Strayed Navnirman-II

There is substance in the issue raised. However, since the issue is very contextual, what matters the most is how this issue is analysed. Let us first understand that the feeling of insecurity among the locals against the non-locals is not uncommon. The USA is witnessing it and so is the U.K., Australia or any other country with high number of immigrants. Even in our country, there have been stray incidents of erruptions against people from other states. Since, most of the other states in India are less developed as compared to Maharashtra, there are less number of employment opportunities in these states. No wonder then, that for people in other states, Maharashtra offers limitless opportunities. However, even though we would like to believe that all the regions in Maharashtra are equally developed, the fact is, development in Maharashtra hasn't been beyond Mumbai and few other cities. Bold statements from the politicians apart, the rural Maharashtra is actually dying a slow death. This uneven development pattern within Maharashtra is making the matters worse. Since, people within Maharashtra are willing to migrate to Mumbai and few other cities such as Pune & Nagpur, the influx of 'outsiders' to these cities is upsetting the locals as they feel they have the right to be benefitted first from Mumbai's development as it belongs to Maharashtra.

In order to restore the situation, a detailed long term plan, rather than a 'Quick-fix' is required. The states which contribute to the influx in Maharashtra should introspect about why the people from those states migrate to Maharashtra. People in Maharashtra should clearly understand that development is an irreversible process. It is upto the people of Maharashtra whether to run away from the situation or embrace the opportunities the development offers. Also, to fight influx,people of Maharashtra should equip themselves with the right approach and aquire necessary skills.

What has Maharashtra lost in the whole bargain? A great deal. First of all, despite having the maximum number of migrants from every other state in India, Maharashtra's friedly image is dented and today it is perceived as hostile and the people of Maharashtra, stubborn. Media has contributed in its own way. When it was busy publishing stories of poor taxi drivers from Bihar being beaten mercilessly, hardly any one of them noticed that Maharashtra was one of the first states to send doctors for the rescue work in flood affected areas. While it was worth publishing a story of so-called killing of a young man who had come for an interview from Bihar(which was later proven irresponsible journalism), the news of a common Maharashtrian donating Rs. one and a half lakhs from his meagre retirement funds to Bihar flood relief fund was not at all important. This media bias has played an important role in forming opinions about people of Maharashtra. Finally, despite having contributed the maximum in our country's freedom struggle and despite being very patriotic, Maharashtra, thanks to its politicians, has inadvertently, acted against the national interest.

The only ray of hope is the fact that not all of Maharashtra follows Mr. Thakre(Raj or Uddhav) just as not all of Bihar follows Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav and not all of U.P. follows Mr. Amar Singh or Ms. Mayawati.

Strayed Navnirman

I contemplated writing about the recent developments in Maharashtra as soon as the events broke out but decided otherwise because when emotions abound, rationale is a passé. Now, after prolonged high-drama, political mileage and emotions galore, I think, everyone who is concerned about our homeland, can introspect and take a stand much more logically. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (henceforth referred to as MNS) has lost a historical chance to accentuate its difference with other regional & national political parties. The recent events have just proven that MNS is no different than, say BJP or Congress & its leader, in the same league of Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mayawati or Amar Singh.

The issue at hand is a very serious one. It is not just regional unrest due to growing unemployment or political tussle between two warring brothers as it is portrayed in most of the media. We will of course, evaluate the MNS demands in this series of articles. However, no matter what, these kind of agitations need to be nipped at the bud. Our country is already bleeding on all its borders. We have separatist movements in North-east India, J & K, Naxalism in central Indian states, infiltration issues with states bordering Bangladesh. If we do not curb these MNS activities, the day will not be far when India will be ‘Balconised’ and there would be 30 odd countries representing the erstwhile India.

The constitution grants the citizens of India the right to settle down anywhere in India (barring exception of J & K.) This means that anyone from any part of India can settle down in Maharashtra and the vice versa. Mr. Thakre contends that the influx is only one way and this influx from around the country is unsettling the employment balance, as the locals are not getting a bigger pie.

Let us see a simple rule of economics. Let us say, a Bihari earns Rs. 20,000/- in Mumbai. He is bound to spend about 70% of it in Mumbai for his grocery, laundry, food etc. This amount, which he spends, in turn generates a lot of employment opportunities as the Bihari needs a grocer, a barber, tailor to serve him. This is how an open economy grows. Since the market forces drive employment, when the locals fail to embrace these employment opportunities, somebody else grabs them.

In such a situation, instead of beating a poor taxi driver with very limited means and muscle or financial power, Mr. Thakre should set out to change the mind-set of locals and equip them to grab the employment opportunities. MNS complains that there are far too many north-Indian taxi drivers, hawkers, cobblers etc. Who has stopped the locals in choosing these occupations?..........(To be continued)

Media in the Business of Manufacturing Consent-III

We have been, in the past subjected to a lot of consent manufacturing by the media. Remember Enron? In its days, India’s so-called intellectuals, lobbyists were busy explaining how Enron could sort out India’s power woes. Today, nobody wants to even mention Enron, lest talk about it. Who matters in consent manufacturing? Those who are in a position to make the decisions that determine the way the society functions. They are a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates and investment firms. It may seem cynical but they are also the ones who staff the major executive positions in the government. They're the ones who own the media and they're the ones who have to be in a position to make the decisions. However, it will be amateurish to consider major corporations as the only influencers. There's more to it than meets the eye. Some population in the society is always privy to high life, relatively educated, more or less articulate and plays some kind of role in decision-making. They're the ones who participate in & influence social life e.g. teachers and writers. They're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated.

