ITV

Tag: Arnab Goswami

  • Of Arnab’s Republic, nationalism, need for opinionated media & ‘outdated’ BBC

    NEW DELHI: Priyanka Chopra may have melted under stringent scrutiny of people on Reddit, but Arnab Goswami is made of sterner stuff. Not only he answered tricky questions — criticism later notwithstanding about his biases — but was unsparingly scathing on people and issues he thought did not have a place in the Indian republic, at least not in Arnab’s Republic. In the bargain, he also did some suave marketing.
    “Tune in and make Republic your go to channel for news. Every challenge is an opportunity. The Goliath of the Legacy Print media (Times of India group that was his former employer) tried to stop us from being launched. I have a great team. Their passion and commitment is bringing Republic to you in a few days. Back us and watch us,” Arnab started off with one of his pet themes in a Reddit interaction yesterday.

    Asked by several people whether journalists should mix opinion with news reports — something which old school journalism warned youngsters to keep away from — the new age journalist and self-proclaimed messiah of the hoi-polloi was unabashed  in his thoughts: “For a long time, reporters haven’t expressed their opinion. When we include opinion on issues that are black and white, we make reporting an agent of change. That will be our motto.

    “We believe that journalists need to set the agenda for politicians. Not just (take) their sound bytes and debate it. That’s what we will do on Republic. I trust this will set a new benchmark and we need your support… REPUBLIC is a free to air non-encrypted news channel. The only Indian English news channel that is free to air. Support us by please asking your cable/DTH operators to tune us in.”

    At another place, while dwelling on news with dollops of personal opinion, Arnab opined, “Yes there is a need to balance the narrative (so called handed out by Left liberals). We have had historians who had the temerity to classify Bhagat Singh as a terrorist. These people must be brought off their pulpits. These people have had a disproportionate share of voice because a large section of the traditional legacy media has co-opted them and given them space in editorial pages and TV.

    “I’m trying to change that. We need a fresh new group of people who lead opinion in India. They need to be from across India, not a 5×5 km zone from Malcha Marg (located near Delhi’s diplomatic enclave) to the JNU campus. Trust me, we will make that happen with Republic… We represent the REAL INDIA.”

    Arnab’s new venture, supported by a gaggle of investors, is called Republic TV with its digital sibling being Republic World. Touted to have been launched on India’s Republic Day on January 26, the venture faced hiccups, mostly political in nature, delaying its formal take off. 

    That’s why yesterday’s Reddit interaction was termed by some observers as of gold standard, mostly aimed at keeping the buzz up about his new(s) venture. 

    The questions came thick and fast with many of those online showing a fair understanding of the environ in which Republic would operate and the ideas it would propogate.

    Sample this question: You have been promoting Republic TV as an unbiased media outlet with no conflicts of interest. But with Rajeev Chandrashekhar, a strong BJP supporter and Rajya Sabha MP running the show, and Anupam Kher, another vocal BJP supporter whose wife is a BJP MP, being associated with the channel, how can you say that there won’t be bias?

    Terming Chandrashekhar a “nationalist”, Arnab said, “I am very proud of all my partners. Each one of them believes in my journalism. I am proud of the investment we have received from Asianet News. It is India’s oldest private news channel. Rajeev is a nationalist and we share a great rapport. Each one of them believes in my journalism.”

    But, what about Chandrashekhar flexing legal muscle to bring down a story on him and Republic investments on news website The Wire? What about freedom of the media? Arnab was dismissive: “About The Wire, less said the better. They are using my name to try and get some followers on their crumbling news site. :).” However, The Wire later claimed in tweets that the man just couldn’t stop speaking about them.
    The incisive questioning continued. One person asked about Republic TV’s global ambitions and what were Arnab’s views on the likes of CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera. “Is (Republic) just a right-leaning news channel for local audience, a la Fox News?” was the question. The flamboyant TV anchor, who made a name on Times Now with being, what critics dubbed, the prosecutor, judge and jury”, was his usual self: “BBC is outdated. Al Jazeera is well funded.” 

    The counter-comments revealed that not everybody participating in the live interaction was totally convinced by Arnab’s clarifications and jibes. Some remarks countered that the journalist’s “mask was off” and some of his answers were “poor”. 

    When the questions turned towards Arnab’s fav topics of nationalism, patriotism, mostly worn on the sleeve, and an abhorrence for contrarian views on these issues, Arnab wasn’t fazed.

