation for next year’s Assembly polls. These events invariably tend to be chaotic, not least because too many people want to be seated on the dais and the media insists on access. It was this last issue that provoked Mahua to ask why the “two-paise media” had been granted access. Alas, in this age of over-intrusiveness, someone recorded her outburst on video and circulated it.
The results were predictable. Taking on the media as a collective is akin to taking on the might of a trade union. The outcome can never be satisfactory for any individual, least of all a politician. The MP for Krishnanagar was mercilessly berated on print, TV and the social media. The anger of the journalists was complemented by Bengali ‘intellectuals’ who, frustratrated by their inability to attack the TMC directly — because it may end up helping the BJP in West Bengal — chose to direct their fire at one errant MP. They were helped by the fact that some TMC leaders were grudgingly forced to concede that Mahua should have been a bit more careful with her choice of words.
To cut a long story short, the MP issued a qualified apology and the issue, quite predictably, faded away. However, not before some media platforms indicated that she will be boycotted. Of course, the boycott won’t last and life will get back to normal. Mahua too will reappear in the media. Her Delhi appeal will be intact because the “national” media doesn’t care a fig how the “regional” media conducts. Both operate in separate universes.
The kerfuffle over Mahua Maitra’s unguarded comment may be interesting but it does throw a light on the troubled relations between the media and politicians. The TMC leader felt that the media was being a pest. This is understandable. But there was a hint of hostility too in her remark that suggested she may have considered the media to be non-supportive. If this hypothesis is correct, it is bizarre. The consensus in a large section of informed opinion in West Bengal is that the media is over-supportive of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. They attribute this to the generous advertising patronage the State Government has extended to the Bengali media, particularly at a time other advertising revenues are down. In short, they are repaying the TMC Government for the monetary lifeline that has been thrown at them.
I don’t know the extent to which journalists working in media organisations favoured by the Chief Minister actually support the editorial stance of their proprietors. My own experience with the media suggests that there is a degree of alienation because journalists, being fiercely opinionated and with a self-image of intellectual independence, don’t like being dictated to. This may explain the ferocity with which Maitra’s stray comment was attacked. It also explains why a large number of individuals involved in the cultural life of Bengal joined in the outrage. Their target wasn’t really one individual. The real focus of their attack was the Mamata Government. However, because this wasn’t possible given the constraints that bind the media in the State, the guns were instead trained on Maitra. This is a familiar pattern in totalitarian states and it is amusing to see it being replicated in a corner of India.
My own experience also suggests that the importance of the media in moulding public opinion is grossly over-stated by politicians. People in public life may feel irritated at the media’s unending — and even needless — hostility towards them. The Kolkata-based The Telegraph, a daily where I have been writing a fortnightly column since 2003 — without, I may add, any hint of censorship — is irrationally anti-Narendra Modi in its editorial views. Its front pages are often pamphleteering diatribes against Modi, a reason why the TMC loves it. However, in highlighting everything allegedly evil about the Modi Government, it glosses over local news that presents the State Government in an unfavourable light. The larger question is: does the coverage of a media organisation shape public perception or is public opinion moulded by people’s own experiences?
I personally believe that it is the latter. The media is important but not central to people’s voting preferences.
