Saturday, 10 October 2009

Why does the media hate moderates (and why intellectual is a bad word)

There are several reasons behind why the Indian English Broadcasting media snaps, barks and spits at moderates. What they are doing to the moderates on the Naxal debate is exactly what their favorite spittoon the (Communist Party Politburo) does to corporates (snap, bark and bite). Here is my take on this sudden aversion to moderates.
  • The Fifth Schedule
    Moderates believe in the Indian Constitution and the Fifth Schedule of the Indian constitution which says "Tribal Land for Tribals". If the English Broadcasting media fell in line with the constitution of India, their advertisers would not be too pleased
    • Essar group spends enormous amount of money advertising for Vodafane Essar
    • Tatas spend a huge amount of money on advertising for DoCoMo, Tata Tea and Tata Motos
    • Both Essar and Tatas are asking for a quick land transfer of mines from Tribal hands to their mining companies. 
  • Cops - are they always the good guys?
    Moderates do not see a Halo on the head of every Indian policemen. Moderates, based on their own experience, understand that police are not the cleanest institution in the country and have been known to behave like feudal lords when nobody is recording. Moderates also understand that if the police are the only interface between the people and the government, it will lead to violence on both sides. For our English Broadcasting Media, the police are not even a small part of the problem, they are in fact the solution. This lens which is based on the heroics of encounter cops and our good cops who "fight the good fight" does not do justice to reality. When the moderates condemned the beheading of Francis Induvar...they were condemned as hypocrites. 
  • Middle Class Morality?
    The anchors of English Broadcasting media are no more a part of the middle class. With their ESOPs and salaries they have crossed the line into upper-class territory. This is not a bad thing. Good for them! The down-side is that they claim to represent "middle-class India". They do not have reporters covering a rural beat but send 5 reporters to cover a Fashion Week. This is best reflected in their choice of panels to discuss naxalism. They will without hesitation bring in the Bollywood crowd and Cuffe-parade brigade. These stakeholders look down at the problem and do not address it at eye-level. It can be insulting to listen to the Cuffe Brigade talk about "a need for things to get worse before they get better".

  • Moderates make the English Broadcasting media look dumb and lazy
    The moderates, by adding depth to the debate, make the reporters look dumb and riculously illiterate about the rural India. The only way to defend this illiteracy is by focusing on what they can see...the tip of the iceberg and brushing everything else under the carpet. Moderates who stand up and question become a "Naxal Sympathiser".
The concise format of TV broadcasting prevents anchors from being able to dig deep and separate the wheat from the chaff. This however is no excuse to oversimplify a sixty year old problem that is complex and has many shades. To condemn people who are willing to look at the big picture can not be excused. It is as good as beheading open-debate.


  1. we wants it..we needs it must have the precious...
    reminds me of Smeagol!

  2. Just as one cannot be judgemental about Moderates, one cannot be judgemental about Extremists either. They[Moderates] may have seen the larger picture. But does that justify the violence ? The Indian Constitution provides scope for dialogue and negotiation. But not for violence, extortion, beheading.

    PS- An extremely informative article. Thanks ! :)