    Asked if he was “blinded by excessive patriotism” to the point that it has become almost a “sin and a sure fire criminal case” to criticize elected officials, decisions taken by them, the armed forces etc, Arnab was categorical: “There can never be enough nationalism. More the better. We have forces that are trying to divide and break India from within. No nation can be soft on anti-nationals. My position remains the same that I took when a bunch of anti nationals tried to make the breakup of India into a slogan on the JNU campus. I took them on, even though the Lutyen’s media and cocktail activists didn’t.”

    Here’s another sample of patriotism in Arnab’s Republic. “I feel the army and paramilitary needs to be given greater powers in Kashmir. The state government must empower the J&K police. Before every election in the state, the party in power softens versus the separatists. I am appalled at the pictures of Kashmiris assaulting a soldier. That soldier must be decorated for his restraint and each of those goons rounded up. 

    People have questioned why a Kashmiri was put in front of an army jeep. If that is the only way to stop an attack on our soldiers, I see no problem with it. No man in an Indian uniform can become prey to the cowards who shoot in stealth. I wish the legacy Indian media saw the reality,” Arnab replied when asked about his obsession with Kashmir, and Army’s role as India had much more pressing issues than “Kashmir and beef.”
    According to him, “All Indians should be pro-military and pro-India. If that makes us right wing, then so be it.” 

    Arnab also made clear his views on global NGOs, a line of thought that is championed by the ruling BJP too. “I don’t believe the garble that Amnesty and Greenpeace put out about my country. The limit (of freedom of expression and thoughts) is up to the point where you don’t question India’s unity and sovereignty. That is unacceptable. No journalist can use freedom of expression to stretch that limit.

    “We will use digital + technology + the power of our democracy + our superior knowledge of English (relative to the British and the Americans) to broadcast news globally. On every screen. In the next two years. It’s going to happen. Believe in it. We do at Republic.”

    A self-confessed social anthropologist who “trained unsuccessfully” and “likes a lot” the late feisty journalist Vinod Mehta, Arnab highlighted that he was non-partisan. As examples, during the Reddit interaction, he said, “(Congress party leader Suresh) Kalmadi didn’t want the CWG scam printed, Lalit Modi and (present foreign minister) Sushma Swaraj didn’t want Lalitgate broken, (Delhi CM) Arvind Kejriwal didn’t like the scam about 27 parliamentary secretaries and Ashok Chavan (former Maharashtra CM) made his last call before quitting, asking a story to be called off (on Times Now).”

    If Arnab made the line ‘nation wants to know’ famous, his contribution to deride some of his fellow journalists as `Luyten’s media’ and Left liberals too cannot be brushed aside. He was asked about these issues too and he came out all guns blazing: “The whole left-liberal phrase is a charade. How can the Delhi Gymkhana circuit be Leftist? Leftists cannot be liberal and those who are liberal cannot be leftists. So it’s also an oxymoron.”

    What would be Republic’s political leanings? “I don’t compare Republic to legacy players, including those that have become after I quit. There is no political positioning (for Republic TV). There is right and wrong. I’m for the right. Those who win in grey waters are confused or dishonest.”

    For the fans of Arnab on Reddit, which ranged from mushy to reverential, the interaction was a great peep into the mind of the person they held in such high esteem, but not everybody on Reddit or off it was as elated. In a tongue-in-cheek tweet, author, journalist, blogger, female rights activist Nilanjana Roy said, “The Arnab AMA on Reddit is gold. (Not for him, but in general.).” Later replying to a follower’s tweet, she quipped that Arnab should not describe his media venture as “independent”.  

    Also Read:

    Republic TV buzzing with pre-launch teasers featuring ‘soft’ targets, issues

    Copy-right vs right: Who can stop Arnab from using ‘nation wants to know’

    Arnab Goswami: Best time to enter news market when there’s no leader

    Times Network MD & CEO MK Anand speaks out on l’affaire Arnab 

  • Arnab’s ‘The Newshour’ lands Times Now in soup in UK

    MUMBAI: United Kingdom broadcast regulator Ofcom has studied several episodes of Times Now’s nightly show ‘The Newshour’ from last summer, which was broadcast during the rising tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

    At the time of Ofcom’s investigation between August and September 2016, this programme was presented by the then Times Now editor Arnab Goswami. Each edition typically featured two debates, each of approximately an hour’s duration. The show was telecast live from India at 16:30 each weekday, and then repeated at 21:00 in UK. Goswami was accused of being biased towards India in the debates.

