A friend gave me permission to quote his reaction to the piece: "Agreed that one view is that the wide centre is what these are reporting on...Political left has vanished. Intellectual left has been thriving because of the deep roots - institutions and academia, public policy, long discourse Internet. And because this has been thriving and if not explicitly, implicitly so strong and rooted, the biases creep in even if they are not overtly played out, in long format ‘independent’ media where the enforced “populist - pro Govt” pressure is not in action."
I agree with your friend wholeheartedly—exactly the point. The intellectual left has whitewashed our history, dismissed anything that does not fit their idea of modernity and superimposed on us the ideas of the west which worked perfectly in their milieu but not ours. In this context, how can then any independent person (and subsequently media house created by them) who is a product of left academia, grew up with the left created the narrative of India be not biased?
This is very useful and much needed discussion to have. Do we need to consider the founders work before they have started these four news websites? e.g. Siddharth Varadarajan has worked as Editor in The Hindu before he started The Wire. And The Hindu is pro-left, according to you.
Interesting question. The Hindu was known as pro-left for several decades before Siddharth Varadarajan became editor. He was in fact the first 'professional editor'. In any case, The Hindu being pro-left mostly only dictates its editorials and op-eds. In its reporting it has tried to be fair and balanced.
I am in PR and I couldn't agree to the 2nd para of your point 3 above. I agree to the essence of the piece completely though.
I believe a journalist need not be always anti-establishment as a rule. There's still people in the establishment working for greater good, and they need to be reported too. What will happen to development journalism if everyone becomes anti-establishment?
We, in PR, also take oath of professional ethics and honesty. Our job is advocacy, taking credit for the good work. What you were hinting at is propaganda. They are different, at least for professionals. There's some rotten tomatoes, but please do not throw the entire bag away.
Thank you for your thoughts, you have convinced me. Actually what you've written has given me an idea to pursue a couple of lines of enquiry in future pieces: a) the integrity of PR and b) the many uses of journalism. Watch this space!
This is a well-argued piece and I agree with the author that The Wire, Scroll etc. are not designed to serve any ideological agenda. However, the bigger problem with these outlets is the 'holier than thou' approach that defines their reportage. I agree with much of their work in principle, but the smug tone in which the message is often delivered only serves to alienate the right wing rather than bridge the divide.
Thank you for your perspective. I agree that the attitude of several journalists is that we can become holier than thou, and I agree that it should not be so. But I'm not sure if it's the 'bigger problem' :)
The Caravan as you know is a print + digital journalist enterprise. In its new avatar it’s been around for 12-13 years. Which is why I didn’t mention it. But yes, they are independent and they do rigorous journalism. I would trust them for sure.
Thanks for your question. When I published this piece, I probably wouldn’t have been able to answer your question, well enough. I think The Print has excellent journalists and many of them have good access, which makes their reporting, especially on politics good to read.
I think many on the left would see them as proestablishment. However, I think there is some nuance here. They’re stridently not antiestablishment, but that doesn’t always mean they’re pro-establishment.
They do this by keeping their analysis and their headlines analytical. They don’t strike a moralistic tone.
I would see them as mostly centrist. Thanks also for sending me an email I’ll reply to that with some more thoughts.
The challenge to old school journalism ethics comes from the fact that people want to get more "balanced", "real", "unbiased" view of the situation. If journalism is always anti-establishment, is it serving this need of it's readers well?
Hence it started with folks saying we shouldn't discount good work done by the government / a politician. This opened the flood gates for propaganda, as it becomes hard to distinguish the two.
Well, print media can be controlled directly or indirectly because the government contributes advertisements to newspapers. If they withdraw it, it can be a serious blow to some of the papers who depend heavily on govt ads. Also through taxation of newsprint and so on. TV broadcasters can only do newscasts if they get a license, which can be taken away. Thus far, digital media doesn't require licenses or they don't really depend on government ads. Does this answer your question?
