“Retain your idealism. Retain your belief, that there can be a better world, and that you, in a very small way, can contribute to that” is Rajdeep Sardesai’s message to young journalists.
Rajdeep Sardesai has been a journalist for more than two decades. Having worked in print and television journalism, his experience led him to author a book called 2014: The Election that Changed India. He is currently the Consulting Editor and lead news anchor of the India Today group. He spoke to Kindle’s Rushati Mukherjee on being a journalist in the post-truth era and much more…
The Oxford Dictionary designated the word of the year in 2016 to be ‘post truth’. What does that term mean to you, as a journalist?
It suggests that in the world that we live in, surrounded by multimedia, it’s possible to influence the narrative without any fact checking. Facts have become secondary to dressed propaganda. This doesn’t mean that there were no propagandists before 2016. But there were far more checks and balances in the system. Now, a speech live on TV or a 140-character tweet goes unchallenged. So I think what the post-truth world means is a world without fact checking, where the force of your voice and sheer noise is what matters.
How does the media adapt to such a world?
By doing what it’s supposed to do- tell the truth!
How can one go about doing that if there’s no one listening?
Well, we have to do our jobs regardless. A politician has the right to conflate facts with exaggerations. The media is supposed to call out their lies, to continuously check the facts, to express dissent. If no one is listening, that’s okay. We are not entertainers to garner audiences for our films. We are here to be chroniclers of history.
The post-truth world has very real consequences. If no one is listening, how do we help those who are affected?
You must persistently tell the truth with credibility, that’s all you can really do. As we are finding – even as President Trump bans countries and people, a lot of lawyers are doing pro-bono work and there are lots of journalists who are telling the stories of those who have legitimate rights to be in the country, and thereby, gradually, we are influencing public opinion to point out that what is happening is wrong. It may not happen overnight, but it is happening. That’s all one can do. We can’t stop some of the most powerful people in the world from doing what they want to do, but we can question them, criticise them and interrogate what they claim to be the truth.
Has a ‘war’ on media been declared in the present global political climate, especially in the United States?
I think President Trump has, yes. There is something vile about the way he goes about it- let me use the word ‘crude’. He has every right to decide who he wants to speak to, but he has no right to be offensive in his behaviour. There’s a certain decorum that comes with public life, and while his constituents may want him to be this macho guy, rudeness and obnoxiousness is not part of the deal.
Of course- there are putative mini Trumps all over the world, including your home state of Bengal! I shall not name the individuals, but increasingly, there are more people in politics antagonistic to the media.
Do you think this happens in India as well?
Of course- there are putative mini Trumps all over the world, including your home state of Bengal! I shall not name the individuals, but increasingly, there are more people in politics antagonistic to the media. They are whimsical and offensive and it is becoming more or less like a contagion all across the world.
The mob, the various Twitter armies want us to remain non-neutral, but as journalists, how can we agree? We cannot become part of the mob, or individual groups or ideologies simply because there is pressure to do so. Then what is the difference between journalism and propaganda?
When people interact with journalists on social media, one frequently comes across words like ‘presstitute’. In a way, it’s quite childish name-calling, but is it also damaging to a journalist’s credibility?
Initially I was offended by it. I think I still am, but now I just treat it as an occupational hazard and, occasionally, a badge of honour. It’s very easy to commit such bullying and only reveals the noxious nature of the speakers and their mind-sets. I am now going to live by the Michelle Obama dictum: when they go low, we go high. If people are incensed enough by the work I have done to call me names they think will insult me, I must be doing something right! They would not have done so if I had not got under their skin.
Did such terms exist before social media?
No, I did not encounter them. Social media has become simultaneously a loudspeaker and an echo chamber of such voices. Perhaps, it’s the nature of the medium. But Twitter is neither the entirety of India nor the entirety of civil society. I meet thousands of decent, ordinary citizens of the country who are far greater and nobler.
How has this distrust of the media affected Indian politics?
I think the institution of the media has weakened. People have less faith in it and that enables politicians to get away with much more. If one sows distrust in the media’s reporting, one has a greater chance of not being held accountable. And then the people, who have no faith in anyone’s words, but those of the ones in power, can be easily manipulated. But I believe these are phases. I am not a pessimist: I believe that phir subah hogi (the morning will come once more).