     

    In Breach: The Newshour

    According to the Ofcom newsletter dated 24 April, 2017:

    “Don’t brush aside the role of Pakistan in fermenting the trouble in Kashmir. Let us accept it. Let us acknowledge it. Let us not brush it aside”. We could not identify in this programme any content that could reasonably be described as reflecting the viewpoint of the Pakistani Government, or otherwise rebutting the criticisms being made of it. Times Global provided evidence that it had reflected viewpoints representing the Pakistani Government in further editions of The Newshour presented by Arnab Goswami. We also received complaints about the editions of The Newshour broadcast on 19 and 26 September 2016, which featured only contributors from India, but also dealt with India’s on-going relationship with Pakistan.

    Ofcom viewed the 18 additional episodes of The Newshour broadcast between 3 August 2016 and 30 September 2016. All these programmes dealt with: the on-going tensions between India and Pakistan during August and September 2016; the Pakistani Government’s policy towards Kashmir; and alleged terrorist activities towards India. However, the programmes also featured highly critical discussion about the Pakistani Government’s policies and actions in other areas such as its treatment of the separatist movement in the Pakistani province of Balochistan.

    Further, the 16 programmes cited by the Licensee each included three or four contributors that could reasonably be described as supporting the Pakistani Government or Pakistan more generally. These contributors included: Pakistani political analysts and commentators; retired Pakistani diplomats; retired senior Pakistani armed forces; Pakistani journalists; and both current and retired Pakistani politicians.

    Ofcom’s concern in this case was not whether the Licensee had reflected a range of viewpoints, but the manner in which those viewpoints were dealt with by the presenter, Arnab Goswami. We lay out below examples of how Arnab Goswami dealt with different contributors:

    1 August 2016

    In this programme there was a debate about the march to the Wagah border crossing featuring the Pakistani militants, Syed Sallahudin and Hafiz Saeed. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami (“AG”) and Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam (“MNI”). Arnab Goswami referred to two contributors in the programme who were described as being critical of Pakistan, G.D. Bakshi and Nalin Kohl (“NK”), the latter who was invited to speak during this exchange. Arnab Goswami also referred to Navid Hamid, a contributor who was described as being an apologist for Pakistan:

    AG: “Essentially you are down playing what happened in Wagah, the role of Hafiz Saeed, Sayeed Salahudeen, and the Jamaat-e-Islami because these people are saying ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’. And I want to know from Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, whether he agrees with such a statement. When these people say they, ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’. I want him to tell me whether he feels that’s a home grown problem. G.D. Bakshi, I will come back [to you] but let Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam reply to me please”.

    MNI: “Mr Arnab Goswami, do you, do you hear me?”
    AG: “I’m hearing you loud and clear”.
    MNI: “Ok. Let me begin by paying my tribute to Burhan Wami?–”
    AG: “Eh listen–”.
    MNI: “–and 70 others who were martyred”.
    AG: “No, no, no. Here you see. I will not, no, no, no one second, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. You, no, no, no, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you don’t have to say things to provoke. I can tell you. I can, no, no, no, one second I will not allow you. Nalin Kohli’s on the debate!”
    NK: “Any innocent person is not somebody who can be idolised. Next you’ll be saying we should pay tribute to Osama Bin Laden. Another time he’s going to say we should pay tribute to somebody else. A terrorist is a terrorist! It doesn’t matter those, those who want [continues to talk over MNI’s attempts to talk] to participate in democracy and
    get the aspirations each one is welcome. Those who give up their weapons are
    welcome but all these tributes of terrorist please not on any show–”.

    For example, in the programme broadcast on 4 August 2016, Dr Farid Ahmed Malik of the Tahreek-eInsaaf party took part; and in the programme broadcast on 8 August 2016, Rana Afzai Khan, a member of Pakistan’s National Assembly for the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), and Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Finance, Revenue, Economic Affairs, Statistics and Privatization.

