I think it is time for the media to start publishing on monthly, quarterly and annual basis its top sources of revenue and high level detail around these sources. I think it is relevant for the public to understand who are the advertisers, who are the people who by column space and air time, and how much money is made from pimping vis-a-vis journalistic pursuits.

The Astroturfing principle is very similar to Chomsky’s manufactured consent and is a more vulgar manifestation. Astroturfing is about lobbyists and PR firms creating artifical grassroots support for an issue of public interest such as the environment. Astroturfing @ wikipedia

My last two pieces on Air India and the Facebook Messages are good examples of Astro Turfing. The Facebook messages on healthcare in particular is a good example.

Here are some more examples of Astroturfing -

• NDTV Greenathon a.k.a NDTV Toyota Green Campaign
  The world’s largest manufacturer of cars wanted to convince us that they are really concerned about the environment. An article that I wrote on this available here.
• DNA, TOI and Bartering
  Both DNA and TOI barter ad-space for either vouchers or an equity in the company. For example if I were running a retail chain – TOI would run wonderful articles about me in exchange for either vouchers or equity depending on the volume of coverage that I desire. You would see “active” discussions on their websites as well with some amazing feedback on my store etc etc etc. The perception of “public support” based on articles that have actually been bought that makess it astroturfing.
• India Shining and BJP
  India shining will remain the best known example of Astroturfing from an Indian perspective. The year they ran the India shining campaign was the worst for farmers and availability of food grain was less than what it was during the Bengal Famine. We had the entire media talking about how wonderful everything was based on sound-bytes from ordinary citizens from urban India. The fact that this was staged and fake came out in the elections. QED.

In a nutshell Astroturfing will be prevalent and enabled by social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. We will see increasing noise about schemes such Unique ID in these spaces. Beware. We have to watch out for how these messages are manipulated by firms that specialize in marketing through social networks.

Frankly, in an emergency, I would much rather have an air hostesses with 20 years experience than a high-school graduate more concerned about the length of her skirt.

What the media does need to pay attention to is what Aviation Industry experts are talking about globally. Some of the comments that they make about Kingfisher makes you want to roll on the floor and laugh. The experts have written of Kingfisher as a failure and have categorically labeled Mallaya as a beer baron who should not be allowed to come anywhere near an Airline company. The media has missed the signals on Kingfisher but continues to hound Air India.
Here is a sample of the Kingfisher reputation — Kingfisher Airlines – Under the Influence? or Government moves to protect Air India.

Air India is an asset and it needs to provide connectivity to parts of this country that will never interest private players. They have a rich experience and like most large players in Aviation are facing some turbulence. Any moves to privatize Air India or dilute government ownership has to be questioned. Globally, most large players are getting through this period with the help of unions and government support. Why should Air India be any different?

If the management is able to get a grip and unions begin co-operating there is no-way that the turnaround will not happen. At this stage the only stakeholder group interested in the demise of Air India seems to be the Media. Now why is that the case?

The media however needs to be held accountable for manufacturing an incorrect story around procedural lapses. Such news stories do massive damage to an Airline, the media should have been applauding the Pilot, Crew, Fire Department and the ATC. I think the media has crossed the line again. Will the media be willing to say that KF is endangering passengers because it is not able to pay in time for it ground services and is cutting corners in the process?

On the flip side, Facebook is losing visitors on account of privacy concerns and twitter forces “concision” of an idea because of design limitations. The applications/sites can not be blamed for these two issues. A user, by his willingness to participate, accepts that there are risks and limitations to the virtual spaces that social networking sites create.

My key concern is not with the motives of the websites/applications. None of these sites claim an altruistic motive and not a single one of them wear’s a halo around their logos. They all claim to be in existence to generate a profit.

The gray area is around the quality of information that they generate in “public spaces”. A vast majority of people are still not on the information superhighway. Public debates and discussions about them (people not on the web) in social networking spaces is incomplete without their participation.

Let us take a specific example. The elections in Iran were received with a great of deal of criticism by the American media. The evidence that the media had – was not so much based on ground reporting as much as it was based on comments and posts that were appearing in social networking sites. One has to admit, and even the most die-hard fan of Web 2.0 has to agree, that the rural Iranian is not the most likely person to use the web to express dissent. And if the American media is to be believed it is this demographic group that voted the incumbent back to power (albeit based on a populist policy of re-distributing a bumper potato crop). Is it “democratic” to have Facebook/Twitter/YouTube users manufacture an opinion that is built on a) incomplete facts b) has only one side of the story and c) is detrimental to the interests of the people who do not have the “access” to join the debate. The closest offline example that comes to mind is the way the television media covered 26/11 without any regard for the victims or the security forces engaged in a gun battle with the terrorists.

In a more recent example – activists are passing “scraps” that encourage people to engage with a “cause” by reciprocating a “scrap”. A closer examination of these causes leads me to believe that these are not necessarily the right campaigns to be supporting from a third world perspective. The very contemporary American debates on universal healthcare and reproductive rights of women are two such causes/campaigns that are spreading like wildfire across Indian users.

