BackDoes owning media help?
Going by evidence, one can say that owning media does not do that much for the allegedly non-serious entities
Premium(A file photo of Saradha group chairman Sudipta Sen.)
Is the indignation over the increasingly variegated and colourful ownership of TV channels and other media in this country justified?
Following the collapse of Saradha group owner Sudipta Sen’s media empire—which brought him more loss than gain—media ownership is again a hot button issue. The ministry of information and broadcasting says it is re-examining the shareholding pattern and equity structure of the television channels operating in the country.
The ministry’s uplinking and downlinking form already asks for all of this, so if proper scrutiny had been there in the first place, there would be no need for a panic reaction now. On the contrary, minister Manish Tewari said twice in April that the government did not want to stymie growth, so it wasn’t enforcing the uplinking conditions too stringently. If the ministry wanted to be particular about who should own the media, it had the means to do so.
A spokesperson of the ministry also clarified post Saradha that permission is given “to a company, not to a person". The company’s application goes to the ministry of home affairs (MHA) for verification of antecedents towards security clearance. “Once the MHA and department of space clear the application, we cannot deny permission to the company simply because it is engaged in some other business."
The broadcasting industry has used the Saradha media collapse with alacrity to decry the ownership of media by those whom they do not consider sufficiently blue-blooded. The objection seems to be that they are non-serious companies claiming a piece of the advertising pie to the detriment of professional firms.
At a meeting of the Kolkata-based Indian Chamber of Commerce last week, Zee chairman Subhash Chandra said, “There are 400 news channels operating at present. I believe people running news channels are history sheeters, builders are running channels to keep police away,’’ according to The Times of India. He added that the media was unfairly accused of ruining the “India story". “We don’t generate news, we only report it.’’
If someone had listed professions eligible to invest in media 20 years back, rice exporters might not have been among them. But Chandra was not stopped from entering the business then and proving his considerable mettle as a media entrepreneur. Every builder is not a history sheeter. And Chandra and his channel did generate a lot of news recently, in the context of the Naveen Jindal’s allegations of extortion.
Last week, a former bar owner in Maharashtra with real estate interests announced that he was setting up a TV channel. He figured some years ago in a match-fixing scam. The more righteous among us do not think politicians, owners of chit funds (deposit-taking companies), former bar owners, really big business, and builders should own media. But it is difficult to get too sanctimonious about media ownership.
It is not as if leading media houses owned by family-owned firms have not had owners who were occasionally up to no good, such as being charged with foreign exchange violations. And, at least three such groups whose publications figure among the top 10 in terms of readership in the fourth quarter of 2012 of the Indian Readership Survey have invited allegations of publishing news in return for money.
Who should be allowed to own media and who should not? Isn’t the right to own media also about free speech? The moot point is whether they are employing professional journalists and letting them function. Did not Vinod Mehta edit a magazine for a builder which helped to make him an eminence grise of the profession, featured every night on leading news channels? Hasn’t Outlook done its bit to set standards in the profession?
In fact, going by available evidence, one is tempted to say that owning media does not do that much for the allegedly non-serious players. You could argue that in a chit fund business, a larger-than-life image for the promoter helps, whether he is Sahara Shree Subrata Roy or Sudipta Sen. The small investors putting in their humble savings into these funds think these are influential finance company owners and their money will therefore be safe. But in Sen’s case, the primary spin seems to have been, invest in his finance company because he is close to the ruling party. Not because he is a media owner. In Roy’s case, hobnobbing with Amitabh Bachchan and other Bollywood stars probably did much to build his image in the public mind.
But both are in serious trouble despite the media empires they owned. Sen writes to the Central Bureau of Investigation, “Pratidin assured me that the agreement will help me protect my business from the government because they have a close connection with chief minister Mamata Banerjee." Today, to add to his other headaches, Sen also has a case filed against him by the journalists he employed, for non-payment of dues.
So, what does media ownership do for politicians and businessmen? Does it really bring clout? If the media interests don’t make money for their owners, nor do they seem to be really that helpful in other ways. His media empire has not helped Jagan Mohan Reddy stay out of jail or get bail, nor has it helped either the Telangana Rashtra Samithi or its leader K. Chandrasekhar Rao realize their dream of a Telangana state. The Haryana minister Gopal Kanda had a TV channel. It did not stop him going to jail in the Geetika Sharma suicide case.
K.D. Singh became a financier of Tehelka a few years ago, though there is nothing in the current shareholding declaration that suggests he has shares in the company which owns the magazine. Singh is now in trouble with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office having opened inquiries into two of his companies—Alchemist Capital Ltd and Alchemist Holdings Ltd—over allegations of raising money from the public in violation of central bank and capital market guidelines (The Indian Express website, 30 April). He too is a Kolkata finance company owner and a Trinamool Congress parliamentarian for good measure. Is his investment in Tehelka going to save him?
Chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has listed one advantage a politician with media has: he does not have to spend money on paid news. While this is only a seasonal expense, ownership is a year-round one, so on balance, the media-owning politician has to spend a lot to gain advantage.
Finally, does big business really gain that much from media ownership? Such deals certainly invite a lot of free-wheeling commentary. But Mukesh Ambani’s dealings with the government constantly demonstrate his impressive political clout. So, does he need the services of either the Network18 or ETV networks that he indirectly invested in last year to protect his interests?
Sevanti Ninan is a media critic, author and editor of the media watch website thehoot.org. She examines the larger issues related to the media in a fortnightly column.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
