Arnab Goswami’s Partisan outlook, a Paradox on Republic TV

A lot has been written/spoken about Mr Arnab Goswami, the face of Republic TV and his style of journalism that hinges on garnering TRP’s through his prime time debates, where the catch phrase “Nation wants to know” also emanated from.

I happened to watch the debate on Republic TV, the other day when India test fired the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile and the key conspirator of 26/11 Hafiz Saeed was also let off by the Pakistani court from the so called House arrest for lack of evidence in proving charges. That aptly called for lunging into Pakistan bashing by the supreme nationalist Arnab, accompanied by an able supporting cast comprising of an army veteran, an ex-Raw official and a strategic/defense analyst in his flank, up in arms against a few known faces from across the border, who as usual cannot give up the denial charade. In his inimitable style, he kept repeating “what a beautiful sight it is” referring to the file shots of the missile launch with the intention of rubbing it in and insinuating that its time India fires one at the neighbour for not mending their ways. Indeed, this indigenously built missile is a matter of pride for all Indians, but why does one have to impose our achievements on others and mock them at their shortcomings. Arnab has smoke billowing out of his ears while speaking of Pakistan’s misdemeanors and goes ballistic to list the entire inventory of weapons available at India’s disposal including newly acquired Rafael jets, indigenous missiles, Submarines and so on that could decimate Pakistan. In the process he sounds so desperate and questions as to how a tiny nation can provoke India, without realizing that answer to his rhetoric does not rest with Pakistan, rather it is India that needs to show intent and be seen as potent force. Why doesn’t he question the government of the day as to what is hindering them to launch an assault? The verbal diarrhea just brings about a wry smile on the face of Pakistani panelists, who instead, accuse him of being a war mongerer.

Arnab’s show-time has a scripted pattern and it kick starts with a long monologue censuring the neighbouring country by ascribing labels like “failed state”, “a harbinger of terrorism” and a country begging for alms from USA in exchange of false promises to fight terror n the AF-PAK region.

Soon after his heroic speech, the supporting cast is introduced and then questions that are as elaborate as comprehension passages are put to the panelist and he farcically seeks a response to them, reiterating, “he wants an answer” several times, without even giving a chance to the panelist to make an opening statement. Within a few seconds into the reply, the anchor starts butting in while the panelist is still continuing with his response, nodding head in disagreement to make an objection or if a crisp answer is forthcoming, he either pits that panelist against an Indian expert or steers the debate into a different direction.

The interjections could still be accepted as long they are valid and not a deliberate effort to derail the speakers train of thought. Then, a pandemonium is unleashed when the entire panel starts voicing their opinion in tandem and the debate is reduced to a cacophonous outburst. The master strategist that Arnab is, then in order to restore some semblance of sanity yells at everyone to keep their mouths shut and listen to his solo rant. By that time, the fervour among the panel to put their points across reaches a crescendo and failing to restrain them, the anchor completely muzzles their voice by bring down the fader. In a flash, he then winds up the debate by passing on a verdict which he had premeditated.

The most disconcerting aspect of his debates featuring Pakistani guests is the use of derogatory language to ridicule them that could drive any self respecting person to develop a revulsion against the anchor and perhaps also fuel further acrimony among the citizenry of two nations. I don’t deny that the facts put out by Arnab vis-a-vis Pakistan’s transgressions and their indulgence in exporting terror as a state policy, is nothing but the truth. But, by taking cudgels with insignificant Pakistani representatives on the panel and assuming to have blown the war bugle or rather having won the battle of supremacy in your channels news room, is a fallacy.