The classification for left and right wing is frankly useless. Designating something as LW or RW or even centrists, takes the focus away from the responsibility that these news organisations need to focus on facts - that is the literal center. As editors, you can have a bias on either side, but while reporting news, you need to report the facts and all the facts. Which frankly no media is doing. They are businesses first and foremost, and they are behaving like that. The Wire gets its donations from liberals who are mostly anti establishment, hence its serving them the stories they want to read and conform to their bias. Same goes with MSM, which has owners and even readers who arent as liberal.
News as a business/establishment where one newspaper was enough for everyone should be done away with. It should be divided into news and opinions reporting - for opinions you already have social media, and for reporting facts, we should use the news websites. Just like Reuters is more reliable than anything even in Indian context and they rarely get tagged either way.
I feel that the right-wing media has taken things so far, that what would have normally seemed centre-left is now 'left-wing'. And the narrative driven by pro-BJP media which labels anyone who questions their establishment as urban naxal and so on, has also contributed to this.
Good insightful comments! However in my opinion you missed , though these are all News sites started after 2014 / 2015 so you can not hold them against for UPA etc., they still have / had a chance to objectively report non-BJP Governments be in Jayalalitha, Mamta, Congress in Karnataka/ Rajasthan etc., Instead what you see is broadbrushing them as viable alternatives to BJP which reeks of hypocrisy. Like how SP/ RJD was promoted heavily earlier now again Shivsena, RJD being projected as the best alternatives!! That is the biggest problem which poses questions on their objective/objectivity
The media and people are heavily polarized in this country. We are partly polarized because media organizations, especially some TV networks make up a false narrative that the media overlooks certain stories. But the questions you asked have answers. We can attempt them if you're willing to try and keep an open mind.
A friend gave me permission to quote his reaction to the piece: "Agreed that one view is that the wide centre is what these are reporting on...Political left has vanished. Intellectual left has been thriving because of the deep roots - institutions and academia, public policy, long discourse Internet. And because this has been thriving and if not explicitly, implicitly so strong and rooted, the biases creep in even if they are not overtly played out, in long format ‘independent’ media where the enforced “populist - pro Govt” pressure is not in action."
I agree with your friend wholeheartedly—exactly the point. The intellectual left has whitewashed our history, dismissed anything that does not fit their idea of modernity and superimposed on us the ideas of the west which worked perfectly in their milieu but not ours. In this context, how can then any independent person (and subsequently media house created by them) who is a product of left academia, grew up with the left created the narrative of India be not biased?
This is very useful and much needed discussion to have. Do we need to consider the founders work before they have started these four news websites? e.g. Siddharth Varadarajan has worked as Editor in The Hindu before he started The Wire. And The Hindu is pro-left, according to you.
Interesting question. The Hindu was known as pro-left for several decades before Siddharth Varadarajan became editor. He was in fact the first 'professional editor'. In any case, The Hindu being pro-left mostly only dictates its editorials and op-eds. In its reporting it has tried to be fair and balanced.
I am in PR and I couldn't agree to the 2nd para of your point 3 above. I agree to the essence of the piece completely though.
I believe a journalist need not be always anti-establishment as a rule. There's still people in the establishment working for greater good, and they need to be reported too. What will happen to development journalism if everyone becomes anti-establishment?
We, in PR, also take oath of professional ethics and honesty. Our job is advocacy, taking credit for the good work. What you were hinting at is propaganda. They are different, at least for professionals. There's some rotten tomatoes, but please do not throw the entire bag away.
Thank you for your thoughts, you have convinced me. Actually what you've written has given me an idea to pursue a couple of lines of enquiry in future pieces: a) the integrity of PR and b) the many uses of journalism. Watch this space!
This is a well-argued piece and I agree with the author that The Wire, Scroll etc. are not designed to serve any ideological agenda. However, the bigger problem with these outlets is the 'holier than thou' approach that defines their reportage. I agree with much of their work in principle, but the smug tone in which the message is often delivered only serves to alienate the right wing rather than bridge the divide.
Thank you for your perspective. I agree that the attitude of several journalists is that we can become holier than thou, and I agree that it should not be so. But I'm not sure if it's the 'bigger problem' :)
Could The Caravan be included in this list?
