A case of bad score-keeping In Gujarat, the media was only BJP-bashing

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=15021

A case of bad score-keeping In Gujarat, the media was only BJP-bashing
T V R Shenoy

T V R Shenoy I got up early this past Sunday morning to watch Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist at their destructive best as they pounded a hapless England into submission. Then, rather reluctantly, I shifted channels to watch the unfolding news as Narendra Modi and his colleagues pounded a hapless Congress into submission. There was, however, one striking difference between these two awesome performances.

Watching the cricket I was never in any doubt about what the score was at any given time. Even if I couldn’t read the small print on the screen, the commentators made it a point to announce it at the end of every over. That is one habit the ‘expert’ commentators on STAR News, ZEE-News, and Aaj Tak could have — should have — copied from their colleagues. The bones of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s victory were apparent as early as ten o’ clock in the morning, but everyone seemed curiously reluctant to put some flesh on them!

By noon, I had AN earache from hearing the same comments over and over again when what I wanted was the hard numbers. So, I went back happily to the cricket, to watch England’s answer to the Australians. It wasn’t much of a performance. By late afternoon, I was back at the news; it wasn’t much of a performance either.

I had two questions. How many seats had the BJP and the Congress won? How many seats had fallen to other parties or independent candidates? Up to midnight, three channels were giving three different sets of figures, with the BJP getting anywhere between 125 and 128 seats, the Congress in the range of 49 to 52. The uncertainty continued into the morning.

The Statesman gave the BJP 127 seats and 50 to the Congress. The Times of India put the score at 125 and 52. The Hindustan Times claimed it was actually 126 and 51. All three agreed that four seats had fallen into the ‘Others’ category, but there was no information on who they were. This was irritating. Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party and Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party had put up candidates, and I wanted to know how they performed outside their bosses’ home turf.

The answer came courtesy the Election Commission’s web site. (Nothing fancy, just the hard figures.) For the record, the BJP tally is 126 and that of the Congress is 51. Two seats — Jhagadia and Dediapada — fell to the Janata Dal (United), and two more — Chotila and Deodar — to independent candidates.

The media is quick to hurl charges of intolerance. But is it not guilty of the same vice? Experts had made up their minds that the only reasons for the BJP victory were an aggressive Hindutva and the post-Godhra riots
These results were available at 9:16 pm on Sunday according to the time-stamp. So why were they not given to newspaper readers and television viewers? Are we journalists trying to force readers to seek primary sources courtesy the Internet? Have we forgotten our first duty is to garner and distribute the facts? That is exactly what the media did not do, mired as it was in the fascinating swamp of analysis, comments, and expert opinions.

This was not the only area where the media failed to impress. I pass with a wince over the assessments made by individual reporters about the probable outcome of the polls; they were, after all, as good as anything produced by the psephologists — if a little less credible than those of astrologers. But at times it appeared as if the Ayatollahs of secularism had issued fatwas that none might defy with impunity. Let me give two examples: everybody agreed that the BJP had done remarkably in constituencies where the Adivasi vote was a major factor. One television correspondent ventured to report that this might have been due to the work put in by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in the form of schools and primary health centres. The anchor thanked her, saying he would get back to her. And that was the last I saw and heard of her.

In the run-up to the polls, there had been one political murder. There was one other loss of life after the results came out. Both men were BJP workers. Yet at least one regional channel accused the party of having unleashed violence!

The media is quick to hurl charges of intolerance at some groups. But is it not guilty of the same vice? It seemed as if the experts had made up their minds that the sole reasons for the BJP victory were an aggressive Hindutva and the post-Godhra riots.

To cite another example, an opinion poll conducted for Frontline hit bullseye by predicting a 50.5 per cent share of the votes for the BJP. The same exercise found that a small section of the Muslims would vote for Modi’s party. This was brushed aside with the comment that it was probably because of ‘fear’. The reasoning is simple: no Muslim in his right mind shall vote for the BJP. (The addendum being that a Hindu must vote against the party to prove his secularism.)

BJP-bashing did not end with the results. Instead, the party’s central leadership was taunted with questions about how the Gujarat ‘experiment’ would be repeated elsewhere. Any protests were met with accusations that ‘aggressive’ politicians were attacking the media.

Who are we harming with such accusations? The Gujarat results suggest that ‘liberal’ attacks on Modi proved spectacular own-goals. We are in danger of destroying only our own credibility if we continue at this rate.

On taking over as chief minister, Narendra Modi jested that he was playing a one-day match. He scored at a truly Gilchristian rate. Would that one could say the media box kept the score half as well!