To quote from a very interesting post written by Raghu Raman on May 24, 2017, Quartz India (fellow at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), a columnist, author, former CEO of NATGRID, speaker, ex-soldier & UN Peacekeeper), “War waging is not about bombastic threats, surgical strikes, cross-border firing or clamorous bellowing on TV channels. That is called letting off steam. There is an old couplet by Ramdhari Dinkar which suggests that forgiveness befits a snake which has venom in its bite—not one which is weak, toothless, and harmless. To be taken seriously, India needs to build that strength first rather than spewing ineffectual rhetoric.” Arnab, you ought to read this post titled “For all the chest-thumping, India cannot win a war against Pakistan” before locking horns with the neighbours on Newshour debates for mere theatrics.

Remember, the moment when you addressed the coterie of trusted journalists while exiting Times Now where you famously said “The game has just the begun” and your statement “The hegemony of the western media has to end as it has ruined the balance of power that is required not just in politics, society but in media as well” in context of following cross border news, while participating in a debate with journalists from the West prior to the launch of Republic TV. You further went on to say that “Americans being most insular have complete dominance over the Global narrative in terms of news and your premonition that “India shall be the next media capital of the world to challenge that hegemony”.

Your insightful thoughts on foreign media, lofty promises of “providing a serious counter to BBC and CNN by creating a global media environment that is not located in Washington, New York or London”, certainly gave hope to your ardent followers that you would work towards redressing these issues after launching your channel “Republic TV” and set it apart from other Indian channels by catering to more of international coverage. But, what a let-down you have been. Rather than taking a global leap, the channel from the very inception got cocooned in digging up scams of hackneyed politician like Lalu, investigating the mysterious death of Shashi Tharoor’s wife which led to getting rebuked by the High court, land deals of Robert Vadra for being the son-in-law of Sonia Gandhi and so on. The common thread here being, the only people you train your eyes on are all from opposition camps whilst turning a blind eye to the functioning of ruling regime, which is totally against the essence of conscientious media.

There is a blatant tilt towards the current dispensation at the centre in the tone, tenor and stance you take on your debates. A lot has transpired in the run up to the Gujrat assembly election 2017 that your media house could have dissected and brought to the fore. Issues like polarization of masses on the grounds of cultural identity, irresponsible allegations of Pakistan’s meddling in the elections, casting aspersions on the integrity of ex-prime minister, and other distinguished individuals including the Vice-President along with other high ranking Ex-Defence personnel, despicable language used and barbs made by Mr Modi during election rallies, to name a few could have been red-flagged and critiqued. But, you chose to only pick on Rahul Gandhi and the dwindling political fortune of Congress party.

Why do the temple visits by an opposition leader make the headlines on your channel rather than the crude personal attacks on opponents by none other than our premier or for that matter complete silence on the developmental agenda during the Gujarat campaign trail? Forget the media, even the election commission seems to have a soft corner for Mr Modi as far as flouting of election norms are concerned (remember the road show after the PM cast his vote).

Arnab, it was encouraging to hear you speak about the need to strike a balance of power by challenging the hegemony of the western media. But before embarking on that arduous journey, it would augur well to restore sense of neutrality on issues and adopt a centrist approach on your channel, to woo back your disenchanted followers. That would not only lend more credibility to Republic TV but also take the TRP’s through the roof.

Media Assumes New Role

Last few weeks of electronic media coverage seemed more like a fixation for delivering justice on the tube rather than balanced coverage of news from across the world. All media houses were continuously beaming the Ruchika case with old file reports showing the villain of molestation episode Mr. Rathore walking out of court with a wry smile on his face.

Strangely there is a predictable pattern to news bulletins and despite having a bouquet of channels to choose from, the viewer is left exasperated with same story being aired on all of them. There is immaculate precision, rather seamless coordination not only in sequencing of news content but also in recess timing for commercials among broadcast stations. Does Out-dated visuals and repetitive information make a story compelling? Comprehensive reporting on wide array of issues, national and international should form the core of disseminating information. That would at least evoke some interest among masses and keep them away from being stifled by stale banter.

