 On a clear day in New York, on September 11, 2001, the world changed forever. For President Bush, this would be an opportunity to get rid of America's old foes. Although everything pointed to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, Bush wanted a Saddam link. At least that is what was claimed by Richard A. Clarke, a top White House official who came out with a book called Against All Enemies in 2004. Clarke went on TV as well to repeat his assertions that the Bush administration wanted to pin 9-11 on Saddam Hussein, despite not having any evidence on it. But our story is not about Clarke, it's not about George Bush, it's not about 9-11. It's about how America's most popular news channel, Fox News, treated Clarke when these revelations came out. It basically became an arm of the Bush administration and began a smear campaign against Clarke to make it look like that he was a liar. It is open naked agenda TV in the name of news. Fox News channel's attack on Clarke was to set the tone of his coverage for years to come, where it worked closely with Republican administrations when they were in power or with the Republican Party when there was a Democrat in the White House. Fox News channel reigned supreme as the number one news channel in the U.S. riding on conservative and Republican voters. It drove viewership by focusing on what Americans called wedge issues. Issues that drive a wedge between people, polarize them, cause hatred. Fox News perfected and mastered this art of notching up ratings, something that was going to be emulated by channels across the world. Take a political agenda, in this case the agenda of the Republican Party. Tag it onto a divisive wedge issue and people will watch it. It will move, it will become what the top Fox anchor Bill O'Reilly used to call a talking point. And this kind of TV was a perfect handle for the rich and the powerful to manipulate public opinion, to manufacture consent. Because once you have a killer formula to catch people's attention, all you need is the ability to reach them. You need platforms to be able to spread your message. And that is where money and power played a big role in promoting such channels. Fox News channel's formula was replicated not just by news channels across the world, but also by old school newspapers. Wedge issues, divisive issues, emotive issues hit the headlines replacing issues of the people that mattered to citizens. Pro-government, pro-business coverage replaced what the media was supposed to do to be a watchdog of the people in a democracy. It began in the US and it shouldn't surprise you that in the reporters' frontiers' latest global press freedom index, the US is at a low 42. It's the world's second largest democracy. It's supposed to be the land of the free, but look where its media is. But what about us? What about India? The world's largest democracy. We pride ourselves for being that. Do we have a free press? No, according to the world press freedom index, we are at 150 out of 180 countries and we have slid eight positions in the last one year. Now, part of the reason why our ranking might have dropped is because the reporter's son's frontiers or RSF has changed the way in which it calculates this index. It now looks at five indicators and gives them equal weights. What is the political context? How much political pressure do journalists face? Does the media have a protective legal framework or are laws used to suppress them? What is the economic context in which journalists work? How dependent are they on advertising? Are the companies they work for controlled by big corporates? What social context do journalists find themselves in? Are they discriminated against because of their gender, ethnicity or religion? Are there certain subjects and institutions out of bounds because they could hurt popular sentiments? And finally, the safety of journalists. Are they likely to face physical attacks? Are they threatened or abused on social media? Or could they lose their jobs if they reported against those in power? Each of these gets a score which in turn determines what bracket of press freedom they fall in. 85 to 100 points is good. 70 to 85 points satisfactory. 75 to 70 point means that it's a problematic situation. 40 to 55 point means that this country is difficult for journalists on that parameter, on that indicator. And below 40, deep red means it is a very serious situation for press freedom. How does India score on each of these parameters? Let's compare with the number one country, Norway. The political indicator barely escapes being tagged as very serious. Our rank here is 145 out of 180 countries. And the RSFS report says the journalists and media houses have faced much more political pressure since the coming of the Modi government in the mid-2010s. The legislative indicator puts us in problematic zone. Ranked 120 because laws are being used to target journalists who criticize government policies and businesses. As you can see, Norway is number one in both with very high scores. Our social indicator score is also problematic with the rank of 127 where Norway is number two. RSFS points to the increasing signs of bias against women and minorities in Indian news reportage. India's media security score is abysmal amongst the lowest in the world. We are ranked 163 out of 180 countries where Norway is number 11. That means the RSFS believes that journalists in India face some of the worst physical, psychological and financial insecurity. And finally, the economic indicator. India scores just 30. Again, putting us in the very serious bracket, we are ranked 149 compared to Norway's number one. The RSFS believes that India's journalists and media houses are entirely at the mercy of businesses and corporate owners and that they operate under tough policy constraints. I for one have a serious problem with these rankings. I refuse to believe that countries which have autocratic governments especially in Middle East and Africa and Central Asia have been ranked above India. But we don't really need this kind of an index to understand that India's press freedom has deteriorated over the years. Indian mainstream networks, newspapers have turned into what my friend Ravish Kumar calls, Godi media. Incidentally, that term makes its way into the RSFS report. We have had a very long history of an open free press. Not TV and radio, mind you. That used to be controlled by the government till the mid 1990s. But newspapers, which used to take on governments, used to take on big business for a very long time. That system began to collapse from the mid 1990s when it was all about making money and consolidation. A few big media houses began to control the entire market. And it was all about the profit motive as one top newspaper owner once said that we are in the business of advertising. It brought editorial close to sales and stories began to be promoted or dropped entirely based on the business interests of advertisers. And as media houses started to make big money journalists also got fabulous salaries especially at the top, editors, anchors. And it became their interest to push the business interests of the media house at the cost of the viewer and the reader. From the mid 2000s big corporates started to take over media companies and they started to subtly direct editorial content put compliant editors and anchors in positions of power in newsrooms. And once news becomes business and business takes over news it becomes very difficult to take on the rich and the powerful. When you make a lot of money it's very easy for the government to send you a tax notice or raid your home and office. But that's only one part of the story as journalists start to make a lot of money they become allies of the rich and powerful and they no longer think for the weak the average Joe on the road for the subaltern and the media which was supposed to be a watchdog on behalf of the people turns into an arm of the state turns into an arm of the corporates and that is when democracy dies. That's the show today keep watching news click like this video share it as well.