The mob, the various Twitter armies want us to remain non-neutral, but as journalists, how can we agree? We cannot become part of the mob, or individual groups or ideologies simply because there is pressure to do so. Then what is the difference between journalism and propaganda?
Recently, at the Jaipur Literature Festival, Barkha Dutt mentioned that in today’s times, the media is no longer expected to remain neutral. Is that something you would agree with?
Well, whether we are expected to or not, we must be. We cannot be guided by what the mob wants. The mob, the various Twitter armies want us to remain non-neutral, but as journalists, how can we agree? We cannot become part of the mob, or individual groups or ideologies simply because there is pressure to do so. Then what is the difference between journalism and propaganda? As a journalist, you need to find your way through this cacophony to locate the objective truth. Entertainers can say that their audience expects them to act in a certain way. But journalism owes nothing to the box office. I am not willing to accept the statement that there is no space for objective truth in today’s world.
In your experience as a journalist, did you notice the markers of the rise of right wing populism in India?
The rise of the Indian Right has been spread over 25 years, which is almost the entire time that I have been in journalism. The first press conference I remember attending in November of 1988 was one with Bal Thackeray and Pramod Mahajan BJP-Shiv Sena alliance for the Bombay municipal elections. And I’ve seen the Rath Yatra and this whole demonization of the Muslim and the rise of the economic right post liberalization. I think it has not only happened since 2014. I know Mr Modi believes that India started in May 2014- I don’t. The rise of groups will go on, but I honestly believe that the core of India lies in the political centre. And no, I did not predict it: I just reported it. Twenty years ago, I would not have predicted that Modi would be Prime Minister.
When you were entering the field of journalism, did someone influence you or inspire you?
Not really, but I had the great fortune to meet the ultimate cynic: R K Laxman! He expressed his cynicism through his pocket cartoons every morning, and for six years I sat next to him and learnt from him the power of communication. He was someone who, for all his cynicism, found a way to communicate it effectively. And that’s what journalism is about: at the end of the day, it’s about the power to reach out to people.
Does the medium affect the quality of communication, print, screen and otherwise?
I think it does. Television is more instantaneous. It’s about sound bites. It puts pressure on you to move from sense to sensationalism. Print gives you more time to analyse, to step back from the protagonists of the story and examine them. Different media have different challenges and I don’t think they compete with each other. The pressure, though, on all media is the same: how to stay do you stay true to the facts?
I met farmers who are struggling post-demonitisation because their prices have crashed, and yet they had smiles on their faces and they offered me refreshments. Every time someone gets pessimistic about India, I say, ‘Go travel through this country.’
During your career, you have travelled the length and breadth of India. What are some of your favourite memories of these travels?
The people. This is a wonderful country for its sheer diversity. I was in Punjab this week and I met this guy who makes the best butter chicken in the whole world, and he had a political view. I went to a village where all the young have migrated to Canada and many of them are on drugs now and the sarpanch is fighting to try and get them out of it. I met a wonderful man who set up a family drug rehabilitation centre in Amritsar, working among families who are affected by drugs. I met a cop who was a hockey player for India. He is called Jugraj Singh, and when I met him I shook his hand and said, ‘Sir, forget the vardi– I remember you from the national team!’ I met farmers who are struggling post-demonitisation because their prices have crashed, and yet they had smiles on their faces and they offered me refreshments. Every time someone gets pessimistic about India, I say, ‘Go travel through this country.’ India is not located in Mumbai, or Delhi, or in politics. India is located in the bazaars and the nukkads of the country.
You have covered a large number of conflicts during the course of your career. Doesn’t it get tiring, to cover so much violence all the time?
It’s terribly dehumanising. It does affect one, in such situations. But if life offers conflict, it also offers cooperation. Why only look at conflict? Like most other countries, it’s a 50-50 country: you can look at it as a country, which has not fulfilled its 47 covenants, or you can see it as a country on the move.
If you had to give one piece of advice to a young person going into journalism at this precise moment in global politics, what would it be?
Retain your idealism. Retain your belief, that there can be a better world, and that you, in a very small way, can contribute to that. There’s a lot to celebrate, there’s a lot which is positive and it is important to focus on that as much as we do on the negative.
Image via
