*MEDIA Two things have died in the media-outrage and compassion Photo: Sanjay Ahlawat By P. Sainath *We are in the middle of the greatest agrarian crisis seen in this country since the Green Revolution. Millions have left their villages for other villages, towns and cities in search of jobs which are not there. Eighty lakh people quit farming between 1991 and 2001. Did the Indian media do this story? Here are the basic assertions I make in connection with the media and the agrarian crisis. One, the fundamental feature of the media of our times is the growing disconnect between the mass media and the mass reality. Two, there is a structural shutout of the poor in the media. Three, there is a corporate hijack of media agendas. Four, of the so-called four estates of democracy, media is the most exclusive and the most elitist.
The moral universe of the media has shifted. Two things have died-outrage and compassion. You have a lot of drawing-room outrage, but not over issues that moved earlier generations of journalists. The structural shutout of the poor is evident in the way beats are organised in newspapers. You have fashion, design and glamour correspondents. In a country with the largest number of rural poor, you do not have one full-time correspondent on the beat of rural or urban poverty. In a country whose unemployment is simply stunning, the labour correspondent is extinct. 2006 was the worst year of farmer suicides. How many national media journalists were covering the agrarian crisis in Vidarbha? There were six. But there were 512 journalists covering the Lakme Fashion Week in Mumbai. What were the girls displaying at the Fashion Week? Cotton garments. One hour's flight away from Mumbai, the men and women who grew that cotton were committing suicide at the rate of six a day. Wasn't that a story? There is journalism and there is stenography; 80 per cent of journalism you are reading or viewing today is stenography. Everyone knows there is a crisis of credit. Thanks to the loan waiver. How many of your newspapers or channels have told you that the guys who are claiming that they have expanded credit have closed down 4,750 bank branches in the last 15 years? The Census and the National Sample Survey narrow down migration to mean people leaving the villages for the city. Since 1990s, migrations are more complex. There is rural-to-rural, rural-to-metro migration, rural-to-semi-urban, urban-to-urban and finally urban-to-rural migration. Yes, urban-to-rural migration is there because wages have collapsed in the countryside and small businesses are moving there to utilise cheap labour. In Gondia, Maharashtra, every morning hundreds of urban women journey into rural Vidarbha for work. There is the economic survey put by the finance minister in Parliament every Budget session. What has stopped the media from picking up the story it tells you? Per capita availability of foodgrain has fallen from 510gm a day in 1991 to 422gm in 2005-a fall of 88gm for one billion people for 365 days a year! That means your average family is consuming 100kg less of foodgrain than it consumed a decade ago. Where is your outrage? You have a price rise. There is a differential impact of this on different classes of society. But look at some of the stories that are coming-that in a middle class family, the son cannot take cricket coaching because of the price rise! Where we should have told stories, we sold products. Where we needed scepticism, we exercised sycophancy. Where we needed journalism at its best, we produced stenography at its worst. We continued to cordon the elite and turn our backs on millions experiencing despair. We turned the great principle of journalism upside down which was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. *The article is an abridged version of the Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture-2008 on Media and the Agrarian Crisis, organised by the Editors Guild of India.* ** http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?sectionName=Current+Events&contentId=3897309&programId=1073754900&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL&BV_ID =@@@ On 28/04/2008, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Murali > > To claim Swami Aiyar's credentials based on his Oxonian MA smacks of > colonial hangover and academic snobbery. My comparison with Sainath is a > simple one - Sainath has travelled extensively in the "hinterland" and his > reportage is based on findings on the field both of them being journalists, > while Aiyars is based on selective hearsay sitting in his second floor > office on 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg - there definitely is a huge gap in > terms of the kind of empiricism they bring on board. > > I would like to know the empirical data that you claim that shows the > linkage between poverty reduction and neo-liberal reforms. You are making > what is known as a "circular" argument in Logic. If bad governance is the > problem (thats is a separate debate), then, why blame the Nehruvian and > Indira socialist models for (the same way you make a case for neo-liberal > reforms) presumed "failiures". > > I am as sceptical about a centralised or authoritarian way of functioning > as a consumption driven model - but isnt the consumption-driven-model also > centrally and non-democratically imposed? For instance how democratic and > non-centralised in their working is the IMF or the World Bank?. > > In another thread