The Role and Involvement of Media in Indian Democracy

Media today has come a long way from playing the role of being the most effective source of information where almost in all cases, it was the government that managed and operated them on a national level, to a situation where the Indian media is full of numerous big and small entities for most of whom it is no more than a pure form of business. In this presentation, it is this very aspect which is focused upon, as to how did the Indian media got involved and become an essential part of the country’s democracy today. The concept which is perhaps the most relevant with respect, in this case, is that of triangulation, which has become a common practice in nations around the world. A number of media platforms use technology to triangulate the consumption of media through platforms such as news channels, radio channels and social media on the internet as well which is considered by many political entities to be used as a means to influence decision making in a government where it matters the most.

In terms of governments, the beauty, or maybe the critical factor in many cases is that when it is a democracy, it is the people or citizens of the particular nation which elect a government to power by way of electing their representatives to the seats at the legislative councils/legislative bodies. According to Dahlberg, this is where the role of media becomes all the more important. This is due to the fact that the patterns of individual thinking and further, individual decision making is influenced tremendously why what one sees and hears – and in countries around the world, media is apparently the most trusted source of information which has replaced individual zeal to conduct research and then believe or dismiss facts. Thus, the question which now becomes important to be answered is, how has the Indian Media involved itself and become an essential part of India’s democracy. In the pages to follow, this is discussed in more detail, on the basis of secondary research.

In order to discuss the role and involvement of media in Indian Democracy, it becomes important to first bring to light the evolution of media in the first place. The advent of media is attributed to the need for leaders of countries to address the public at large for a number of purposes. During the 20th century, this led to the development of radio and later the production and popularity of television sets. Even in the case of the number of channels – be it radio frequencies or television networks – they multiplied in number from being one or a handful at the most to numerous national and private ones. Then with the advent of computers and information and communications technology, arrived the era of the internet which has now developed to such an extent that even with the help of a smartphone in the hands, an individual has become able to access virtually endless sources of information and media feeds. At the same time, throughout the world, the content of media also started to diversify and it was only a matter of time that political entities in India and many other countries identified the potential which media offered in terms of public communication and shaping opinion in their favour.

The importance of media in the public sphere has emerged to be a very significant factor today – media is not only limited to the capacity of a source of information, rather it has become a very strong source of shaping opinion. The primary reason for the same being changes in the behaviour of the masses when it comes to seeking information and keeping themselves updated. The reason why media, especially the internet has achieved success is due to its capability to keep the targeted audience engaged and captivate interests. In the case of India, this has also developed and emerged in a significant manner. Post India’s independence, what constituted media to the population was radio – namely, the channel known as All India Radio (AIR).

According to Coleman and Blumler, the need, as well as critical aspect of any communication which is sought by a government towards its citizens, is based on the following three components:

1. Developments in the societal environments.
2. Responses to these developments by the present political institutions of the country.
3. Developments in the media sphere.

If India is looked at, the advent of public communication by the government was indeed based on these aspects which are the reasons why the government radio channel AIR and the television network Doordarshan (commonly known by the abbreviation DD) originally came into existence. As has been stated by Dean, the initially intended objective of introducing systems of public communication by any country is based on norms, equality, transparency, inclusivity and rationality. Norms need to establish the set of protocols which need to be adhered to when the media addresses and reports to any situation or event which is prevalent in the environment; the aspect of equality makes it mandatory to ensure that all perspectives about the event or situation are presented without any biases or predetermined notions; transparency needs to ensure that all of the crucial facts and information which are required to be presented need to be incorporated in the presentation; inclusivity needs to ensure that the communication is made available to all sections of the society and rationality needs to ensure that the underlining message or implications which are presented in the contents of the communication are based on rational thinking.

According to Flick, there has to be proper research in the public sphere about particular news or information before it is being broadcast for consumption of the masses. The ideology which is associated in this case is that the media should ensure that these requirements are adhered to properly before propagating a piece of information to the masses, which itself has to be based on true facts and evidence. In this context, if media in India is looked at, was originally intended to create awareness about situations, events and instances in the country which were regarded to be important for the public to be known. This is from the context that one of the key purposes of media is to aid journalism in any region or country which would lead to the development of active citizens, i.e. those who are not only sufficiently informed but at the same time can make informed judgements about who or what could be trusted as well as make their voices heard and presence felt when it came to matters involving public and general welfare.

