Indian Media-The watchdog needs to be Watched!

In the ‘Need to Know’ versus ‘Want to Know’ debate the media has crossed the boundaries of ethical journalism and has shifted its focus entirely on the TRP game. India is a dominant power in South Asia and has close ties with all nations except with its traditional adversary , Pakistan. Since 2008 onwards Pakistan has not broken the chain of terror related activities to create havoc across the Line of Control and even in the heart of India i.e. Mumbai.

With former Portuguese Prime Minister Guterres now in line for the next Chief of the United Nations, several political analysts believe India will become a permanent member of the Security Council.  Membership apart, what has happened recently is that India has carried out surgical strikes across Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) region to wipe out terror camps. China has maintained a diplomatically safe distance. China has put on hold for three months the listing of Jaish-e Mohammad (JEM) Chief Masood Azhar’s as an international terrorist. The Chinese stand on the Uri attack and surgical strike response issue is obvious. The historical escalation dynamics of conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir reveals a very chequered past.

The Indian Media is playing the role of a watchdog passing on minute by minute updates on the escalation dynamics, proudly claiming Pakistan now stands exposed, and that India has won the game. Recently in the Uri attack, 18 Indian soldiers were martyred and in response India carried out surgical strikes. The nation wanted to know what was happening so the DGMO addressed the media and informed the masses about the safe situation.

India’s qualitative shift in its approach towards diplomatic engagements with its traditional adversary was seen when SAARC meeting was postponed with all SAARC nations asking for isolating Pakistan for its continuous proxy wars and terrorist attacks on Indian soil. India has always won the game of escalation dynamics and media reports sometimes declare victory before it is actually achieved on ground.

The problem is that with the commercialisation of media houses and the corporate control on content, it becomes difficult to accept the credibility of news programs and debates. Some seem to be planted; others who report from ground zero tend to exaggerate sporadic events. Notwithstanding the fact that the media is profit driven, we still have ethical war correspondents who pass on factually correct information to the masses.

The media can act as a platform for dialogue between warring factions. It does not always play a negative role in the escalation dynamics of conflict. Sometimes this dialogue is spearheaded by analysts, experts, armchair critics and citizen journalists but moderated by business representatives or anchors who are supposed to maintain a neutral stand but take sides. An interesting twist in the tale is how these media houses are blaming each other for factually incorrect reporting, airing pro Pakistan stories. So much so that a certain section of the media branded as pseudo liberals were accused of taking pro Pakistan side when Indian soldiers were being martyred. Once again there arises a genuine need to control the content that flows through various primetime programs. 

The state has to intervene to protect the masses from jingoistic actions and reactions. Press censorship is essential in times of conflict. Unlike the emergency period when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi put a complete stop on the media today we need an institutionalised mechanism to check the outputs of news channels, digital media and the print media to save our masses from getting swayed by false reporting or dramatised recreation of violent acts leading to hatred towards the Pakistani establishment.India’s foreign policy is peace centric. We cannot have the media destroy the social fabric our country in the name of TRP.

Theorising the Media

“The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”
James MadisonPolitical Theorist, President of the United States of America (1809–17).

Communication since time immemorial has been a dominant reality of life on earth and has aided progress, growth at each stage of historical evolution of both man and societies. Communication technology has redefined existing realities in the 21^st century. The power of new mass media was realised when terrorists hijacked planes and used them to attack the Twin Towers in New York in September 2011 and roughly a global audience of two billion people watched the attack on television in real time.[i]  Apostles of the CNN effect argue that the changing dynamics of new media has given rise to a new form of media research that revolves around the dissection of qualitative impacts of real time news coverage, and dissimination of information through diverse mediums.

Convergence in production, distribution and consumption of information has brought about profound transformations in the way we look at society and life today. Shrinking of spaces and ability to connect with others instantaneously has led to media gaining prominence as a powerful tool that can bring about remarkable changes in the world especially in times of conflict and peace.

The world today is driven by what we see, hear. The explosion in the means of communication especially the digital revolution has left a drastic impression on the way we form our perceptions about the existing world order, its socio political and economic implications.

Modern mass media essentially is a combination of information sharing tools such as radio, print, electronic and digital which have completely altered the processes of information sharing that existed before. This is rightfully echoed by Canadian Media Theorist Marshall McLuhan who argued that society today is influenced much more by the type of the media that by its content or the messages which are conveyed by it. Electronic media tends to create a ‘Global Village’ in which people all over the world witness major events unfold and thereby participate in them together.

This paper seeks to explore the many dimensions of convergence of information production, distribution and consumption.