you were complaining about the cultural hegemony of > Marxist thinking. But whether one likes it or not, methodologies (in plural) > that evolved from Marxist dialectics still play an important role in > analysis in social sciences - the way theology or any of other > historical-cultural baggages we as human societies carry with us. The > question for a single alternative itself is centralised - why not multiple > alternatives, why not diversities in ideologies? > > And finally how does one label anything rom NREGS (I am not a fan of it) > or JNURM as "standard socialist"? What is standard socialism? > > Best > > > On 28/04/2008, Murali K Warier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dear Bobby, > > > > Thanks for your and others' comments. Sorry for the long silence. > > > > >Swami Aiyar is a economics journalist and not an economist - > > consulting editor to Economic times and a widely read column - this does not > > make a claim for empirical research, but for opinion. > > > > Aiyar also happens to be a research fellow at the Cato Institute, > > besides having a masters' degree in Economics from Oxford. So I guess > > empirical research is not that alien to him. At any rate, I value him not > > because he is an 'authority' - far too many people in authority have been > > wrong far too many times in the past - but because he makes his comments in > > the light of empirical data, and it makes eminent sense. In other words, all > > his opinions are not subjective opinions like in the op-ed columns on film > > or food. > > > > >The experience till now seems to suggest a burgeoning India shining > > middle class and a increasingly despondent poverty - stricken suicide prone > > "others". > > > > The folly is in viewing the former as the cause of the latter. The > > plight of the poor hadn't been any better during the heydays of 'garibi > > hatao' socialism. True, the Gini index has worsened after liberalization, > > but I don't worry about it too much, because Gini index is only part of the > > story - the largest poverty reduction also happens in countries that show an > > upward trend in Gini index. > > > > Also, empirical data suggests that the greatest reduction in poverty > > happened after the liberalization of the economy.But how could one explain > > the widespread belief that both the conditions and the number of the poor > > have worsened in the last decade or so? That could be because we err using > > 'availability > > heuristic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic>' - we > > see that the contrast between the haves and the have-nots has never been > > sharper. We don't realize it's because there used to be too few well-off > > people in the past compared to now, not because there are more poor people > > today. > > > > It has become a favorite ditty of all and sundry that the benefits of > > liberalization hasn't reached the poor yet, if there are any benefits, that > > is. I will slightly modify this - it is not the benefits alone, but > > liberalization itself that has bypassed them. As exemplified by the plight > > of the rickshaw wallahs in Delhi, those layers of the economy were the poor > > mostly eke out their living have been untouched by the reforms - rent > > seekers and manipulators reign supreme out there. Most of India's problems > > could be summed up in two words - failure of governance. What does > > neo-liberalism has got to do with that? > > > > Socialism is rightly criticized for its failures. Maybe some people are > > overdoing it. But the tendency to blame capitalism for anything and > > everything is far more widespread. Take a look at the latest tilt at the > > neo-liberal windmills: http://www.epw.org.in/uploads/articles/11940.pdf- > > Raj Thackerey's hooliganism, of all things, is credited to the account of > > capitalism! > > > > Bobby expressed his skepticism of the consumption driven model. I can > > understand the sentiment. But what is the alternative? Central planning? > > Sorry. The urge to innovate and to improve one's condition is ingrained in > > human nature. Any system that seeks to ignore - or worse still, suppress - > > such basic instincts, from prohibition to Communism, will only lead to > > disaster, I am afraid. > > > > Best regards, > > Murali > > > > NB: I was wondering when the failure of NREGS, a standard socialist > > welfare scheme, would be put down to neo-liberalism. Seems I don't have to > > wait any longer, the CPI(ML) guys have already fulfilled that 'dream' :) > > > > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > One more factual error in your mail, Swami Aiyar is a economics > > > journalist and not an economist - consulting editor to Economic times and > > > a > > > widely read column - this does not make a claim for empirical research, > > > but > > > for opinion. A very typical Indian dominant caste arrogance that > > > celebrates > > > APJ Abdul Kalam, who has not written one scientific paper in his life as a > > > scientist. "I hold the opinion and I am educated and therefore it ought to > > > be true" kind of attitude. In other words, you better agree with my > > > opinion- > > > because of who Iam. The same attitude that in some mails on the Chengara > > > issue has been accused of in the CPIM circles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they > > don't want to hear. > > > > > > > > > -- > Bobby Kunhu -- Bobby Kunhu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
