Through the Looking-Glass

The Readers’ Editor writes: Why should journalists make election predictions?

In general, stayed away from the forecast business in Uttar Pradesh. Occasionally, it slipped.

Why should journalists make election predictions?

This is a twist to the question: “Why did the media not see the Bhartiya Janata Party juggernaut in the Uttar Pradesh elections?”

Actually nobody saw it and one wonders even if the victors had a sense of the sweep they were eventually to make. A few of the more perceptive journalists in the English media did say after the halfway mark that the lotus seemed to be blooming in UP, but even they did not see any “wave”.

The exit polls too were not on the mark. All saw the BJP emerging as the single largest party but only two saw the BJP getting to between 10%-20% of the final tally.

It may seem a strange situation that even as the tools for collecting information have expanded and the speed of communication has vastly increased, the reporter has not been able to get a better sense of the election outcome.

We can’t blame the Indian media alone for this so-called failure. The situation is the same even in the United States, where almost nobody among either the reporters or the polling agencies got a sense that Donald Trump was going to win in November 2016. It was the same at the time of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, a few months earlier.

The Indian press has always had its hits and misses in making predictions, both in the national and state elections. What is new in recent years is the carpet bombing coverage – and predictions. Earlier we had pre-poll forecasts, then the exit polls. The number has increased and so too the predictions of the talking heads on TV.

I cannot recall if anyone has done an analysis of elections forecasts (both of polls and reporters’ predictions) after the event, but my hunch would be that there is a 50-50 record or something close to that. Not something to be proud about, but not a bad one either.

Why the media gets it wrong

What we saw in Uttar Pradesh then is nothing new. Two main reasons have been suggested for the media not getting it right in UP. One is that the media, the English-language media in particular, has a strong anti-Modi bias that prejudices their judgement. There may be an element of truth in that. But recall Delhi and Bihar in 2015. The media did not get the anti-BJP mood there either. If there is a powerful anti-Modi brigade in the media (I doubt it. If indeed there is a slant, it is in the other direction), they did not rush to dump the BJP in those two states. Another view is that journalists have become plain lazy and stick to the dhabas on the highways and their taxi drivers to give them information. That, however, is an easy way to dismiss the work reporters put in and reveals the observer’s own prejudices.

After UP, commentary in the media has tried to grapple with the media’s “failure”. There was this article in itself which berated social media for the pressures it imposed on reporters, and this other article in The Times of India which looked at the failure but could not give definite reasons for why it happened.

There is perhaps no easy explanation for why the media is getting it wrong (It is not consistently wrong though; sometimes it does get it right as in Assam in 2016).

Why predict at all?

Instead of looking for ways to improve reporters’ ability to pick winners, maybe we should pose a different question: Should the media give up on offering predictions? Should reporters in particular steer clear of making forecasts?

It is hard enough to gauge the mood in a single electoral constituency. It is incredibly difficult to do so for an entire state with a minimum of 70-100 constituencies. And it is impossible for a large state like UP. Will we not be better off with reporters telling us what voters are concerned about and their aspirations, the changes they have seen since the last elections and their expectations from the elected representatives?

This may be “boring” stuff, but it is surely more valuable and “truthful”. had this fascinating series “A Village Votes” from Supriya Sharma, reporting from one village over a couple of months. The series did look at electoral preferences but fought shy of making predictions. The more interesting reporting was of how different social and economic groups viewed their lives and what they expected from the government. (In somewhat of an irony, the constituency in which the village falls saw the BJP come fourth in the polls.)

In general, fortunately stayed away from the forecast business. It did summarise the exit polls’ predictions. But its reporters did not claim to be able to see the outcome. Occasionally they slipped – like this piece, which in early February forecast an Aam Aadmi Party victory in Punjab. As an earlier column pointed out, the better pieces in’s coverage were the ones with reporting and the not-so-good ones were those with commentary.

Post-election results, has come up with some interesting commentary as in this article and also this one. There has been some useful data mining too. But all this is after the event. What about before the next round of elections?

Part of the problem is that readers also want to know, “who is going to win?” And they think reporters should know. (When the reporters get it wrong, they are, of course, criticised for not knowing.) This puts pressure on reporters to come up with predictions, and reporters too are loath to give up this one moment in the electoral sun when they are cloaked with the power of possessing deep insights into the electoral process.

It will probably never happen but the reader and the reporter would both be the richer for it if they looked for a different kind of electoral reporting. Otherwise we will forever be asking what went wrong.

Readers can write to the Readers’ Editor at

We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.