Kanchi: Media Watch

Author: Dr. J. K. Bajaj
Publication: Centre for Policy Studies

The Delhi edition of the "Hindu" of today carries a five column story on the issue of the arrest of Sri Kamakoti Peethadhipati Jagadguru Sankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal. The story is entitled, "Case against Acharya gets strengthened: police". The story is prominently displayed and forms the second lead on the first page. As the title indicates, the story is based on a briefing on the issue by the police. And it is not a public briefing by any named officer who may be held responsible for the averments made; it is a private briefing attributed to unnamed police sources.

The story makes the contra-intuitive point that the retraction of the confessions by two of the accused, which form the most significant part of the evidence on the basis of which the Acharya was arrested, actually strengthens the police case against the. The rest of the story carries varied insinuations against the Acharya and other people who, unlike the source in the police, have been named by the newspaper.

The second main news page of the paper, opposite the edit page, prominently carries the story of the rejection by the Supreme Court of a PIL requesting CBI probe into the issue.

The stories regarding protest and agitation against the arrest are relegated to small entries at the bottom of this page. And, the letter written by the Prime Minister of India to the Chief Minster of Tamil Nadu expressing concern about the health of the Acharya is placed on an inconsequential internal page, a quarter of which is devoted to news from the South and the remaining three-fourths to advertisements.

The editorial page carries an article by Rajeev Dhawan which claims to assess the evidence against the Acharya and concludes that "there is a strong prima facie case" against the Acharya and hence denial of bail to him is justified. There is nothing in the article to indicate that the author, who is also a senior lawyer, has relied on any information beyond the published reports before arriving at his legal opinion, which he has chosen to express so publicly. In the rest of the article, the author goes on to excoriate all that the Acharya has been doing throughout his life. This is trial by the media at its worst.

It seems that the role the "Hindu" is performing is not that of a newspaper, of an unbiased reporter of the events and views, but that of a party to the dispute and prosecution.

Much of the mainstream English press and almost all of the visual media are behaving similarly. Since there cannot possibly be a personal animus against the Acharya, it seems what is motivating the media is an animus against the Hindu society. They seem to be having a field day reviling all that the Hindu society holds sacred.

Should or can we keep quiet?