In this regard, it is important to discuss the meaning and relevance of the public sphere, for which any news or media is originally intended. The concept of the public sphere is that the targeted recipients – the audiences, consist of different kinds and levels of acceptance when it came to information. There would be sections of the public willing to believe the information and facts being presented and form an opinion in support of what is happening, while there would also be sections of the public who are going to be apprehensive of the facts and information which is being presented and they will counter or refuse to believe/accept the information which is being presented. Essentially, the public sphere refers to the existence of a balanced and accommodating thought process which allows contradictory perspectives. For example, in India, the public sphere would be considered to be balanced when there are groups of the population with opposing political views, yet accommodating of the differences with respect to perspectives that might exist between them.

Given the fact that India is a democratic country, this is where it becomes all the more relevant. Being a democracy implies that the government is elected to power – there would be representatives of the people who would belong to different political parties and entities. The ones to secure the most votes are being awarded the policy-making decisions at the legislative level. The existence of a balanced public sphere in this case will refer to the situation where the views and perspectives of both the elected government representatives and their opposition are accepted and differences in perspectives are respected. In such a situation it will be expected that both supporting and opposing views and information about the government at power would co-exist. However, this has mostly been an on-and-off situation for the nation as history is witness to the fact that while in many instances the public sphere provided by media was accommodating of opposing views, while at other times media itself would have been used to vehemently destroy the same.

With the advent of time emerged advancements to technology, which brought about significant changes to the public sphere and the ways it was formed. While television, radio, newspapers and other print media would be the most common media, internet replaced them all to become the most popular medium for the masses be it information or entertainment. According to the views of Dean, the internet – the most popular and important media today, cannot be considered to be a public sphere. The reason which is presented is that due to the absence of regulation, assessment and legislation, the internet today has become a place of the presence of various forms of political architecture which are used to crush opposing views and information, or in many cases, dissent against a ruling political regime. This is a very important critique related to the concept of a public sphere given the fact that today it is considered that even there is a significant shift in the role of the audiences as well. As per the views of Vincent-Marino, the roles of the audiences are also changing significantly as compared to merely being members of the audience in earlier times, today the audience is using the information they can avail to not only strengthen but in many cases enforce their own beliefs ad perspectives upon others.

Media houses have been quick to identify this shift and the potential which is associated with the same and has resorted to a practice which has become exaggerated at least in the case of India today. It is the practice of agenda setting and framing. As per Weaver and Edy and Meirick, more and more media houses have resorted to framing and agenda-setting, which is also significantly fuelled by the fact that not only there are numerous media entities which are operated from the perspective of being only a business, but at the same time, they are also sponsored by large corporate houses which in turn operate in nexus with specific political establishments which work towards the benefits of their own vested interests. Ideally, media in the form of news should supply a content to the audiences which suggests an issue, which is in turn shaped by selection, emphasis, inclusion and elaboration. This is applicable to any media – be it the internet or more traditional forms like television channels. The correct way of presenting news should be:

• Selection of an issue – an issue which impacts society or the environment in any, as well as in many ways has to be selected by the media entities, irrespective of how uncomfortable it can make ruling dispensations or large corporate houses or celebrities, etc.
• Emphasis on the impacts – once the issue has been selected the next area of attention has to be that of emphasis of the ways in which the issue impacts the society and environment at large.
• Inclusion of all facts and information – while selecting, presenting and emphasising on an issue it is very much crucial that all facts and pieces of information have to be presented. It is here that it becomes important to highlight the difference between journalism and non-journalism. When all of the facts and pieces of information associated with an event or situation is presented in an unbiased manner, whereby the media itself does not implicate anything to the audience, it is recognised as journalism. However, when it becomes more of an agenda which the media entity is trying to highlight and does significantly imply as well as influence the audience to think in a particular manner, it cannot be considered journalism and it essentially becomes propaganda.
• Elaboration – finally, it is the duty of the media organisation to elaborate on the issue or situation which is presented for the audience.