The Caravan as you know is a print + digital journalist enterprise. In its new avatar it’s been around for 12-13 years. Which is why I didn’t mention it. But yes, they are independent and they do rigorous journalism. I would trust them for sure.
What is your take on the The Print? Would you include them in this list? I find their reporting to be more objective, than say TheQuint & Scroll.
Thanks for your question. When I published this piece, I probably wouldn’t have been able to answer your question, well enough. I think The Print has excellent journalists and many of them have good access, which makes their reporting, especially on politics good to read.
I think many on the left would see them as proestablishment. However, I think there is some nuance here. They’re stridently not antiestablishment, but that doesn’t always mean they’re pro-establishment.
They do this by keeping their analysis and their headlines analytical. They don’t strike a moralistic tone.
I would see them as mostly centrist. Thanks also for sending me an email I’ll reply to that with some more thoughts.
The challenge to old school journalism ethics comes from the fact that people want to get more "balanced", "real", "unbiased" view of the situation. If journalism is always anti-establishment, is it serving this need of it's readers well?
Hence it started with folks saying we shouldn't discount good work done by the government / a politician. This opened the flood gates for propaganda, as it becomes hard to distinguish the two.
Your comment partially inspired me to write another piece. Coming in a few hours!
Can you elaborate a little on this? Why do you think internet-native independent media is freer from Government control? What makes it that way?
"Mostly restricted to the internet where they can’t easily be controlled by the government"
Well, print media can be controlled directly or indirectly because the government contributes advertisements to newspapers. If they withdraw it, it can be a serious blow to some of the papers who depend heavily on govt ads. Also through taxation of newsprint and so on. TV broadcasters can only do newscasts if they get a license, which can be taken away. Thus far, digital media doesn't require licenses or they don't really depend on government ads. Does this answer your question?
Yup – got it! Thanks.
The classification for left and right wing is frankly useless. Designating something as LW or RW or even centrists, takes the focus away from the responsibility that these news organisations need to focus on facts - that is the literal center. As editors, you can have a bias on either side, but while reporting news, you need to report the facts and all the facts. Which frankly no media is doing. They are businesses first and foremost, and they are behaving like that. The Wire gets its donations from liberals who are mostly anti establishment, hence its serving them the stories they want to read and conform to their bias. Same goes with MSM, which has owners and even readers who arent as liberal.
News as a business/establishment where one newspaper was enough for everyone should be done away with. It should be divided into news and opinions reporting - for opinions you already have social media, and for reporting facts, we should use the news websites. Just like Reuters is more reliable than anything even in Indian context and they rarely get tagged either way.
"facts needing to be the literal centre" - great way to put it! Thanks for your thoughts...
I feel that the right-wing media has taken things so far, that what would have normally seemed centre-left is now 'left-wing'. And the narrative driven by pro-BJP media which labels anyone who questions their establishment as urban naxal and so on, has also contributed to this.
I agree with you. We need to slow down and think about these labels!
Good insightful comments! However in my opinion you missed , though these are all News sites started after 2014 / 2015 so you can not hold them against for UPA etc., they still have / had a chance to objectively report non-BJP Governments be in Jayalalitha, Mamta, Congress in Karnataka/ Rajasthan etc., Instead what you see is broadbrushing them as viable alternatives to BJP which reeks of hypocrisy. Like how SP/ RJD was promoted heavily earlier now again Shivsena, RJD being projected as the best alternatives!! That is the biggest problem which poses questions on their objective/objectivity
Who stops them for reporting against state government that run by opposition parties?
Why daily killing of BJP workers in WB ignored?
Why Palghar Sadhu lynching by conversion mafia is not a issue but a child molester (muslim) lost his hand is big issue for these portals?
Those who used to call Shiv Sena a party of goons, now start to praise them (because Congress is partner in MAH government)
Their are so many points where lie of being neutral can be busted if some one really want to discussed please let me know.
The media and people are heavily polarized in this country. We are partly polarized because media organizations, especially some TV networks make up a false narrative that the media overlooks certain stories. But the questions you asked have answers. We can attempt them if you're willing to try and keep an open mind.