In a recent report in The Times of India, the power of the media was expressed by Tony Blair, the ex-prime minister of UK. The report said:
QUOTE Blair said he had made a strategic decision not to take on the power of the press during his time in office, despite calls for tougher media regulation following the death of Diana, princess of Wales in 1997. He said he had taken care to court the press because if media groups had turned against him, it would have been a "huge and sustained attack". ........ The biggest problem in the British press, he said, was blurred lines between news and comment in some papers, where reporting becomes an "instrument of political power". Blair identified The Sun and the right-wing Daily Mail, owned by Associated Newspapers, as Britain's most powerful newspapers. "Once they are against you, that's it. It's full frontal, day in, day out; basically a lifetime commitment," he said. "The fact is if you fall out with the controlling element of the Daily Mail you are then going to be subject to a huge and sustained attack," he added. "There is a substantial power there. In my view not simply in the Murdoch media. The power is significant. If you've got a readership of three to four million... that's power." He said it was inevitable that top politicians and senior media executives would have close interactions. Among the main media blocs, "Murdoch's are most powerful", he said, and "you have to take that into account with your strategy". It was "absolutely" important to "try and get The Sun on board" as he tried to oust the Conservatives from office after 18 years at the 1997 election, Blair said. UNQUOTE The issue here is whether the media is using the power in a professional manner or not. The sense I get from what Blair says that he thinks it is not. (I would personally agree with him in this context, even in India.) If this contention is correct, then, I think, the media should introspect and ask itself how the power can be used in a professional manner, and that the media is not used as an instrument of political power. Recently, I mentioned to a business friend of mine that NDTV and IBN have accumulated losses of Rs 300 crores each. As a businessman, he asked how these losses are financed. I told him that the balance sheets published by them do not give a clear indication. I asked him if he would ask representatives of these organisations the query he had in his mind, if he ever met them. He said that he would not, because the media has a huge nuisance value, and he would not wish to expend his time in dealing with such issues. I wondered that it is strange that in a democracy we should be so afraid of the media. PS: The Outlook magazine has accumulated losses of Rs 100 crores, which is financed by unsecured loan from the promoters, namely the Rahejas of Mumbai. Tehelka magazine has accumulated losses of Rs 50 crores. It is being financed by increase in equity, at very high premiums. The source of the funds is not clear. All the above information is gleaned from published figures.