According to the views of Coleman and Blumler, this is an interesting intersection from where media is observed to take a plunge into politics. Where the purposes of mainstream media should be to serve citizenship and democracy, it has become prominent that media has made an intrusion into politics – not only in India but in almost all countries around the world. The most common way in which this is observed to be carried out in India is that media houses have increasingly resorted to selecting some specific aspects of a situation or event and shaping it into perceived reality and presenting the same as a particular problem definition. This is why it has been stated that media in the Indian democracy has engaged itself in framing and agenda-setting. This is especially evident in the case of the numerous media houses which are present in the country with each propagating their own version of events and situations albeit incompletely, so that opinion is swung in favour for one political party or another. Moreover, it is common to find Indian media companies mostly developing content which are narrowed down to political polarities present in the country and focus is seldom given to more important and critical aspects of living and society. In the beginning of this presentation the concept of triangulation was discussed; it here that it becomes all the more evident.

Indian media houses are not only measuring and constantly analysing online behaviour but through their customised and tailor-made content, have been doing a marvellous job at influencing the same as well. In most parts of the world, organisations engage in conducting research about an online activity which helps them to triangulate online behaviour. In India, media houses have made an intrusion into politics using this information. This is due to the fact that as far as journalism is concerned (or non-journalism for that matter) the positive aspects such as possibilities and positive impacts are greatly overlooked by most Indian media houses in their endeavour to utilise internet platforms to generate more viewership for their customised political content. There is almost no boundary between journalism and non-journalism as it is indeed difficult to know who the political actor is and who is not, given the high number of media channels and media personalities which are always engrossed in politics of the country. Most of the content of these media houses are based on only political discussions and not on policies; mostly, none of the political discussions in which these media houses keep themselves engrossed in does not promote civic ideals, neither do they give rise to any civic ideals. More so, it will be greatly difficult for one to find that consolidated efforts are made by the media houses to ascertain the effectiveness of policies which are taken by a ruling political party. As per the views of Scheufele and Tewksbury, media organisations have tremendous potential for bringing about a positive impact in a democracy. Sadly as far as India is concerned, the only impact which can be seen is that these media houses are increasingly engaging themselves into political debates and political propaganda – that is the most significant observation which can be made these days.

One of the main factors which can be attributed to as the cause behind this sad development is an intensified competition in the media system. To earn the revenues and make the required profits, media organisations at the behest of larger corporate have found to more feasible to promote political propaganda – directly or indirectly and the use of social media and the internet for the same is ever so prominent. On behalf of the political parties, Indian media is focused on the promotion of like-minded thinking. Mostly, the content of media houses on online platforms cannot be described to be anything else other than non-journalism whereby the views and statements given by political actors and political influencers are promoted to a great extent which is also observed to have an adverse impact on the notion of the public sphere. Social networking pages, websites, posts, and videos are some of the most common forms of influencing the thought processes of individuals by media entities. Not only do these pages serve the purpose of propagating political views and ideologies of specific political entities, but more often than not these ‘satellite’ promotional entities on the internet and social media also act as additional sources of revenue generation, above the mainstream media and news websites which are run by these organisations.

Another aspect which needs to be highlighted in this regard is that social media has emerged to be a formidable force when it comes to shaping opinion. The objective of creating of a political divide in the country is also prominent, more so since the year 2014. It is almost as if the entire social media community of the country are divided into two camps pitted against each other whereby both of them are only focused on highlighting the blunders and faults of the opposing political entity. This is attributed to the mode of promoting like-minded thinking on behalf of the political parties, by Indian media at large. Clearly, agenda-setting and framing have become one of the most prominent characteristics of Indian media. To some extent, even the audiences are to be blamed as there is a high likeliness among the followers to spread and propagate for their favourites, without proper research.

Luke states that when media houses interfere and influence free thinking it leads to the radicalisation of ideas which is often the course of action resorted by many in pursuit of power. In such a situation triangulation of online behaviour and internet activity is done to promote differences in the society between the ones who blindly support one political regime and those who blindly oppose a political regime. This is further fuelled by the prominent media organisations which resort to intruding in politics through framing and agenda-setting which leads to a further adverse impact on the public sphere in terms of opinion sharing and acceptance of contradictory viewpoints. When such behaviour is unchecked for prolonged periods of time, the media, through its actions, starts to play an instrumental role in democracy. In the case of India, it is only a matter of time before democracy is controlled by the media, given the current state of affairs.