Muted by circumstances

Indian mainstream media, supposedly the fourth pillar of democracy, has increasingly come under scrutiny for its role for aligning with political and corporate interests, either through co-ownership by pro-government entities or a calculated decision to align with those in power. Such compromises have eroded the media’s credibility, transforming it into a tool for propaganda rather than a platform for objective journalism. A glaring example of this bias can be observed in the coverage of recent incidents at the Mahakumbh Mela in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. On one hand, the media blitz was overwhelming. All channels made Prayagraj their ground zero. The media blitz appeared to transcend mere religious reporting. While the Mahakumbh Mela is a deeply spiritual gathering, the coverage seemed to pivot toward highlighting the “achievements of the Uttar Pradesh government” and showing the party in power as a practitioner and protector of the majority religion. This strategic focus, while commendable in its intent to project progress, subtly shifted the discourse from the sacred to the political, reflecting the media’s role in shaping public perception. However, whether media chooses to over project or report on a 24X7 is a matter of what seems important. However, one of the essentials of media ethics is holding those in power accountable to the people. The test unfortunately came when two separate stampedes occurred, resulting in the loss of numerous lives. While any such tragedy demands accountability and rigorous scrutiny, the media’s response has been notably muted. This stands in stark contrast to the treatment of similar incidents in states not governed by the NDA or BJP. The reluctance to hold the Uttar Pradesh government accountable reflects a broader trend of media houses prioritizing their relationships with the ruling dispensation over their duty to the public. This not only undermines the principles of democracy but also diminishes the media’s role as a watchdog. The disparity in coverage raises questions about the media’s commitment to impartiality and its susceptibility to political influence. The other stampede happened not in Prayagraj but miles away in Delhi on February 15, where several thousand people were bunched together in platforms as several trains were delayed. The surge in passengers traveling to Prayagraj, where the Maha Kumbh is underway, exposed the railway system’s inability to manage large crowds effectively. Furthermore, the sale of excess tickets exacerbated the situation. A staggering 9,600 general class tickets were sold against a capacity of 7,000, leading to unbearable congestion. Delayed trains on platforms 13 and 14 only added to the turmoil, making the station a ticking time bomb. Thus confusion and panic caused the stampede and resulted in loss of 18 lives. Poor coordination and inadequate infrastructure were key contributors to the disaster. The clustering of several Prayagraj-bound trains on several platforms, coupled with last-minute announcements, created chaos. Confusion arose over the name Prayagraj as two trains bore similar names- Prayagraj Special at platform 16 and Prayagraj Express already stationed at platform 14. This miscommunication triggered a frantic rush, turning overcrowded platforms into a death trap. In such cases, the media often engages in relentless criticism, subjecting Chief Ministers or officials to a kangaroo court of public opinion. Citizens want to know who are to be held accountable for the deaths of so many precious lives and here the media has to seriously introspect.