 You're watching NewsClick and I am Anandya Chakravarthy. Today I'm going to focus on why news organizations have completely given up the traditional role of speaking truth to power. And what do we mean by that? We mean that traditionally journalism was supposed to be a system by which the rights of the common people, of the common citizen was held up and it was their job to constantly ask questions to those who are in power, to expose the operation of power and ensure that neither the political system, neither the corporate system becomes all powerful. Today that has completely been thrown out of newsrooms. Newsrooms today almost entirely bat for governments and entirely bat for corporates. How did that happen? Well, you know, let me start with a particular point that about 10 years ago a senior person in the newsroom had asked me that why is it that under you this channel is so negative? Why does it only question the government? Why does it never say these are the good things that the government is doing? And I said, look, the government actually spends a lot on advertising whatever good it does and who pays for it? The taxpayer pays for it. Let me take an example from last year in 2019-20 the year before COVID hit us, the Modi government spent more than 700 crore rupees in advertising. And most of that, most of that would be publicizing what it is doing, right? Telling people that we have done this. This is what is the good that we have done. Some of it would be information telling people, okay, this is available, use it. This is all information available to you because you as a taxpayer paid for that expenditure. So if 700 crore was spent on letting you know what good the government is doing, you paid for it, right? With 700 crore, what can a news channel do? You can run at least five good news channels in India with that kind of money. Every year, five very good, good quality news channels gathering good quality news with top quality journalists can run with that kind of money. So if on one side we have that much money being spent to promote what the government is doing, on the other side, right? We need people to ask questions of the government to say, is it true that when you say that this policy led to this kind of good, did it really happen? If it didn't happen, then it is the journalist's job to expose it. It's the news organization's job to let you know that your money has been wasted. What those in power are telling you is not true, right? It is the journalist's job. That has completely gone. The biggest reason for that is that news organizations today are either entirely owned by corporate houses. Many of these are today. All these organizations are owned by companies which have other corporate interests. They run cement businesses. They run entertainment businesses. They even do construction, right? So they have cross-interest in various businesses and industries. So they're always going to be compromised when it comes to the news content of what they put out. And finally, even those who are relatively dependent are entirely dependent on big companies and corporates in general for their revenue. Because none of us as viewers pay enough to run even 2-3% of a news organization's costs, right? And maybe in newspapers, subscription is what you get is decent or when you sell to readers, you get a certain amount of money. But even that doesn't take care of any of the costs of a newspaper. So therefore for all news organizations, there's a heavy dependence on corporate money to put out the news. So there is that dependence. You want to question a particular policy which helps a particular corporate? Some advertising might be withdrawn or there might be a phone call from your sales team that these guys are threatening to withdraw advertisement because your stories are like this and you have to fight with the sales team to ensure that that doesn't happen. But most news organizations have given in. So you see when corporate interests come into the picture, almost every news organization holds up whatever is in favor of those corporate houses. And it's very easy for governments to control this. Why? Because you know every company every day breaks about 200 rules because there are so many rules in India to break. And it's very easy to tighten the screws on them. To send a notice and say, you know, you have got 5% of the bulbs in your building don't work or don't fit the regulations. And here's a fine. Go and send your lawyer. So no company wants this nuisance. So they always tend to bat for the government. And it is very easy to use that root, that corporate root to tighten the screws on newsrooms. And that is what is happening and that is something that newsrooms have, that is one of the reasons newsrooms have become so pro-government because there's pressure from advertisers and their corporate owners to bat for the government. Finally, one more thing that is happening is that because of corporate pressure, because of direct pressure on owners of news organizations, many journalists who are critical of the government and not just this government, any government. Because as I said, it's a journalist's job to be critical of governments. Many journalists like that have been either asked to leave or things have been made tough for them, so they have left. So you'll see many senior journalists, many people who you have seen as big names, as good investigative journalists, they have disappeared from the space. They're all independent today and their reach is severely curtailed because of that. Those who were willing to be yes people, willing to say that the government is good, this company is good and always bat for those in power. They have risen and they've been made editors and that ethos is spread across the news organization. And that is why any news that you watch or read ends up being something that promotes the government, promotes corporate houses and opposes the opposition. So this is an interesting thing that has happened in India, that the opposition is always on the receiving end of journalists rather than the other way around where the opposition's voice which was one of the things that the journalist took and presented in the public arena because obviously those in power have much more access to be able to propagate their own view of things. But one thing that we must all know that this is not something that has just happened in the last few years. This is a process that has been taking place over a long period of time. One of the first things that happened, censorship of views and a certain kind of news that first took place was news on the economy. Anything that was critical of free markets was removed from mainstream media almost 20 years ago. Only a particular kind of political voice being heard in mainstream news is a new occurrence of course. But when it came to the economy there was unanimous support for free market, neoliberal policies and anything that criticized that, anything that even had a scent of socialism was removed from news pages and from television news as well. So it started long ago. Another thing that we don't understand is that even when journalists believe that they're speaking truth to power, they're questioning power, they fall into the trap of power itself because in every newsroom there are three broad streams which have the maximum power and authority. The first is political reporters because political news always becomes a headline. The second is issues of national security and defense. It is closely tied to the state and the powerful are interested in it. Those who cover that, they become powerful in the newsroom. They have more authority in the newsroom and finally those who cover business which means corporate news and stock market news. They also have a certain degree of authority. They get the highest salaries and they get promoted the most. If you look across the board, most editors in mainstream organizations would have come from these three spaces. Political news, national security and defense and business and economy. This is what churns out the biggest journalists and these are the people who end up being editors everywhere. Those who have been reporting on the social sector, those who report on the poor, those who report on health, those who report on culture are usually on the sidelines of the newsroom. They rarely ever make it to the top headline. Once in a blue moon, some particular news item might become a big headline when it comes to health maybe in COVID crisis. But in general, these people are on the margins of the newsroom. They have very little authority. They are rarely promoted to become editors. So even when you sit and watch a news channel which is independent and neutral or a reader newspaper which appears to be independent and neutral, the fact is the news and information that is being given to you is still entirely tied to the operations of power, wealth and money. That is inevitable part of journalism and maybe it is important for all of us to question that journalism and see how that can be changed. That's the episode today. I'll see you next week.