The American healthcare debate is about getting large corporates to take more ownership and less profit from the American healthcare system. The nature and complexion of the healthcare debate is very different in India. We cannot blame or invite insurance companies into the debate as insurance is not within the reach of 800 million Indians. To talk about the role of private healthcare would be pointless as they are non-existent or out of reach for a majority of Indians. The two debates are very different. We can cannot cloud our debate on health with the American perspective. Our perspective needs to be more socially oriented and has nothing to do with monetary profits. The American perspective is about finding a means to equitably redistribute profits from the healthcare system to those who are in genuine need of health care. There is a big difference in the two debates and it boils down to Vitamin M. India centers it around health, America centers it around money.

Indian laws that protect a woman’s rights exist. The problem is not with what is legal and what is not. The problem is with how these laws are interpreted and implemented. Female fetocide is illegal, but it still happens. Dowry is illegal, but it still happens. Rape is illegal, but it still happens. In India the debate should not be about what the law should be but it should be about empowering people and the appropriate stakeholders with tools that will help them enforce these laws. To stand up and shout for rights would be distracting attention from the root issue of how to get existing laws implemented. The Indian Web 2.0 user is quick to jump on this “Westernized Perspective” without realizing the futility of such an approach in the Indian context. Why should our debate on gender, sexuality, affirmative action be based on Western precedents when a) their problem statements are different and b) our ground realities are different.

There is a tremendous amount of noise that is being generated about “issues of concern” in Social Networking spaces. This noise is making it increasingly difficult to understand and find diverse perspectives. One is being forced to take sides without understanding the complete issue. The side that gains momentum is typically the side that is able to make the most creative use of the Web 2.0 medium. Hypothetically, it would be possible for a good strategist to use these spaces to manufacture opinion about a specific issue (e.g. Iran). To do this would be politically incorrect as it would be manufacturing consent. Will web 2.0 be able to facilitate any sort of debate on development in India that is inclusive?

I spoke to a person called “Mama” who works at a “resort”. Mama, primarily a farmer works at the resort. He says – that he cannot remember the last time the rains were so bad. The farmers, he says, are going to have an impossibly difficult time and he thanks his stars for having a steady job in the resort. Conversations with locals both at the EcoMantra property and Palas resort leads me to the conclusion that we are in a mess. The agricultural sector will take a few years to recover and these few years give an opportunity to further alienate the small farmers from the rest of the country.

The media is ready to link the delayed monsoon with a failed economy but not with the disastrous lives of farmers. People will disagree. They will say that the monsoons (or the lack off) are getting lots of coverage. My reading is that the coverage is limited to the impact that the failed monsoons will have on the lives of the middle-class urban Indian and not on the lives of the farmer community.

Could it be possible, that the media is SOFT on the story for several reasons -

• Large retail chains are hoarding pulses and food grain in an effort to manipulate prices.
• Advertising related to cricket is critical to the electronic media. The fact the Sharad Pawar happens to be a key player on the BCCI team and the Cabinet Minister for agriculture seems to be working in the favor of the government as far reporting on farmers is concerned
• The media somehow believes that it does not need to cover issues related to farming because their readership is Urban India. They are under the misguided belief that the average reader is dumb and insensitive. They can not be further from the truth.

Anand

The sum and substance is simple – the liability of the vendors involved in providing the nuclear technology is “limited”. For example – if an American built reactor where to meet with a serious nuclear disaster in India and we find that the American vendor is at fault, then there is nothing much that we can do because that will be the law. Stinks of Bhopal and the Dow Chemical’s current efforts to wash their hands of all liability claims.

I do not understand why we cannot hold a vendor accountable for the quality of their work. For e.g. if you are building a nuclear power plant and you would expect the building to be tolerant of an earthquake of a severe magnitude earthquake. By limiting liability we are saying “try your best, you will be forgiven if something disastrous were to happen”. This opens the door to lowering quality, eliminating expensive redundancies and cutting corners.

Another analogy, supposing I bought a new set of tyres. These tyres turn out to have a manufacturing defect. As a result I burst a tyre while driving at 40Kmph and injure two pedestrians. Should the company not be liable?

The future cost of nuclear power is starting to look like a steep a price to pay to keep our cities well lit.

As an illiterate connoisseur of Indian Classical music, to me their brilliance was unmistakable and they were in my book as powerful as Mallika Arjun Mansur or Kumar Gandharv when it came to their music. They both have produced some great students and their legacy will survive through the voices of their disciples.

I have been fortunate enough to see both artists in performance and attended one of Gangubai Hangal’s last public appearances.

May their souls continue to stir our souls.

The media was literally “eclipsed” yesterday. Astrologers, scientists, and practitioners of tantra were hogging up the airwaves and print. As I was channel surfing waiting for dinner I landed on the Lok Sabha channel with live coverage of the house (at about 8:30 PM). With P C Chacko in the chair, members were given a minute to raise question of “importance to the public”. These JAM segments included some very very interesting statements –

• Why is the Indian Medical Association Supporting Pepsi Co?
• Why is there a 66% increase in Cancer cases in Kuttanad in Kerala?
• Why is Maharashtra building a dam on a river that supplies water to AP in contravention of a Supreme Court ruling?
• Why was there a blast in two explosives factories in Orissa and why were the located in the proximity of residential buildings?
• On a lighter side, why does the face of Tulsidas figure on Bidi packaging?

I must track this “public importance” session as it will probably tell me far more than what the media ever will.