Media Matters

Should Republic TV be supported by fellow journalists? Chennai incident sparks debate

Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami has in the past asked for fellow journalists to be put on trial. Should his channel get any solidarity?

The journalism fraternity sometimes is unsure what to make of Republic TV. The news channel built around Arnab Goswami is frequently accused of disrespecting journalistic norms and reporters bullying subjects, and has even had the Delhi High Court tell it to temper its coverage. Most disturbingly, Goswami, both at Republic and in his previous job at TimesNow, has often spoken out against rival media, calling for people who disagree with him to be put on trial or boycotted, rather than speaking up for press freedom. So when a group of journalists in Chennai decided to walk out of a press conference with Gujarati politician Jignesh Mewani, when he demanded the Republic reporter leave, the move sparked a massive debate.

The main question being asked was simple, although it actually covers a host of thorny issues: Should fellow journalists support Republic, especially if their support is unlikely to be reciprocated?

According to the Newsminute, Mewani, a Member of Legislative Assembly from Vadgam, was speaking at a media briefing after interacting with a number of activists and students at the Qaid-E-millat International Academy of Media Studies. As the briefing was about to begin, a number of mics were placed in front of him, including one belonging to a journalist from Republic TV.

Play

“I won’t answer questions. Remove the mic,” Mewani said, according to the Newsminute, insisting that it was his policy not to speak to the channel. While other journalists attempted to pacify him, he was insistent. This prompted Shabbir Ahmed, a reporter from TimesNow, to say that Mewani can’t demand which mic goes where followed by telling the Gujarati leader that he can leave, “we don’t want this press conference.” Other journalists then joined in support, and no news briefing ended up taking place.

The move instantly led to reactions online, some of which was in support of the solidarity media organisations showed.

Others admitted that even if they do not like Republic TV’s approach to journalism, the other media persons at the press conference had done the right thing in not letting a politician dictate terms.

Others pointed out that Republic was unlikely to return the favour if another journalist was in the same position, a fact that should speak volumes about the sort of journalism it practices.

The question actually throws up a whole host of issues.

In ordinary circumstances, journalists would be united in opposition to a politician attempting to pick and choose which media outlet gets to be at a press conference. But Republic TV brings up unusual questions, only one of which is the fact that it is partly owned by a Member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party-run National Democratic Alliance who has admitted that its entire approach is to get as much market share as possible.

Republic TV journalists use a confrontational approach at any press meet, a style that was developed by Goswami at TimesNow, in which they attempt to make their own reporter the story and heckle, bully and browbeat a source into giving a bite. In case someone complains about having a mic shoved in their faces or being harassed by a reporter, the channel then has a tendency to play the victim and claim that the subjects are refusing to answer questions.

This unseemly approach has been normalised, in part because the self-regulatory bodies that are supposed to govern news outfits, whether it is the Editor’s Guild or the News Broadcasters Association, have little to no influence over actual newsroom practices. This means that even if journalists are unhappy with the approach that Republic TV takes, there is little they can do about it. Moreover, any sign that journalists condone a politician’s decision to take action against an individual news outlets runs the risk of sending the signal that such moves are acceptable – which the media is wary of doing, because it can easily be turned on its head and used against a legitimate news outlet in the future.

As a result, even if it means obliquely endorsing a news channel that many have deep issues with, journalists feel the need to stand up in solidarity with Republic TV. Some, have, however suggested that there are other tactics politicians can use if they don’t want to keep giving oxygen to channels like it:

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Tracing the formation of Al Qaeda and its path to 9/11

A new show looks at some of the crucial moments leading up to the attack.

“The end of the world war had bought America victory but not security” - this quote from Lawrence Wright’s Pulitzer-Prize winning book, ‘The Looming Tower’, gives a sense of the growing threat to America from Al Qaeda and the series of events that led to 9/11. Based on extensive interviews, including with Bin Laden’s best friend in college and the former White House counterterrorism chief, ‘The Looming Tower’ provides an intimate perspective of the 9/11 attack.

Lawrence Wright chronicles the formative years of Al Qaeda, giving an insight in to Bin Laden’s war against America. The book covers in detail, the radicalisation of Osama Bin Laden and his association with Ayman Al Zawahri, an Egyptian doctor who preached that only violence could change history. In an interview with Amazon, Wright shared, “I talked to 600-something people, but many of those people I talked to again and again for a period of five years, some of them dozens of times.” Wright’s book was selected by TIME as one of the all-time 100 best nonfiction books for its “thoroughly researched and incisively written” account of the road to 9/11 and is considered an essential read for understanding Islam’s war on the West as it developed in the Middle East.

‘The Looming Tower’ also dwells on the response of key US officials to the rising Al Qaeda threat, particularly exploring the turf wars between the FBI and the CIA. This has now been dramatized in a 10-part mini-series of the same name. Adapted by Dan Futterman (of Foxcatcher fame), the series mainly focuses on the hostilities between the FBI and the CIA. Some major characters are based on real people - such as John O’ Neill (FBI’s foul-mouthed counterterrorism chief played by Jeff Daniels) and Ali Soufan (O’ Neill’s Arabic-speaking mentee who successfully interrogated captured Islamic terrorists after 9/11, played by Tahar Rahim). Some are composite characters, such as Martin Schmidt (O’Neill’s CIA counterpart, played by Peter Sarsgaard).

The series, most crucially, captures just how close US intelligence agencies had come to foiling Al Qaeda’s plans, just to come up short due to internal turf wars. It follows the FBI and the CIA as they independently follow intelligence leads in the crises leading up to 9/11 – the US Embassy bombings in East Africa and the attack on US warship USS Cole in Yemen – but fail to update each other. The most glaring example is of how the CIA withheld critical information – Al Qaeda operatives being hunted by the FBI had entered the United States - under the misguided notion that the CIA was the only government agency authorised to deal with terrorism threats.

The depth of information in the book has translated into a realistic recreation of the pre-9/11 years on screen. The drama is even interspersed with actual footage from the 9/11 conspiracy, attack and the 2004 Commission Hearing, linking together the myriad developments leading up to 9/11 with chilling hindsight. Watch the trailer of this gripping show below.

Play

The Looming Tower is available for streaming on Amazon Prime Video, along with a host of Amazon originals and popular movies and TV shows. To enjoy unlimited ad free streaming anytime, anywhere, subscribe to Amazon Prime Video.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Amazon Prime Video and not by the Scroll editorial team.