Arnab Goswami - the meteoric rise of a media outsider

Photo: +The News Minute 

Article first published in +The News Minute Click here



Arnab is a rare media personality, who from being a news anchor has transcended the professional "Lakshman Rekha" to become news himself. Much of that has been the contribution of his former colleagues, who first turned rivals and finally adversaries - trolling him relentlessly. Though Arnab too studied in Delhi (Hindu not Stephen’s) and also went to Oxford as some of his celebrity contemporaries, not being a Delhi or Mumbai boy (coming from Assam) he was not considered part of the inner circle. At NDTV - the alma mater of so many news TV stars - he was always under the shadow of not only Barkha and Rajdeep but also the next rung of starlets and wannabe stars.

When Arnab moved out of NDTV, no one took either him or Times Now seriously. The battle ahead was expected to be primarily between NDTV and TV18 CNN-IBN. The unconventional decision to have a news channel out of Mumbai, instead of Delhi, which was the place of action, was itself frowned upon. The initial years were trying for Arnab (as has been chronicled at fair length in a number of hatchet jobs in other publications) and there were rumours of the Jains even starting to look out for his replacement at one stage. Finally, he found his mojo in The Newshour and the rest is now history.

Arnab not only became his competitors envy, even those who criticised him clandestinely watched his show. The only other parallel in Indian media this columnist can think of is the Bengali Daily - Anandabazar Patrika - that everyone trashes but loves to read. This gave rise to the advertising slogan - "what does Anandabazar have to say (on a topic)?" Similarly, no matter how much people dissed Arnab and The Newshour, even his most vocal detractors were keen to know his position on key issues of the day. Often, Arnab was the one who set the agenda for others.

Another distinctive style of Arnab was that he preferred to be the quintessential Anchor and Editor instead of an Anchor-Reporter, which is more common in television journalism. Therefore, Arnab did not step out of the studio except for his face-to-face Frankly Speaking interviews. Also, being stuck before the camera, practically 365 nights of the year, he had little time for schmoozing in the capital's power circuit. So, he continued to remain the "outsider". Distance gave him an enigmatic and maverick image, which he seemed to enjoy.

In many ways, Arnab changed the paradigm of Indian news television. Contrary to popular perception, while he was not afraid of taking positions on issues, he did not bring personal bias or prejudice against individuals on his shows. This is more than what one can say about many of his peers. He provoked and intimidated - in an adversarial mode of anchoring - to bring out the counter point of view but never tried to surreptitiously sneak in political or personal agenda. I am inclined to believe he is politically agnostic and much of his posturing is for effect (On the few occasions, I have met Arnab socially, found him to be soft-spoken and polite to a fault).

To many who had followed his meteoric rise - the question was not whether he will ever leave Times Now, but when. It is humanly impossible to maintain that maniacal pace and tenacity month after month. One has seldom seen him take breaks and a few times he has even returned cutting short his leave if there was an important news-break. He had clearly peaked at his game and from hereon it could only be a plateau at best till youngsters displaced him from the top slot. There were already his clones copying The Newshour format to create a poor man's Times Now. While others after trying to put him down - with snide asides (example "You don't have to shout to be heard") went back to their old ways of slanted journalism.

Clearly Arnab had to reinvent himself. But, it is doubtful if he could have done it at Times Now. If he stayed on forever - his core audience and fans would expect more of the same from him - which would be a recipe for professional disaster. Now, if he makes a fresh start he has a better chance of creating something new for himself. The best part of that will be, this time around he shall own "the brand" not someone else.

For the Jains too, it will be a good opportunity to get off the Tiger that they had inadvertently mounted. They can now get fresh talent and also relaunch the product in a new avatar - something that BCCL is particularly good at. One would not be surprised if they make it into a newsroom-based channel rather than an anchor-dependent channel (just as they have done for their print and digital publications). It will be a "win-win" for both.

I for one do not subscribe to the theory that Arnab has resigned due to differences on editorial policy. Knowing how commercially driven the BCCL group is, TRP is what would matter to them most. However, being independent will certainly give Arnab much more room for play. It is also possible that over the past few months Arnab was raising his jingoistic pitch and displaying an incipient right-wing inclination as a build up for his next jump. But, I am willing to bet Arnab and the Jains would part as friends without rancour.

Finally, it was amusing to note that some Times Now staffers actually cried after he made the announcement. This is somewhat at variance to the impression outside that Arnab is a monster of a boss who everyone loved to hate.