If you follow the link in all these three articles, you know precisely why it is very important to own / control media. Media sets a general agenda that others more or less adhere to. And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control and they restrict -- in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite` groups in the society.

If only we understand the motives & rationale` of the interest groups behind the business of manufacturing consent, we would learn to read between the lines.


Suggested further reading:
http://www.chomsky.info/
Web of Deceit-Mark Curtis
Manufacturing Consent: By Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky

Media in the Business of Manufacturing Consent-II

Let us first understand the compulsions of the media houses behind promoting certain kinds of news to certain class of people. Almost all media that reach a large audience across the world are owned by for-profit corporations. These corporations, obviously put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations. The goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism. The companies which own most of the the media are becoming larger and fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This concentration of ownership tends to reduce the diversity of media voices. As news outlets fall into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries, conflicts of interest inevitably interfere with newsgathering.

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. Today, only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- control most of the media industry in the U.S.

What attracts the advertisers towards the media? Let us understand what Noam Chomsky has to very fittingly say about this:

[T]he New York Times [is] a corporation and sells a product. The product is audiences. They don’t make money when you buy the newspaper. They are happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually lose money when you buy the newspaper. But the audience is the product. … You have to sell a product to a market, and the market is, of course, advertisers (that is, other businesses). Whether it is television or newspapers, or whatever, they are selling audiences. Corporations sell audiences to other corporations.
— Noam Chomsky, What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream, Z Magazine, June 1997.

As mentioned in my previous blog, this is precisely how the media houses cater to the advertisers. When the advertising forms such a strong revenue stream, it starts influencing the the editors in selecting the articles which suit the products advertised. Let us now see what Ben H. Bagdikian has to say:

The influence of advertising on magazines reached a point where editors began selecting articles not only on the basis of their expected interest for readers but for their influence on advertisements. Serious articles were not always the best support for ads. An article that put the reader in an analytical frame of mind did not encourage the reader to take seriously an ad that depended on fantasy or promoted a trivial product. An article on genuine social suffering might interrupt the “buying” mood on which most ads for luxuries depend. The next step, seen often in mid-twentieth century magazines, was commissioning articles solely to attract readers who were good prospects to buy products advertised in the magazine. After that came the magazine phenomenon of the 1970s — creating magazines for an identifiable special audience and selling them to particular advertisers.
— Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), p.138.

Having understood the compulsions & the rationale` behind media's interests in catering to certain classes, let us, in the next blog see how media manufactures consent.

Media in the Business of Manufacturing Consent

Over the last few years, the Indian media has been obsessed with the most trivial topics. Journalists are more interested in telling the world that India’s burgeoning new middle class finally has access to McDonald’s burgers or the latest international designer labels. They are keen to tell us that Mahendrasingh Dhoni has changed his hairstyle yet again or that Saif Ali Khan has proposed to Kareena Kapoor. They prefer writing about proliferation of weight-loss clinics and beauty contests rather than writing about hunger or lack of clean drinking water. While India has been registering food surplus for the last decade (barring some exceptional years), there are millions of people in India who are starving. Yet, few in the media thought the paradox worth pursuing (Notable exception of P. Sainath)

Dozens of cover stories appeared about India’s automobile revolution in the recent years and there is no story about the lack of reliable public transport system or the fact that bicycle sales, a reliable indicator of rural well-being, have dwindled.

What accounts for the disconnection between mass media and mass reality? The growing corporatisation of the media is largely responsible for this: Businesses believe that the media is a business like any other, not a public forum. Media’s popular contention is that it shows what people really want. Actually it is vice versa. When one is in business, one takes care to see that every stakeholder's interests are protected. E.g. a newspaper promoting beauty contests and elitist lifestyle is sure to get the advertisements for the FMCG products. Who cares about farmers’ suicides? Let’s take another example. In all the major TV channels aired in India in any language, show me a soap about the truly rural issues such as hunger, unemployment or displacement. You won’t find any and the answer is simple. Profits and advertising do not rhyme with socially relevant issues. Ok. Let’s take another example. We all watch the supposedly wildlife channels such as National Geographic or Discovery. We have seen a lion or a tiger chasing the animals for hunt at least hundred times. How many times we have seen what the real issues of deforestation or poaching are? Not many times, right?

Well, so much for the media’s obsession about trivia. Let us also see how media manufactures consent. We have seen numerous examples of how the media, including 'The Economist', initially reacted to the meltdown in the USA. Nobody even agreed that there was a problem till as late as July this year. I read a report wherein all the leading economists had praised the FDI in Iceland as late as July this year. Today, barely 4 months later, the country's top four banks now hold foreign liabilities in excess of $100 billion, debts that dwarf Iceland's gross domestic product of $14 billion & the forex reserves of $ 3 billion.

In one of my next blogs, we will see how powerful the Media is and how a few control what we hear, read or see.