Vedanta and Spin Doctoring

In spin doctoring timing is everything!

As the Saxena committee report on Vedanta's violation in Niyamgiri goes public, Vedanta announces the acquisition of Cairn India - a player in the energy space.

A quick look at Google News. Searched for "Vedanta"

• 976 articles related to Vedanta Acquisition of Cairns
• 72 articles related to the Saxena Committe report

 The timing is too good to be true.
Saxena committee report getting buried 10:1 on Google news.

Guerrilla marketing and TATA (trying to manufacture an image?)

Wikipedia on Guerilla Marketing:

Typically, guerrilla marketing campaigns are unexpected and unconventional; potentially interactive; and consumers are targeted in unexpected places.

The Google Advertisement on a page that hosts a Petition against POSCO

My problem with this

• The Internet remains relatively free from "manufactured consent" when you compare it with the rest of the mainstream media. 
• We have many studio anchors posing as experts on TV who know so little about so much. A good example is how little they know about the tragedy of Kalinganagar.  
• Mining is tearing into the lives of Indian citizens in many parts of the country. Getting news and information about the violations by mining corporates has been an uphill battle.
• It is not strange that the mining lobby and the main-stream media  including the Tatas are bed-fellows.
• NOW, we have PR spin doctoring creeping rapidly into the Internet and on forums where one could get some independent and factual information. It's being hijacked by "advertising".
• Doesn't matter where you pitch a tent - the spin doctors seem to creep up right behind you - and start screaming louder than you!
• We need to start reclaiming some spaces. We will be foolish if we let every single space that we have be hijacked by people who have a horrendous track record like TATA
• They may have the financial muscle to buy up google ad-space and bury the truth in Page 5 of a Google search and they are not afraid of using it. 
• I would be naive to say that I did not see it coming. I was surprised to see it on the petition and the PR site that they have put-up.

Another example - search for "Kalinganagar" on Google

For folks who are interested in the other side of the story - and don't need to be fed information from a PR spoon coated in unadulterated cow dung - I strongly suggest that you visit - http://orissaconcerns.net/

Paid News and Private Treaties (and suggestions to the Editor's Guild)

Image from beta.TheHindu.com [image]

Background
Mahesh Vijapurkar in an article that appeared in TheHoot.org and P.Sainath with his scathing commentary (1,2 and 3) in The Hindu, exposed the obvious abuse of the media by politicians in the Maharashtra elections.

In summary, politicians and political parties were paying newspapers and the broadcasting media to provide positive coverage and screaming headlines in the run-up to the Mahasrashtra elections. Another form of spin-doctoring is practised by Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. (India's largest media house). Times Private Treaties receives a financial stake in a company in exchange for coverage in their publications. Both forms of news are referred to as “paid news”. Chomsky called it “manufacturing consent”.  Sainath and Vijapurkar have triggered a much needed debate on the ethics of such news.

The Editor’s Guild recently (re)elected Rajdeep Sardesai as it’s President. Rajdeep is editor of CNN-IBN. The channel is also the loudest mouthpiece for the Shave India campaign sponsored by Gillette [ #ShaveIndia ]. The Editors Guild responded to the “paid news” by announcing an ethics committee. The announcement came via a tweet by @rajdeepsardesai that linked to a press release on the Editor’s Guild website.  There was also a front page article in The Hindu the next day.

My Opinion
Paid news has been a problem for a long time. Self-regulation within the media has failed miserably. Urgent action is required. It is unlikely that the Ethics Committee which includes stalwarts like T N Ninan and Madhu Kishwar will be to able to clean up the mess. Unless the promise of self-regulation becomes a reality, the government will have to step in with regulation.

My recommendations
It appears that this committee will not be seeking the opinion of readers and viewers. It would be unfortunate if the most important stakeholder group for the media is ignored while addressing this issue.

In an e-mail to Rajdeep Sardesai, I mentioned some of the areas that the ethics committee should look at closely. I did receive a brief response to the e-mail that indicated that it was received and read. (I thank Rajdeep Sardesai for acknowledging the mail.)

BEGIN QUOTE--

I am led to believe (through your posting on Twitter) that the Editor’s Guild has constituted an ethics committee to frame recommendations on “paid news” and “private treaties”.  I hope this committee is able to make honest recommendations that journalists, editors and managers can turn to.  May I request you to forward a few suggestions to the ethics committee?

At the risk of sounding 'obvious', I would like to suggest the following in the hope that the committee incorporates them

1. Independent directors must be independent. A director or independent director in a media company should not hold a directorship in ANY other company.
   