    AG: “[Interrupts and talks loudly over MNI and NK] The Indian state, the Indian state, also Nalin Kohli, as far as Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam is concerned, as far as Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam concerned, he is also a Pakistan apologist, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam takes security, the Mufti, Mufti, takes security. The question is and the question goes
    to Navid Hamid. The question is Navid Hamid of the All Indian Muslim Majlis-eMushawarat, I’m coming to you, and Mufti Nasir ul-Islam, just a quick reminder to you that as of this minute, as of this second, you are taking security funded by the Indian taxpayer. Never forget that OK.

    [MNI tries to talk but AG talks over him] Never forget
    that, so at least have a sense of loyalty. Don’t, I had to expose you today because of your duplicity, because of your hypocrisy, your opportunism. Does that not reveal something? Now you know something [talking over Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam] you have no, you are beholden to the Pakistanis and I will not allow this channel to become an instrument for your venom so I’ll cut you off for a while and when you behave yourself I’ll bring you back. Neither for your venom or your political aspirations. You say you are a mufti, your political aspirations [MNI tries to talk] and I don’t know why you are loyal to Pakistan”.

    MNI: “Ok, I don’t want to be a part of this–”.

    AG: “You don’t have the guts to answer my question so you are walking out like a typical opportunist [MNI tries to talk and AG talks over him] Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam calm down. Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam calm down. If it was a choice between having you on the show and letting you. Letting you use The Newshour for your duplicitous venom. I would be much happier asking you. I would be much happier, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, if you are on Newshour you must behave yourself and show the least amount of loyalty that someone who takes security from the Indian taxpayer should show. or if you don’t want to show that I have no problems if you walk out the programme. I have no problems if you walk out the programme. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m happy to ask you to leave the programme Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you are obviously beholden to the Pakistanis. You can continue your act. I think you’ve revealed yourself.[raises voice and starts shouting] And the fact is Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, don’t you wag your finger at me Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. I have decently debated with you for the last
    ten minutes but the fact of the matter is there has been a terror group called the Lashkar-e-Taiba7 and Hizbul Mujahideen which carried out a march with Jamaat-eIslami.But you for the opportunist that you are cannot speak against the LET [i.e. Lashkar-e-Taiba] you are scared of them or in league with them. So drink that water and behave yourself. calm down. Calm down, I’m not going to waste my time. Look at Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam unable to control his loyalties. Has to show his real loyalty to Pakistan. Absolutely unable to control. Has to show his loyalty to Pakistan at every
    single opportunity. I’m so glad television being a transparent medium. Let this medium
    expose the real loyalties of these people one by one”.

    4 August 2016

    In this programme, there was a debate discussing whether the Pakistani Government had “hit an all-time diplomatic low”. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami (“AG”) and the Pakistani barrister Zahid Saheed (“ZS”) about perceptions of the level of media coverage about the visit by the Indian Home Minister of Rajnath Singh to Pakistan:

    AG: “…the only word I have for this is childish with a capital ‘C’. So childishly you try to ensure that the Indian media can’t cover Rajnath Singh. What did you think? We are not going to get access to what he says, for your kind information, I have with me the full details of what Rajnath Singh has said. I can understand that the Pakistanis don’t want to allow Rajnath Singh’s words to be heard on Pakistan television because you’re damn scared, that is if Rajnath Singh’s truth is heard by the people of Pakistan, then they start asking you questions. I hope they will. But, you don’t allow us to report on our minister. This is childish, this amateurish, this unacceptable, this is just absolutely ridiculous and I want an explanation, on behalf of every Indian citizen, an answer from Pakistani panellists on why on earth this happened, what were you trying to do? What were you scared of? Were you scared that Rajnath walked into your territory and your

    Ofcom’s concern in this case was not whether the Licensee had reflected a range of viewpoints, but the manner in which those viewpoints were dealt with by the presenter, Arnab Goswami. We lay out below examples of how Arnab Goswami dealt with different
    contributors:

    1 August 2016

    In this programme there was a debate about the march to the Wagah border crossing featuring the Pakistani militants, Syed Sallahudin and Hafiz Saeed. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami (“AG”) and Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam (“MNI”). Arnab Goswami referred to two contributors in the programme who were described as being critical of Pakistan, G.D. Bakshi and Nalin Kohl (“NK”), the latter who was invited to speak during this exchange. Arnab Goswami also referred to Navid Hamid, a contributor who was described as being an apologist for Pakistan:

    AG: “Essentially you are down playing what happened in Wagah, the role of Hafiz Saeed, Sayeed Salahudeen, and the Jamaat-e-Islami because these people are saying ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’. And I want to know from Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, whether he agrees with such a statement. When these people say they, ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’. I want him to tell me whether he feels that’s a home grown problem. G.D. Bakshi, I will come back [to you] but let Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam reply
    to me please”.

