As long as there is no monopoly over information distribution and access, I think we have little to fear about who owns the media. Especially true in this age of the internet.

Let us also not ignore the ideological standpoint of the critique’s of the media today. By “independent” they mean Left-leaning and Government funded. They can’t, in a democracy, come out and call for Government ownership of the media, but they will happily take the next best thing: Purse-control.

By arrogating to themselves the title of the “People’s this” or the “Common Man’s that” their unstated assumption is that they know what the “people”or the “common man” want, and they are therefore the best persons to decide what the media should and should not cover.

What TOI is doing is in fact in the realm of capital markets regulation and more deserving of note by SEBI than churumuri.

Indian readers, viewers and listeners are too caught up in their own lives and careers to notice how they are being taken for a ride by the jute press which has now become the “jhoot” press, which not only sells its editorial space for a fee but also has strings attached to the advertising space.

In India, it seems to be as if the Indian media consumer has given up on the media as a harbinger of credible news and views. And it seems to be as if the powerful corporate media is so happy making profits that it thinks it need not address these questions of credibility.

The fact that there has been no debate on the CPM resolution demonstrates what Mehta is trying to prove. QED. But like in a democracy, when we cannot afford to not ask questions, we, as readers, viewers and listeners need to ask why we are not debating these issues.

If we ignore these questions or if we seek cover under own ideological biases, we play right into the hands of the media barons.