Media discourses have undergone discernible changes in the last few decades and with changing global political order, wars, natural calamities and political mobilization a fresh approach towards understanding the functioning of Media in times of conflict and peace becomes inevitable. Equally, the need of the hour is to remember that  arbitration by juxtaposed media, however well meaning may serve to aggravate situations, inflame passions and therefore subvert or frustrate conflict resolution measures.

In all intents and purposes the mushrooming of 24x7 News Channels , widespread use of the world wide web and the rise of Social Media platforms recently have redefined the mental constructs that helped us to understand the functioning of Global political order especially in times of Conflict and Peace. The effect of a strongly linked, cosmopolitan and international neighbourhood owing to superior access to all forms of media may not necessarily be a positive aspect; ideologies, identities, territorial integrities, and indeed the very concept of nation states may be challenged by perceptions of global institutions percolating via the Media.

Access to 24x7 real time information through diverse media forms and their ability to mould perceptions have forced a reevaluation by governments, international businesses and even non state actors to view the heightened role of the Media in the shaping of conflict. Time and Space are two distinct variables in communication studies that have aided paradigm changes in existing theories and questions that have already been answered but need a fresh perspective that can solve key issues which affect the socio political environment in contemporary times.

 With real time broadcasting of on ground events our perceptions about the world around us has undergone significant changes. One of the sterling examples of this was demonstrated during the 9/11 attacks on the American mainland; raw ability to transpose events as they unfolded into people's homes was on evidence, giving a perspective not seen hitherto fore.

It has been widely debated that the corporate nature of commercial Media is prone as well as responsive to influences wielded by governments because of their inherent need to access corridors of power. Contrarily it has also been argued that governments are vulnerable and inclined to pressures by commercial media, due to their widespread reach and their ravenous yearning to connect with the masses.

The architecture of communication technology which is used as a persuasive instrument of psychological warfare forms an integral part of statecraft. Research has proved that Journalism marginalises, denigrates and demonises certain sections of the massed positioning them as stigmatised outcasts[ii] . The ongoing conflict between the military and the media testifies the same. Public scrutiny of strategic decisions and army operations as they unfold through relentless coverage has often has damaging consequences.

Media’s Agenda Setting Role

Case Study 1- American occupation of the Spanish Empire, 1898

Historically, one of the earliest examples of Mediatised conflict was seen in 1898 following the American occupation of the Spanish Empire. It is known that during this period American Media were at their irrepressible best and irresponsible worst.[iii]The well-known so called telegraph between William Randolph Hearst and his combat artist in Florida tells the story. “Everything is quiet.There will be no war.I wish to return,” Frederick Remington called.Hearst replied “Please remain.You furnish pictures,I will furnish war.”[iv]

Censorship failed to control the content that was transmitted for public consumption. Plain stories better known as “Yellow Press” flourished. Richard Harding Davis, well known war correspondent of his times gave a detailed account of exhausted American troops at the San Juan Hills. New York Herald published the story and Madrid took action.The Santiago garrison surrendered.The scene is somewhat similar today. Commercialisation of news media, globalisation and access to information instantly has created a trend in communications which if not controlled can have very damaging repercussions.

Case Study 2- The Kargil war and the Media

Media coverage of the Kargil war in 1999 was without dubitation outstanding. However there were also serious instances of “sensational reporting”. Media coverage evoked war hysteria. Aggressive nationalism was practiced by the journalists. Indians were swayed by jingoistic anti Pakistan rhetoric.[v] It was believed that the news coverage was strictly controlled by the political elites echoing the views of the Atal Bihari Government.

The Kargil war coverage generated a public debate calling for more censorship. There were diverse views on whether access to information and transparency in the work of the armed forces for their citizens is important or should media’s role be neutered to boost the morale of fighting soldiers in times of conflict. It is evident that peace is no news for media. It is conflict and war that generates more curiosity.

Case Study 3- The Danish Cartoon Controversy, 2005

In September 2005, Conservative Danish weekly Jyllands- Posten’s  culture editor solicited sketches of the Prophet Mohammed  to elicit views from people about self-censorship in Denmark.On 30^th September , the weekly published 12 cartoon caricatures of the Prophet.Outraged by the act , some 5000 Muslims of the Danish Islamic Society  gathered outside the office of the editor to protest against the blasphemous caricatures.

Ahmed Akhari gathered a group of Danish Muslims and travelled to the Middle East to inform the community about the cartoons.Hate mails were shared that were never exchanged. An emergency meeting was held in Mecca attended by more than 50 Muslim nations to condemn the act. Tensions escalated thereafter.