Non-aggression is a "Non-Option" for Modi Government in Parliament

There is a great deal of sadistic joy being derived by politicians, media pundits and social media “liberalati” on the apparent “setback” suffered by the government – after an united opposition forced an amendment to the motion of thanks for the President’s Address. Media reaction ranged from “embarrassment” to “government left red-faced”. The Trinamool Congress rejoiced at their pyrrhic victory – by an unprecedented act of convergence with arch-rival CPI(M) - their Parliamentary party leader, Derek O’Brien, calling it “the Rajya Sabha’s equivalent of a vote of No Confidence”. Many a commentator has already written the epitaph of the Land Acquisition, Insurance and other bills in the parliamentary pipeline saying Modi’s arrogance is going to cost BJP dearly.

It is unlikely that the PM Modi hadn’t bargained for any reaction– after what was by any standards a provocative speech. If he left the House immediately on completion of his speech – without waiting for any questions or rejoinders – it must have been a pre-mediated move and not guided solely by considerations of parliamentary protocol. While the absence of BJP MPs from the house was singularly unpardonable – they being around would not have made much difference as the NDA is hopelessly short of numbers in the Rajya Sabha.

It is debatable if better “floor management” could have saved the day. Some feel the BSP, SP and BJD may have been persuaded not to go against the government at least on this occasion - but expecting the Congress and CPI(M) to have yielded after the vitriol that was poured over them in both houses (in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha ) was wishful thinking.

Narendra Modi’s combative mood was evident from his swipes as “Zamana badal gaya hain, sunna padega ji” – not to mention, his going for the jugular on MNREGA in the Lok Sabha - which was undoubtedly targeted squarely at Sonia Gandhi sitting across the aisle. And, oh boy – did the message hit home? One had to only watch Madam’s expression on TV to know. Therefore, if he chose to be aggressive it must have been advisedly so. This might hold some clue on what could the government’s strategy in the days ahead is going to be as it braces up to negotiate some vital pieces of legislation on which rests not just BJP’s economic reforms agenda – but also, as the Prime Minister so lucidly explained , many of the welfare and developmental initiatives linked to them.

In an earlier article even this author had argued that Modi should – perhaps – have adopted a more “inclusive” or reconciliatory approach in governance carrying the opposition with him to the extent possible. That he has chosen not to do so - can’t be due to his ego and authoritarian temperament alone. Whether one likes him or not, there is no underestimating Modi’s political acumen – as he himself chided the opposition in Parliament. If he thought – offering the olive branch to the Opposition was the solution, he would have done so long back. It’d be simplistic to suggest he has been blinded by power not to see the obvious.

Erudite political analysts have criticised the “modern day Alexander” streak in Modi – with Amit Shah being his proverbial “Ashwamedh” – suggesting this is creating deep insecurity not only among BJP’s opponents but also its allies. It is also being argued – after Jharkhand, Kashmir and, now, most recently the Delhi rout – this strategy has run its course and can only yield diminishing returns, if not become outright counter-productive, going forward. Therefore – if Modi has decided to play on the front-foot it must only be after careful consideration. Even before the elections – Modi had figured out he had to go it alone all the way. None of the left of centre parties would risk jeopardising their traditional vote-bank (dilute their labels of “secular” or “friends of the poor and farmers’’ – as opposed to industrialists) for the fear of total extinction. Little has changed even after the elections. Those – who had to switch sides, have done so lock, stock and barrel (though one is yet to see any real exodus yet). For others it’s too early to give up their core “positioning”, which they are only trying to consolidate it by strange mating rituals driven by strong Darwinian instincts of self-preservation, as it were. And, to expect the Congress to play a “bi-partisan” role – under their current self-centred leadership – would be dreaming of Ram Rajya indeed.

Another learning for Modi government has been - alliances have been formed through hard-negotiations by subtle show of strength and occasional brinkmanship. They have to be held in place also by exercising the “upper-hand” at all times. Slightest signs of faltering or weakness – and partners like the Shiv Sena immediately start flexing muscles demanding a fresh pound of flesh. Allies will play ball only as long as BJP is in the driver’s seat. For that Modi-Shah’s expansionist forays have to continue relentlessly.