   
2. Each newspaper/channel should be encouraged to appoint an ombudsman so that readers can send in any grievances that they may have about the quality of content. This recommendation is specifically related to manufactured news
   
   
3. After every National and State election, a newspapers/news channel must publish the billing that they have received
     a) by candidate
     b) by political party
   (irrespective of whether the advertisement is being directly or indirectly paid for by a candidate or party. Proxy advertising needs to be clearly accounted for as well)
   
   
4. Media houses must disclose the names of their top ten 'end' customers based on billing - every quarter (from an advertising stand-point). While it may not be feasible to disclose the value of the billing, the names of the Top10 end customers should ideally be disclosed.
   
   
5. Editorial pages should not contain content that has been paid for (in cash, in kind or by any other means)
   
   
6. Space that is normally used for the masthead should NOT be sold for advertising. The amount of space on the front-page/first-page that is sold for advertising should be capped
   
   
7. Whatever recommendations the committee makes must be extended to the vernacular media as well.

I hope it is appropriate for you to forward these thoughts to the ethics committee.

--END QUOTE

Call To Action

• Some visible steps to increase accountability is critical if the media is to get back some of it’s independence and stay true to it’s cause of being a pillar of democracy.
  
  
• Viewers of the broadcasting media and readers of the print media (both English and Vernacular) must send in their (unsolicited and uninvited) suggestions to the President of the Editor’s Guild.
  (The e-mail ID of the President is available on the contact us page of the editor’s guild website).
  
  
• It is imperative that ethical behaviour be restored, or else the media will face the possibility of regulation. This is not a pleasant outcome for both the Industry and the general public. 

Foot Note 
Jay Rosen in his blogpost "How to know if you are behaving ethically as a journalist: Jay Rosen’s checklist" makes an interesting read for journalists, editors and managers in the media.

An Open Letter to Prannoy Roy (another rant on the Media)

Dear Mr Roy

At the outset I must place on record that you and Appan Menon have done more for the media than most others. Appan Menon was my favourite journalist and he had the potential of becoming one of the greatest journalists that South Asia has produced. Fate unfortunately had different designs. You were able to catalyse radical change in India. You changed the media because both you and Appan Menon were brutally honest. “Those were the days” as far as Indian broadcasting is concerned.

I cannot understand how and where NDTV compromised on the honesty quotient. I understand that the “free-market” does impose restrictions. Your listing on the bourses has meant that investors are a more important stakeholder in the business than your viewers. Your expansion into areas such as advertising (NDTV Media) and lifestyle programming (NDTV Good Times) does pose a lot of restrictions on your ability to critique institutions that use these two vehicles. It must be difficult to prevent an incestuous relationship between some of these companies.

I appreciate that there is no need to make a public admission around the dilution of values. You must have found a conveniently rationalized answer to the challenges that competition and free-market have brought to NDTV’s doorstep.

As a viewer however I must confess that there is much to be desired. Allow me to place before you the most obvious of examples

• NDTV regularly runs stories on Infosys. You do not disclose that Narayanamurthy is an independent director on your board.
• You stooped to astro-turfing when you chose to use the world’s largest auto-manufacturer as a sponsor for NDTV Greenathon. 
• Your crew crossed some moral and ethical line in journalism during their coverage of 26/11. 
• The biased coverage of the Afzal Guru case raises a whole set of questions, especially around your willingness to send a man to the gallows without a fair trial. There are numerous other examples of your studio's obsession with kangaroo trials where anchors get to play judge, jury and prosecution.
  
• NDTV has been willing to paint some of the most democratic movements in this country in the same paint as extremists (read naxal). What’s amusing is that you do this on shows that run advertisements for companies that these democratic movements oppose.
  

One can rationalize a defence for every single one of the above examples. The fact of the matter will remain that there is some truth in each of the examples.

May I suggest that you ask your team some tough questions. I think it is time that you brought the journalism that NDTV is known for back on track and left the entertainment to bollywood.

Anand

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.

Salma Sultan's Question on contemporary Broadcasting

Most Indian's of my age grew up watching Salma Sultan on DD. It was nice to see her in the studios once again, albeit in the gaudy setting of NDTV and CNN IBN, on the occasion of DD's 50th anniversary.

Salma Sultan asked a wonderful question to Rajdeep Sardesai. The question is important and the fact that the question came from a pioneer of Indian News Broadcasting is equally important.


Here is the question to Rajdeep -

" yes .... we were very calm and we did not raise blood pressures like you people do...and aah..I think with changing times maybe this is something that people want or maybe this something that you want to give to people. This is a dilemma I have not been able to solve whether you are giving that kind of style to people or people want that style. That you have to answer." [SIC]

The honcho of the Indian Broadcaster's association (Rajdeep Sardesai) avoided it tactfully by saying that it was a difficult question and softened it further by saying he would need a show where he would be answering questions and not asking them.I am sure the viewers got the point.