Certainly, cases of this nature need to be brought to light and followed up to ensure that people wielding clout do not go scot-free after flouting the law. Indeed, it was a news channel (Times Now) that took up the cudgels in the exemplary Jessica Lal case that was languishing with no imminent progress, and garnered incredible public support to seal the fate of Manu Sharma. As a responsible media vehicle, its contribution in this case was laudable.

But, the media crusade against exploitation of any sort has gained such heightened momentum off-late that citizenry would after a point give up faith in judiciary of the land to believe, their case can attain expeditious resolution once it is on media radar. The premise of such perception stems from the inordinate delay in court cases reaching fruition and even after legal battles culminate, the pronounced Verdict is either not commensurate with the crime or there is always an option to appeal in higher courts to buy time.

Before this belief gets ingrained firmly, a serious revamp of judicial machinery with focus on fast tracking legal cases, setting up additional courts, appointing requisite number of prosecutors, judges to clear backlog cases etc should be thought out. Other facet in imparting justice is the role discharged by Law enforcement agencies which ought to be morally upright and incorruptible to not stoop under the pressures of bureaucracy. Probably, only then the media glare would shift to more significant issues.

Media and judiciary are two different disciplines with completely diverse functionality and prerogatives. It is not as if one establishment can take on the mantle of responsibility for other in case of an existing lacuna in either of them. Blurring of lines or infringement on jurisdiction of judiciary by media is an unnecessary digression. It serves them better to steer clear of criminal investigations and remain committed to bringing across more invigorating, socially relevant issues to the fore which would fetch more TRP’s.

Before this post is published on my blog, another molestation case (Churchill Brothers case) is making headlines in media as though they have assumed sole responsibility to espouse the righteous cause of fighting sexual crimes in the country. Getting justice delivered to victim and crucifying perpetrator through media trial was well received in the past. But, an attempt too many in this direction would tantamount to going overboard and is already causing fatigue among viewers of news channels.



With a lot of expectation, we set out to watch the late night show on the first day of its release. My little one was so keen on tagging along with us that her excitement knew no bounds as if she would grasp the film from beginning till end. Well, the reel rolls with casting credits being read out by Mrs. Bachchan. It looked quite an innovative idea to me and probably coz A B Corp was co-producing it, they thought she is a lucky mascot. Nevertheless, she looked as charming as ever.

The movie kicks off with a contest organized by a school where a young politician Arte (played by Abhishek Bachchan) is invited as a judge and guest of honor to felicitate the winner. He gets inspired by Auro’s work and amidst loud cheers enters Auro, a frail, tall, prematurely grown up, old looking boy afflicted with progeria, a rare genetic disorder.

Auro is a child born out of wedlock to Arte and the female protagonist (Vidya Balan) when they come togther while studying overseas. Their romance is portrayed through a catchy song “Udi Udi mein” but they soon drift apart when Arte suggests to abort the child as he intends to follow in his father’s footsteps to become a politician. Vidya decides to move away without being an obstacle in his career aspirations.

The televised award ceremony leads to a series of events that develops a close bond between Auro and Arte. Vidya’s dilemma of revealing his sons relationship with Arte and subsequently on getting to know that Auro is his own blood, how the politician despite being a public figure embraces him, forms the crux of the movie.

The look of Auro is awe inspiring and makes you marvel at the transformation of BigB into Auro’s character. Its just not the prosthetic artistry that lends credence to the character but oodles of talent that makes the portrayal of Auro so authentic and incredible. Child like nuances and especially Auro’s signature jig are so deftly done that audience can completely associate with the character alone and the legend of an actor playing the part could be easily forgotten.

Music by Illyaraja is refreshing and some funny lines interspersed in between makes for lighter moments in the film. There is some deliberate media bashing that drags the movie a bit and could have been avoided. It looked as if the makers had a personal axe to grind with the media and thus incorporated those parts in the script. Otherwise, the flick is an absorbing, fairly well scripted and emotional tale.

Verdict : Should be seen at least once for Auro’s magic, refreshing look of Abhishek, superb performance of Vidya and emotional quotient of the film.