Though the merits of a strategy can only be judged in hindsight – and therein lie the test of a leader – for the moment “non – confrontational” parliamentary politics is not an option for Modi government. If civilised discourses and genteel persuasion were the solution – then Arun Jaitley’s cerebral speeches and dinner diplomacy would have won the day. But, here we are dealing with mauled tigers – which won’t be tamed just by applying poultice on their wounds. Sure, backroom negotiations will happen. But, they will have to be with real carrots and sticks on the table – and not soft cajoling and coaxing - over litti-chokha (in any case Bengali “fish-fry” is a no-no for vegetarian Modi).

But, in the final analysis, Modi is the prime minister today by virtue of an overwhelming popular mandate. Ultimately he will have to carry the message back to the people. In this, he is fighting a lonely battle. It is ironical that Modi’s biggest gift – communication - is also proving to be his Achilles Heel. Modi’s only cheerleaders are his band of hand-picked loyal ministers - mostly the young lot. By choice, he has marginalised the old guard. The RSS and its nominees in Parliament have little stake in Modi’s reformist agenda. There will always be that uneasy tension with the old regional satraps – like Raman Singh and Shivraj Chouhan. Seniors like Rajnath, Sushma and Gadkari – who share a mutual wariness with Modi - would play it safe and won’t stick their necks out for Modi. To that extent, he suffers from the same handicap as the UPA, which was often called a government of “technocrats and bureaucrats”. This leaves only Modi alone to control the narrative – with little help that he can get from Arun Jaitley and Amit Shah. He did it successfully – during his run up to the Lok Sabha - managing his entire campaign out of a war-room in Gandhinagar with a crack team (and, probably, an international Communication Consultant – as many allege). But, he can’t remain the lone crusader when he is the PM, as the position itself puts major constraints on him like we saw during the Delhi elections.

At present Modi has the entire Opposition, NGOs, media left-lib intellectuals and some sections of businessmen rallying to derail him. So far, Modi has managed to successfully neutralise (even if for the time being) the international lobby. He could isolate another vital link in the chain by co-opting the media - who – feeling left out as jilted lovers – would be too willing to queue up and offer their hand – if only Modi whispers “Barkis is willing”. It may not honeymoon on a bed of roses thereafter – but life can certainly be a bit less stressful.

Article first published in @DailyO_ (click here to read)

Why the media cannot be blamed for BJP's Loss and AAP's Victory ?

Many are blaming the media for the BJP's poll-debacle in Delhi - and conversely crediting them for Arvind Kejriwal's spectacular resurrection. It's true that the media has been deeply polarised against Modi and were far from being non-partisan. Apart from ideological difference there has been a lot of personal animosity against the man - which most haven't tried to hide even with a handkerchief. It's a situation where it would be embarrassing for the most left of centre journalist to come out in open support of the Congress or its no-longer-oh-so-young leader. Kejriwal, however, with his image of the enigmatic underdog and messiah of the common man, provided a seductive counter option to back.

But having said that - I do feel the media's own contribution to the Delhi verdict has been largely exaggerated - though it is difficult to miss the gloating and vicarious joy writ large on many faces as if it was they rather than Kejriwal who slay the common "Enemy no 1".

To understand, one probably needs to step back a little to explain the nature of the beast that is today's media - in particular, 24/7 television.

At last count, there are nearly 400 news and current affairs channels in India and the list is still growing. It's another matter that news TV commands less than ten per cent of the total TV viewership in this country and even a smaller share of the TV ad-pie - most of which are gobbled up by the top ten, a unique programming format that rests primarily on talk shows inside the studio. Therefore, prime-time debates - when the rest of the world likes to watch hard news coverage - are not as much the product of our inherent "argumentative Indian" character but also a by-product of a "low-cost" business model.

Studio debates are easy and cheap to produce. It requires modest investment on sets. Most guests are happy to come for gratis - just the prospect of being seen on television is enticing enough. Political spokespersons in any case don't charge. Only some of the regular talking heads - would get a nominal appearance fee. This is much cheaper than sending camera crews and anchors on jaunts across the country or foreign destinations to make documentaries, which few watch in any case.

But, the point of this article is not to analyse the economics of news television in India (as that might lead to another - "bazaaru" - direction) - but to try and examine how it is shaping the national discourse.