She raised a wonderful point on the tonality of today's broadcasters and if "pace" was a good enough excuse to manufacture news and fear.

For those of us who would like to see the full interview -

CapitalClimate: WaPo Blog Policy Promotes Climate Astroturfing

Interesting post on the Capital Climate Blog that touches upon some of the issues that I have been trying to deal with in my blog.

CapitalClimate: WaPo Blog Policy Promotes Climate Astroturfing

Face Book and Manufacturing Consent

Social Networking sites are attracting an increasing number of users from India. The benefits are many. For example, my class reunion was made possible because people were "found" on Facebook. As a tool the "warm and fuzzy" opportunities that sites such as Orkut and Facebook provide are beyond debate. Twitter takes it a step further by allowing for proliferation of information "at the speed of thought".

On the flip side, Facebook is losing visitors on account of privacy concerns and twitter forces "concision" of an idea because of design limitations. The applications/sites can not be blamed for these two issues. A user, by his willingness to participate, accepts that there are risks and limitations to the virtual spaces that social networking sites create.

My key concern is not with the motives of the websites/applications. None of these sites claim an altruistic motive and not a single one of them wear's a halo around their logos. They all claim to be in existence to generate a profit.

The gray area is around the quality of information that they generate in "public spaces". A vast majority of people are still not on the information superhighway. Public debates and discussions about them (people not on the web) in social networking spaces is incomplete without their participation.

Let us take a specific example. The elections in Iran were received with a great of deal of criticism by the American media. The evidence that the media had - was not so much based on ground reporting as much as it was based on comments and posts that were appearing in social networking sites. One has to admit, and even the most die-hard fan of Web 2.0 has to agree, that the rural Iranian is not the most likely person to use the web to express dissent. And if the American media is to be believed it is this demographic group that voted the incumbent back to power (albeit based on a populist policy of re-distributing a bumper potato crop). Is it "democratic" to have Facebook/Twitter/YouTube users manufacture an opinion that is built on a) incomplete facts b) has only one side of the story and c) is detrimental to the interests of the people who do not have the "access" to join the debate. The closest offline example that comes to mind is the way the television media covered 26/11 without any regard for the victims or the security forces engaged in a gun battle with the terrorists.

In a more recent example - activists are passing "scraps" that encourage people to engage with a "cause" by reciprocating a "scrap". A closer examination of these causes leads me to believe that these are not necessarily the right campaigns to be supporting from a third world perspective. The very contemporary American debates on universal healthcare and reproductive rights of women are two such causes/campaigns that are spreading like wildfire across Indian users.

The American healthcare debate is about getting large corporates to take more ownership and less profit from the American healthcare system. The nature and complexion of the healthcare debate is very different in India. We cannot blame or invite insurance companies into the debate as insurance is not within the reach of 800 million Indians. To talk about the role of private healthcare would be pointless as they are non-existent or out of reach for a majority of Indians. The two debates are very different. We can cannot cloud our debate on health with the American perspective. Our perspective needs to be more socially oriented and has nothing to do with monetary profits. The American perspective is about finding a means to equitably redistribute profits from the healthcare system to those who are in genuine need of health care. There is a big difference in the two debates and it boils down to Vitamin M. India centers it around health, America centers it around money.

Indian laws that protect a woman's rights exist. The problem is not with what is legal and what is not. The problem is with how these laws are interpreted and implemented. Female fetocide is illegal, but it still happens. Dowry is illegal, but it still happens. Rape is illegal, but it still happens. In India the debate should not be about what the law should be but it should be about empowering people and the appropriate stakeholders with tools that will help them enforce these laws. To stand up and shout for rights would be distracting attention from the root issue of how to get existing laws implemented. The Indian Web 2.0 user is quick to jump on this "Westernized Perspective" without realizing the futility of such an approach in the Indian context. Why should our debate on gender, sexuality, affirmative action be based on Western precedents when a) their problem statements are different and b) our ground realities are different.

There is a tremendous amount of noise that is being generated about "issues of concern" in Social Networking spaces. This noise is making it increasingly difficult to understand and find diverse perspectives. One is being forced to take sides without understanding the complete issue. The side that gains momentum is typically the side that is able to make the most creative use of the Web 2.0 medium. Hypothetically, it would be possible for a good strategist to use these spaces to manufacture opinion about a specific issue (e.g. Iran). To do this would be politically incorrect as it would be manufacturing consent. Will web 2.0 be able to facilitate any sort of debate on development in India that is inclusive?