    MNI: “Mr Arnab Goswami, do you, do you hear me?”
    AG: “I’m hearing you loud and clear”.
    MNI: “Ok. Let me begin by paying my tribute to Burhan Wami?–”
    AG: “Eh listen–”.
    MNI: “–and 70 others who were martyred”.
    AG: “No, no, no. Here you see. I will not, no, no, no one second, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. You, no, no, no, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you don’t have to say things to provoke. I can tell you. I can, no, no, no, one second I will not allow you. Nalin Kohli’s on the debate!”
    NK: “Any innocent person is not somebody who can be idolised. Next you’ll be saying we should pay tribute to Osama Bin Laden. Another time he’s going to say we should pay tribute to somebody else. A terrorist is a terrorist! It doesn’t matter those, those who want [continues to talk over MNI’s attempts to talk] to participate in democracy and
    get the aspirations each one is welcome. Those who give up their weapons are
    welcome but all these tributes of terrorist please not on any show–”.

    For example, in the programme broadcast on 4 August 2016, Dr Farid Ahmed Malik of the Tahreek-eInsaaf party took part; and in the programme broadcast on 8 August 2016, Rana Afzai Khan, a member of Pakistan’s National Assembly for the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), and Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Finance, Revenue, Economic Affairs, Statistics and Privatization.

    AG: “[Interrupts and talks loudly over MNI and NK] The Indian state, the Indian state, also Nalin Kohli, as far as Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam is concerned, as far as Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam concerned, he is also a Pakistan apologist, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam takes security, the Mufti, Mufti, takes security. The question is and the question goes
    to Navid Hamid. The question is Navid Hamid of the All Indian Muslim Majlis-eMushawarat, I’m coming to you, and Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, just a quick reminder to you that as of this minute, as of this second, you are taking security funded by the Indian taxpayer. Never forget that OK.

    [MNI tries to talk but AG talks over him] Never forget that, so at least have a sense of loyalty. Don’t, I had to expose you today because of your duplicity, because of your hypocrisy, your opportunism. Does that not reveal something? Now you know something [talking over Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam] you have no, you are beholden to the Pakistanis and I will not allow this channel to become an instrument for your venom so I’ll cut you off for a while and when you behave yourself I’ll bring you back. Neither for your venom or your political aspirations. You say you are a mufti, your political aspirations [MNI tries to talk] and I don’t know why you are loyal to Pakistan”.

    MNI: “Ok, I don’t want to be a part of this–”.

    AG: “You don’t have the guts to answer my question so you are walking out like a typical opportunist [MNI tries to talk and AG talks over him] Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam calm down. Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam calm down. If it was a choice between having you on the show and letting you. Letting you use The Newshour for your duplicitous venom. I would be
    much happier asking you. I would be much happier, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, if you are on Newshour you must behave yourself and show the least amount of loyalty that someone who takes security from the Indian taxpayer should show. or if you don’t want to show that I have no problems if you walk out the programme. I have no problems if you walk out the programme. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m happy to ask you to leave the programme Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you are obviously beholden to the Pakistanis. You can continue your act. I think you’ve revealed yourself.
    [raises voice and starts shouting] And the fact is Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, don’t you wag your finger at me Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. I have decently debated with you for the last ten minutes but the fact of the matter is there has been a terror group called the Lashkar-e-Taiba7 and Hizbul Mujahideen which carried out a march with Jamaat-eIslami. But you for the opportunist that you are cannot speak against the LET [i.e. Lashkar-e-Taiba] you are scared of them or in league with them. So drink that water and behave yourself. calm down. Calm down, I’m not going to waste my time. Look at Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam unable to control his loyalties. Has to show his real loyalty to Pakistan. Absolutely unable to control. Has to show his loyalty to Pakistan at every single opportunity. I’m so glad television being a transparent medium. Let this medium
    expose the real loyalties of these people one by one”.