Prior to news TV - the intelligentsia formed their political opinions from the edit pages of newspapers. This was even before editorialising of news on the front-page started. Radio (AIR news) had little or no "comment" time - except for some news-features like "Spotlight". Doordarshan in its pristine avatar had some staid discussions (not even debates) of the kind one sees today on Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha TV. While credit can't be denied to the pioneer of modern news television in India - Prannoy Roy - for popularising TV debates first through his Budget discussions and then election analyses - the real "game-changer" was the explosion of the vernacular channels. It was especially these "sansani" Hindi channels that, in my judgement also triggered the re-engineering of the English channels - making them more accessible (call it "Arnabisation" or plain "dumb down") and less elitist.

For a generation that had almost stopped reading newspapers other than Page 3 supplements - this audio-visual "infotainment'' rekindled interest in current affairs and politics cutting across age-groups and socio-economic strata. What media has definitely achieved , above all, is raising awareness and engagement at all levels - which lead to people making a much more informed choice. It may not be totally off the mark to say - this is reflected in the high voter turn-outs in recent elections as well the regular surprised that the electorate throw at politicians (including yesterday's watershed verdict).

No doubt, it created the cult of star anchors and a band of professional talking-heads - comprising largely moonlighting or superannuated journalists. A natural fall out of this are bloated egos in the exaggerated belief that they are shaping the political destiny of the country and can make or unmake careers of politicians. The reality isn't so linear - simply because the audience are not so naive. True, television creates a lot of "surround sound" - as it were - and also has a huge "media multiplier" effect - as both print and online media tend to follow the "real time" news breaks of television. But, those evening sparring matches on the small screen - if clinically analysed - compete on the entertainment quotient with the WWE "noora kushti" of yore or closer to home, the more recent, Comedy Nights with Kapil - taking the liberty of stretching the point by a few yards.

Having spent some time in the media industry, in my view, the intelligent citizen consumes information and alternative points of view from multiple sources but digests them at their own pace before forming their opinion. So if some "star" journalists brag (as an editor of one of India's largest newspaper once to his own peril said, "Mine is the second most important job in the country after the prime minister's") about shaping national policy, they are probably being less than serious and doing it only to impress a nubile trainee in the newsroom.

That is not to discount the influence of media - in building image or creating perceptions. But, the clever players use the media rather than letting the media use them. This where the talent of Kejriwal, Modi or the latter's friend "Barack" lies. They understand the power of the medium, or know how to ride a tiger. Of course, the media can help a bit by strategically editing "Krantikari" bits of an interview or let you down by panning the camera too close to reveal the letters adorning the pin-stripes on a suit. In the process, occasionally a Rajinikanth's Lingaa may bomb at the box-office and a Slumdog will walk away with the Oscars. But, that's all in the game.

Article first published in the @DailyO_ Click here to read

The Pat Pong Principles of Media Management

(Reading my last blog, a friendly critic – obviously nauseated by the ranting about pigs and sausages – suggested that, I write on issues that are close to my heart rather than straight from the gut. So here comes one from somewhere high above-the-belt…)


“You can try leaving the media, but – once bitten – the bug of media never (completely) lets you go “ – a veteran colleague had wisely warned before I quit to make - what I consider to be - a monumental move from ‘paper to concrete’, quite literally!! So I was far from unhappy – if truth were told – when I was invited to take a course on the “Business of Print” at MICA earlier this year. Despite some mild protestations (such as, I am no longer a media person and not an expert on the subject) and a couple of coy postponements later – I went to Ahmedabad one Sunday in mid-march, when the mercury had already begun to soar in Gujrat. I surprised at my own stamina in accomplishing a marathon feat of delivering 5 lectures in a row on a single-day much to the dismay of the second semester class, who after that - I was quite sure – would not venture anywhere near the print media.

But there’s no denying that media fascinates me. It is the chimerical character of media, (rather than AL Capone’s irresistible canine charm, as many suspect) which seduced me into joining ABP in the first place. So what is it now? Is it an unsatisfied craving for something that I tasted but couldn’t have for good – like an affair that fizzled out? Is it an old love whom I haven’t been able to forget and will keep returning to her from time to time? – probably not. Do I miss the people I worked with ? – most definitely not the majority of those I met at my last port of call. But, yet - I suspect – media would always remain for me like a flame with whom one has parted ways – but haven’t been able to get over completely – still wanting keep in touch and know what’s happening in her life – albeit from a distance - and sometimes wondering how it would have been if we had stayed together.