---

[i] Giddens, Anthony, Sociology-6^th edition, “The Media”, 2009 Cambridge UK

[ii] Cottle,Simon, Mediatised Recognition and “The Other”, 2007,MIACP

[iii] Singh,Kumar Anil Dr. Military and Media,Lancer Publishers and Distributors 2006 New Delhi

[iv] Cited in HDS Greenway, “The Warring Century”,Columbia Journalism Review October 1999

[v] Singh,Kumar Anil Dr. Military and Media,Lancer Publishers and Distributors 2006 New Delhi

Changing Dynamics of Conflict Management and the Role of Media

The media is more than just a primetime circus in India Today (Pun Unintended). Given the outreach of the media and the significant rise in citizen journalism through social media platforms it can be said without dubitation that the media plays a purposive and pragmatic role if not positive in conflict scenarios. It is the media that can prevent information attack by ethical reporting. But the changing dynamics of broadcast and print media and digitisation have pushed ethical journalism over the edge. Sensationalism has replaced factual reporting. In spite of its limitations, the media can play a purposive, pragmatic and positive role in de escalation of conflict by giving a voice to the warring factions.

In common parlance the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) programme of correspondence instructions in peacekeeping operations defines conflict as 'pursuit of incompatible goals by individuals or groups'. In other words conflict situations arise when individuals or groups pursue positions, interests, needs, or values that may lead to actions that come up against the interests, needs and values of others when they also want to satisfy their goals. Conflict resolution is a set of techniques for resolving conflicts with the assistance of a third party. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a concept that encompasses a variety of mechanisms by which conflicts are resolved. In other words, ADR offers alternatives to litigation which has often times been associated with delays, exorbitant fees, and discontentment. (Amoh).

When it comes to Conflict Management, Mediation plays a very crucial role. The advocates of mediation adopt ADR techniques including, Negotiation, reconciliation and personal intervention in possible scenarios through delegation to resolve conflicts.

Dascal Marcelo opines that “the use of violence and the use of argumentation belong to a set of “communicative acts” structured by a double conceptual/rhetorical grid of metonymic and metaphorical relations. While the metaphorical relations conceptualize argument as analogous to war, the metonymical relations conceptualize argument as continuous with war. Metaphor permits to identify the warlike aspects of argument, both in intellectual operations such as criticism and in emotive operations such as propaganda (as in Popper’s quote).  But it keeps these operations strictly apart from physical violence, to which they bear only a relation of similitude. Metonymy, on the other hand, conceptualizes the operations involved in argument as being themselves part and parcel of the power game. As such, they function either as a continuation of war in another register (as in Foucault’s quote) or as nothing more than violence’s temporary replacements (as in the belief that as long as the contenders negotiate they at least don’t wage war).”

Creating dialogues in conflict scenarios is a crucial cog of Conflict Management. The media today is a powerful tool which can change the dynamics of any conflict with information dissemination and mediation. Experts and eminent personalities are called on national television to suggest alternatives to existing conflict and remedial measures to mitigate the conflict. The media can provide a platform to the warring factions to reach a level of adjustment compromise. The media is a very crucial link between the government and its people. It acts as a watchdog almost playing the role of the opposition party in India. Every governmental policy is under media scrutiny, and under public eye.

Conflict management is the way forward if we want a stable geopolitical world order. Violence and Bloodshed has never resulted in anything constructive. The world witnessed two great wars; a period of cold war ensued, followed by the disintegration of USSR and emergence of the United States of America (USA)  as the only superpower on the international stage. But a lot has changed since then. The increasing interference of China in South Asia, the rise of India as a dominant power in South Asia have brought about a dynamic shift in the balance of power structure in international politics, resulting in increasing multipolarity. The rise and phenomenal growth of the mass media and the digitisation process has also contributed to this changing dynamics of balance of power. By highlighting issues of geopolitical importance, the media has become the centre of study especially in conflict and peace studies. A study of Mediation techniques would remain incomplete without the dissection of the role of mass media in creating dialogues. Newspapers, broadcast media, digital platforms, radio, mobile phones, social media platforms all play a crucial role in conflict management.

However it must be kept in mind that propaganda stories tend to distort the conflict management process. There is a very thin line between truth and lies and given the commercialisation of media houses ethical journalism goes for a toss and sometimes instead of de –escalation media plays and active role in escalating conflict. A middle path must be taken.

Reference Reading

Marcelo Dascal, Argument, War and the Role of the Media in Conflict Management