Moa Jamir
The real-life Howard Beale of Indian newsroom was “mad as hell.” Even by his own standards, Arnab Goswami’s open call for acting against those who “disagree” with him was unprecedented. Goswami is the editor-in-chief and anchor of the news channel Times Now.
In his widely popular prime time discussion show Newshour, hashtagged #ProPakDovesSilent, he ranted against “a section of pseudo-liberals” for vilifying the army and security forces over the ongoing unrest in Kashmir.
“...Many of these pseudo-liberals have been vilifying our army, abusing our army, and pressurising our army and our paramilitary forces operating in the most hostile of circumstances in Jammu and Kashmir...,” Goswami thundered.
Pratik Kanjibal in a column in The Indian Express wrote that while the rest of India was observing Kargil Divas, Goswami “observed” by remembering his “competitors” adding that his diatribe was framed as a call to public action against a whole class of citizens, from television anchors to students who do not share his views.
“Do these people compromise our national security or not?... And if they do, which we know they do...Why don’t we take on these people?” the self-proclaimed dispenser of justice and conscience keeper of India nudged his viewers.
Change “Jammu and Kashmir” to any conflict areas in India, especially the Northeast, his assertion is serious, ominous and a death knell.
Sensationalism is one thing but baying for the blood of others who disagree with one’s view is purely diabolical and vindictive. However, in Goswami’s theatrics world of journalism, he is the Judge, Jury, and the Executioner. Polarization is the name of the game. You are either with “us or not.”
Nothing is grey in his matter and there is no middle path.Integrity, in his lingo, is the ultimate devotion to something he considers as the ultimate truth. Objectivity, thus, is the biggest casualty. “Television is a God-damned amusement park! ...We're in the boredom-killing business!” the reel life anchor Howard Beale bellowed in the movie “Network.”
Goswami has appropriated this to a frightening extent. For one thing is for sure, people watch the channel not for its newsworthiness but for the ruckus and dramatic theatrical entertainment it presents by manoeuvring the daily news.
In fact, it is the new runaway reality TV show keeping the nation riveted with cleverly crafted story with distinct plotline and presentation. Panels are carefully selected. The idea is not to debate an issue in a nuanced manner but to indulge them in confrontations. Thus, two belligerent parties from extreme poles are pitted to shout against each other while sane voices are craftily silenced in the background.
That a soldier who wrote a scathing attack against the Kashmiri protester or a retired veteran who shed copious tears on national TV during the JNU fracas is now a permanent fixture in the show is a case in point. Vilification and character assassination by taking a position based on his ideological conceptualization of India becomes a regular fixture in his ‘trial hour,’ notwithstanding India’s constitutional values and ethos.
Negotiation is not his forte and pluralism is a passé but insinuation and instigation, the show has in abundance. Consequently, he once called a fellow journalist a “cover for Indian Mujahidin,” and lashed out at JNU students for being “worse than Maoist,” which apart from doctored tapes, start the disparagement of the entire institution. His stated position on many issues borders on rogue vigilantism and jingoism.
Toe his line or the judge will pronounce you unworthy of either your patriotism or citizenship. Fervent populist rhetoric with selective presentation, ideological proclivity towards the majoritarian worldview is pitted against traditional pluralism India cultivated over the years.
By calling the other media, ‘pseudo-liberals’, his cosying up with the nationalistic force seems to be fermented. But such assertion is dangerous and holds adverse ramification of those working in conflict areas. The media is considered a watchdog of public affairs and government.
Any journalistic code of ethics will entail you to go beyond superficiality and objectively present, for instance, the underlying causes of conflict from all points of view. But insinuating the audience to act against those not toeing the official position, the idea of a free press is itself put on trial, ironically by one of its own.
“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media,” Noam Chomsky once wrote arguing that “Freedom of Press is fundamental to the foundation of the country.”
It portentously and frighteningly resonates with the current episode.
For any comment, drop a line to moajamir@live.com