Perhaps, I always realized this at a sub-conscious level but wasn’t prepared to admit it upfront. So, when some friends suggested - I start a blog on media, I resisted the idea. For one I didn’t wish to remain to stuck in the past. I felt - once having decided to call it quits one must move on. Second, in any case, I find there are far too many media-blogs floating with every self-styled media pundit putting up their 2 bits into cyber-space. Media types are known for a healthy narcissism and I didn’t wish to contribute to that clutter. Yet I find myself returning occasionally to some old watering holes for a little draught of the world that I left behind.

So a couple of weeks back when a common friend called to say that Peter McCann (an Aussie, former Washing Machine marketer who had fallen into the "whirlpool" of Delhi media but was wise enough to quickly extricate) was coming to town and has suggested that some of us get together for a drink – I welcomed the idea at the prospect of indulging in some innocuous 'V-Man' bashing. Peter recently gave up his consulting assignment and changed track to join one of the largest condom marketing companies in the world ( ‘KS’ is their brand in India ) as the Marketing Head for Asia. This gave him a unique perspective - literally from ‘down under’ - about the goings-on at a 17th storey establishment somewhere in the vicinity of a “circus” in central Delhi, now a "chowk" renamed after a late Prime Minister of India.

When a motley crowd of four get together with a Marketing guru around what else would they talk about - but Marketing ? So, over bottles of Fosters going down like circulation into the Mahim creek – we chatted on how the Bangkok School of Media Management teaches delivering value to the advertisers. It seems that, according to the 'Pat Pong Principle of Stickiness' maximum ‘consumer connect’ is achieved when the readership of a newspaper slowly begins to creep up to match its circulation to reach the dream number of 'one reader per copy' ( which shows 100 % involvement - the reader feels so attached and possessive about his paper, he refuses to part with it even to a member of his own family for all the filial love in this world). There is a further ‘media-multiplier effect’ if the bulk of those readers can be co-opted - thru’ focused micro-marketing - from affluent areas, such as the one across the rail tracks to the east of Mahim. (Apparently, the problem arises only when one tries to 'feverishly' apply these canons of readership to listenership) .

We also talked about ‘blue-ocean strategy’ – of how to rescue a sinking oil tanker by launching a fleet of submarines - bank rolled by PE investors ( So after the 'sub-prime' crisis what - the newspaper 'sub-marine' crisis ? Remember you read it here, first) !! Analysed a live ‘case-study’ of an ultimate positioning master-coup – achieved by changing the entire 'paradigm' for a financial daily and marketing it not for its news content but its soft-columns and life-style section ( to be enjoyed like after dinner thin mint chocolates, while unwinding in a plush cognac lounge ) thus hoping to garner the maximum female audience for a Business Journal ( users of BVLGARI - pronounced as "Bavalgari" by some). Any advertisers' dream, but just that it simply doesn't 'ad' up to revenues. Discussed, brilliant "out of the box" marketing innovations such a model for ensuring newspaper customer loyalty by giving house-wives a lifetime's supply of "tupperware" and bed-sheets. And, we finally concluded that, to continuously delight its consumers - a newspaper must not only inform, educate and entertain but also enlighten its readers – leaving them asking for laburnums in Karolbagh.

Last week in Delhi, my very stimulating breakfast chat with an erudite economic editor, over steaming tumblers of strong Coorg coffee at Sarvanah Bhavan, was about the discovery of a Farm House index for the new Moguls of Indian Journalism. In the evening, at the IIC bar, of course, the subjects get heavier as the smoke gets thicker and we imbibe more of that familiar amber liquid. The venerable octogenarian holds forth on the shock and horror that the fraternity had felt some years back, at discovering that a known nymphomaniac had started demanding money for favours granted. And how, things came round a full-circle, as if by a stroke of poetic justice, when the same old lady was outraged at being denied free and unrestricted 'coverage' rights for the new 20:20 flick-shows. At this point, to distract him, a mischievous young compatriot chipped in to ask, if in his opinion a low pallu to bare midriff ratio worked as well for the sports pages of a national daily as it undoubtedly did for the sunday supplement (and he was not referring to cheer leaders here ). After a while, the discussions veered to the hot topic of the day - whether it's Jojo-ba oil that is making the edit-page Uncle’s bald pate shine so radiantly of late or is it something he got from (his) DNA but no one noticed ? We shall soon know.

Hearing an account of all this – a lady friend explodes, "you so and so… it’s not the media you love but you are simply titillated by our gossip, sleaze and bitching". Then, after a few moments of silent reflection, she lets out a candid admission: "but, that’s what media is all about and you are just like one of us".

"So, Welcome back to the club", she adds with an understanding smile !!