Thanks for your detailed response and incisive mail. Your critique is well taken, and I am in agreement with many of your arguments. I agree that the same questions about media autonomy arise with regard to the actions of indigenous capitalists, influential individuals or groups, and the Left in India and elsewhere. I also agree that media do not reflect a unified or monolithic national agenda, which, in any case, is difficult to define. And the threat to sovereignty, of course, is routinely invoked by states and governments to suppress dissent and freedom of expression.

My argument is that these actions do not take place in a vacuum, whether in a national space from which outsiders are barred or in a space where global or transnational conglomerates can now participate through a variety of arrangements. The common element here is power. The journalistic field, or media field, more broadly, is structured by power relations, often between actors with unequal power, and these power dynamics will affect the exercise of choices and outcomes. My point is not that one party– say, an Indian media organization– in these arrangements lacks agency in exercising choice. The question of interest, rather, is: what is the set of choices available to such agents at all? What are the criteria of selection, implict or explicit, of content? What are the conventions by which something is established as journalistic fact?

This relates to the central question you raise about what constitutes a real difference of view in the context of (a) a publication with national or global reach, (b) a national media space, and (c) transnational media spaces.

My inquiry also concerns how the entry of global or transnational actors alters the dynamics of the field. I am by no means suggesting that the impact will be uniformly negative. As you point out, the insistence on transparency regarding the arrangements itself draws attention to earlier treaties that were, so to speak, off the radar.

My contention here is that with the addition of the global dimension, the relationship between national sovereignty and media autonomy will need to be significantly rethought, theorized, and studied.

In the case of the Prince Harry embargo, with respect to the actions and coverage of some of the British and American media organizations, the questions that arise may be posed thus: what is the nature of the imagined community of readers here? Does it include people from all nations and societies? Does it privilege certain readers over others? Does it privilege a national or regional readership over a truly global readership?

You make a conceptual distinction between the status of a media organization that licenses content and a media organization that is a fully owned subsidiary of a transnational conglomerate or entity headquartered in another national context. Again, that point is well taken. At the same time, I think it is worthwhile to ask the question in each case. In some cases, the answer might be that the question does not apply at all and is, consequently, trivial; in other cases, it may illuminate the workings behind editorial decisions and point to specific ways in which globalization both enables and constrains media in various contexts.

Similar questions also apply to the global academy, especially with regard to some of the initiatives between, say, American universities and universities in the so-called developing world, an issue that I have explored elsewhere. Here too, it is not the case that the partners in the developing world lack autonomy or that their actions are determined in a simplistic manner by the other party. But at the same time, the knowledge that is being exchanged and shared does circulate in a particular economy which is shaped by different actors in profoundly unequal ways. A more detailed comparison is a topic for another article on Interjunction.

Once again, many thanks.

Regards
Rohit

Thanks for your mail. Point taken, the correction is made in the article.

Thanks also for your critique and engaging with the article. I would be very interested in your response to the broader issue, and its implications for the autonomy of media actors in India or elsewhere. My argument is that any kind of alliance, say between Western and Indian media organizations, does take place in a broader economy– of information, facts, and representation– which is itself structured by power differences between actors.

The point is not that there is some necessary agenda that is imposed on one party by the other. Rather, the question I am interested in examining is how this larger structure translates into constraints on actors. I agree as Salil suggests (to whose post I will respond shortly), that there are other dynamics and questions at work here as well.

Regards
Rohit Chopra
Editor, Interjunction

I go with Raju on this one – but full disclosure; I write for Mint and for WSJ and a few others. Here’s why: the issue you seem to be concerned about is the conflict of interest or influence on editorial policies due to the foreignness of the partner. This implies that there is a unified Indian agenda, or a unified American agenda (using the CNN/WSJ analogy here). As we know from both countries, the media in each place is diverse, with a wide range of views. We know there is no unified US agenda on many issues (Parag Khanna makes this point in a forthcoming book, that there’s no one US foreign policy; there’s a Bill Gates foreign policy, a George Soros foreign policy, a Republican foreign policy, a Democrat foreign policy, a fundamentalist Christian foreign policy, an ACLU foreign policy, a Planned Parenthood foreign policy). Many of these find resounding echoes in India, too. If an Indian paper, under license, echoes such views, is it because of that influence? Or because of a belief, (in say liberalization or free markets)? The challenge becomes more interesting when there’s a real difference of view: such as, an Indian publication advocating an overthrow of Musharraf, and an American one saying he’s needed for war on terror; or an Indian newspaper supporting outsourcing, an American one opposing it (unlikely, in the WSJ/Mint case).

The examples you cite – concerning Murdoch and sub-prime crisis – I don’t see them emerging as real conflicts within such partnerships. The WSJ will, for example, criticize bailout of banks in America; Mint will be critical of Chidambaram writing off farm debt. What Mint thinks of sub-prime would not be a matter of great concern for Wall Street or for WSJ, for that matter, to be viewed as a real conflict.

It is interesting that you note the influence of foreign licensing once such arrangements have become transparent. What about the relationship Blitz may have had with the Shah of Iran, or with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? What about the influence the Left has on N Ram at the Hindu? What about more mundane conflicts of interests, such as the Hindu prominently running a story of Ram’s daughter winning the best student award at Columbia University’s J-School? Why did the Mylapore-Kanchipuram Tam-Brahm Society Newsletter story become such a prominent one for India’s only so-called secular newspaper?

And what about the far more insidious influence of proprietors within India? Vijaypat Singhania had two scalps – Nihal Singh and Vinod Mehta – in rapid succession at the Indian Post; the Times of India converted a legitimate tax inquiry into the affairs of the Jain family into a human rights crusade; a Times editor in Bombay suppressed a story about his father, a celebrity in his own right, when the father was raided for foreign exchange violations? The conflict of interest spawned by the Private Treaties? Those are far more problematic for an Indian reader, than any editorial line a foreign publisher might have on an issue, which its Indian licensee may or may not agree with. If CNN/IBN and Mint were full-scale subsidiaries, that would make it a different issue. But so long as the arrangement is of picking up material for a fee on an exclusive basis, I don’t see a problem here.

Thanks;

Salil

Thanks for your response. I too think the term ‘press’ should be an inclusive one. The Matt Drudge phenomenon raises interesting questions about our assumptions regarding what is legitimately part of the press and what is not.

Thanks
Rohit Chopra

Thank you for your response. I would submit that my argument stands.

Even if it is not legally incumbent on CNN-IBN or Mint to follow the decisions taken by CNN or the Wall Street Journal on a matter, the question about autonomy is valid. Would CNN-IBN, for instance, engage in a detailed critique about ,say, CNN’s coverage of the Iraq war? Would Mint similarly critique the Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the subprime crisis or carry articles critical of Rupert Murdoch?

My article made the broad point that the arrangements between the media organizations are alliances or joint initiatives. Brand and content licensing arrangements fall under the purview of the normative meaning of both terms.

What exactly is the nature of the brand licensing agreements? If the details of these agreements are made public, that too would surely make for an engaged discussion about the implications of such ventures for the autonomy of the institutions concerned. I am not suggesting that their autonomy necessarily *would* be comprised. But simply that it is an obvious question that arises and one that needs debate and discussion among mediapersons, academics, and the public at large.

We would be glad to post a more detailed response by you on the subject on Interjunction.

Rohit Chopra
Editor, Interjunction