Media and Violence

How has the media treated the Khairlanji killings and its aftermath, the ended in large scale mob violence in many parts of urban maharshtra. News of the Khairlanji killings had been circulating in informal channels of communications established by dalit organizations. The mainstream media was apparently so clued out of this network that they didn’t realize something was brewing. Add to this the inept handling by the state government of the situation. The home minister blamed naxalites, the ISI and just about anybody, but did zilch to bring the actual perpetrators to justice. Again, his ‘conspiracy theory’ comments received wide publicity in the mainstream media.
Now let us come to the second part of the story. Everyone was taken by surprise by the violence that has rocked maharashtra over the last one week. Media commentary has put it down to simmering dalit anger over the Khairlanji incident where 4 members of a dalit family were brutally murdered by upper caste villagers. The two women were sexually humiliated and raped. The spark was provided by the desecration of an Ambedkar statue in kanpur. The strange part is that while Kanpur remained calm Maharashtra burned.
According to commentary in the mainstream and alternative media the violence that rocked urban centres in Maharashtra was spontaneous and uncoordinated. The dalit leadership, as represented by the various factions of the Republican Party is hopelessly splintered and opportunistic. According to at least one commentator this episode marks the emergence of a new movement in Dalit politics. Enough has been said about the politics. I want to concentrate on one aspect, how the media represented the entire chain of events.
Although the incident happened in end September, the national media did not pick up the story for a month after it happened. So what happened in this period? News of the ry. When an Ambedkar statue was desecrated in Kanpur the consequences were felt in Maharashtra. Mobs went on the rampage. Two local trains were burned in Bombay apart from the Deccan Queen, the intercity exress that plies between Pune and Bombay. The visuals made for good sensational footage and in the best traditions of the media they made front-page news in the newspapers and breaking news on the TV channels.
But one thing intrigued me the most. It was a report that some television channels were repeatedly airing footage of the Ambedkar statue desecration in Kanpur. This footage played a crucial role in fanning sentiments among viewers that led to the violence. It got to a point where the police had to call up the channels and request them to stop showing the provocative visuals. At least one channel disregarded that request and repeatedly broadcast the offending story.
The role of the broadcast media and its use of visuals that had shock value potential and the ability to provoke a reaction needs to be looked at more closely. By repeatedly airing this particular footage, aided no doubt by in-your-face commentary from studio anchors, the media played a crucial role in a particular chain of events playing themselves out. It would be wrong to lay the blame entirely on the media’s doorstep. Tempers were already running high and all it needed was a spark to set if off. There are many courses along which the line of events from the Khairlanji killings through the statue desecration could have played out. It is not a certainty that this line would have led to the large scale mob violence that was witnessed. But the fact that it did take this turn aided by the mass media is interesting. Was this a result that was ‘inevitable’ or even ‘desirous’ given the cut-throat media environment. After all, what makes for more gripping TV viewing than violence?
Jean Baudrillard identified the spread and saturation of the mass media as a defining feature of the post modern society. The ability of the media to create and define a reality of its own is a crucial part of the post-modern society. What we witnessed in Maharashtra was an example of the media nudging events in the direction it wanted and thus creating a situation that justifies its own relevance.

Empire strikes back

The Arabic channel Al-Jazeera has started broadcasting in English. Al Jazeer English marks a milestone in the history of news and broadcast and may have important consequences for turning the tide in the global flow of information and images. Hitherto, the west has had a monopoly on information. It was the countries of North America and Europe that controlled the flow of news through outlets like CNN and BBC that had a global reach. This monopoly was used to control news flow in a way that favoured a western point of view. This became painfully apparent during gulf war II when “embedded” journalists traveled with American army columns and prostituted news reporting. Apparently, even “liberal” media outlets like CNN and BBC reported the American invasion uncritically and treated the US army with kid gloves. I remember watching a shocked Rageh Omar, The BBC’s war correspondent, reporting from Baghdad on how US soldiers were targeting journalists. Rageh is now with Al Jazeera.
Al jazeera is notorious in the west (especially America) as a propaganda outlet for Al qaida. But just because they show al qaida videos which CNN won’t show due to misplaced notions of patriotism and self-censorship does not mean they do plug jobs for terrorist outfits. Just call it reporting the other side of the story, the side that the west does not want to hear. The channel has provoked as much outrage in the middle-east by taking a critical view of the authoritarian regimes that dot the landscape. It is a channel that has provoked a lot of debate and discussion, something that is sorely needed in that troubled region. And, if they show the damage wrought by American foreign policy in Palestine, Iraq and possible Syria and Iran should they be labeled a channel that supports terrorists? Especially when CNN, ABC, BBC and Fox will not show the graphic and violent visuals that keep getting generated everyday in the Arab street.
A host of popular television personalities from BBC and CNN have joined the fledgling network (albeit one that is backed by the financial resources of the Qatar government). David Frost (BBC), Rageh Omar and Riz Khan (CNN) to name a few. Why did they leave their comfy media jobs and join a new venture? I believe it was for the challenge as much as anything else. Here, for the first time in modern history, is a channel that is challenging western media outlets and their dominance of information flow and ability to set the economic and political agenda in connivance with their governments. Al-Jazeera intends to bring an Asian and African perspective to its reporting, an alternative world-view. At last, a new perspective.
I hope they start broadcasting in India soon.