    4 August 2016

    In this programme, there was a debate discussing whether the Pakistani Government had “hit an all-time diplomatic low”. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami (“AG”) and the Pakistani barrister Zahid Saheed (“ZS”) about perceptions of the level of media coverage about the visit by the Indian Home Minister of Rajnath Singh to Pakistan:

    AG: “…the only word I have for this is childish with a capital ‘C’. So childishly you try to ensure that the Indian media can’t cover Rajnath Singh. What did you think? We are not going to get access to what he says, for your kind information, I have with me the full details of what Rajnath Singh has said. I can understand that the Pakistanis don’t want to allow Rajnath Singh’s words to be heard on Pakistan television because you’re damn scared, that is if Rajnath Singh’s truth is heard by the people of Pakistan, then they start asking you questions. I hope they will. But, you don’t allow us to report on our minister. This is childish, this amateurish, this unacceptable, this is just absolutely ridiculous and I want an explanation, on behalf of every Indian citizen, an answer from Pakistani panellists on why on earth this happened, what were you trying to do? What were you scared of? Were you scared that Rajnath walked into your territory and your
    soil and confronted you with the bare truth about your support for terrorism. Have the courage to listen to him. Barrister Zahid Saeed open the debate. It’s a free debate after that. Yes, Barrister Zahid Saeed”.

    ZS: “Your home minister was welcome in Pakistan–”.
    AG: “[AG interrupts shouting] Why was he censored?”
    ZS: “I’m trying to, I’m trying to explain. Can you please keep quiet please for a few minutes. He left before they could even answer what he was saying–”
    AG: “[Interrupts shouting] Absolute lies! Absolute lies! Absolute lies! How can you lie on Indian television like that Sir? Sorry, but how can you lie? [inaudible]”.
    ZS: “You have so much venom in you that its bursting out of you. You must listen!”
    AG: “I am asking you why you sent home our home minister. And you know why Zahir Saeed because you’re scared because Rajnath Singh walks out of your hollow promises”.

    8 August 2016
    In this programme, there was a debate discussing international attitudes to Pakistan’s policy on terrorism, during a heated discussion about India’s involvement in Balochistan, Arnab Goswami (“AG”) allowed Amir MustaQim (“AM”), a Balochi panellist who was critical of Pakistan’s policy on Balochistan, an opportunity to challenge a Pakistani panellist, retired Group Captain Sultan Ali Hali (“SAH”):

    AM: “Baloch and India are one. We are one. Why shouldn’t India be involved in Balochistan? I say it is the right of India, not only the right of India, it is the moral responsibility of India to openly support Balochistan. The main foreign interference in Balochistan is the presence of your military boots”.

    AG: “[Shouting] Well said!”
    AM: “How many have you killed of my blood and bone?”
    AG: “[Shouting] Well said!”
    AM: “How many have you killed and how many do you want to kill?”

    AG: “[Shouting] Answer him, Ambassador, answer him!”
    SAH: “Do you know the Geneva Convention? Do you know the lines of diplomacy? If India supports Balochistan openly, this will amount to intervention–”.

    AG: “[Shouting] What about Kashmir?! What about Kashmir?! What about Kashmir ?!”

    SAH: “Kashmir is a disputed area”.
    AG: “Oh for God’s sake! For God’s sake”.

    22 September 2016
    In this programme, there was a debate discussing about whether “Pakistani apologists” should be allowed on Indian soil. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami and an Indian Supreme Court Advocate, Shabnam Lone (“SL”):
    AG: “If there was an attempt at trying to keep a divide, a line of plausible deniability, between the Pakistan Government, the Pakistan army and ISI and the group of Pakistan apologists in India, it collapsed in a heap yesterday. Shabnam Lone, when Nawaz Sharif mirrored the words you used about Burhan Wani and therefore my question is simple”.

    SL: “Yes, well everything is hunky-dory between India and Pakistan–”.
    AG: “–I haven’t asked my question–”.
    SL: “–Arnab, nothing has changed–”.
    AG: “–I haven’t asked my question–”.
    SL: “–I know what question you are asking–”.
    AG: “I haven’t asked my question. No, you don’t know, let the question come. The question is this: Do you condemn, and use your words carefully, do you condemn the Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif using his UN speech, using it to describe Burhan Wani as a peace icon and a young leader who was only armed with his beliefs? Do you
    condemn Nawaz Sharif?”

    Shabnam Lone tried to respond. While she spoke, Arnab Goswami continuously repeated the question “Do you still condemn Nawaz Sharif?” getting louder and more persistent each time she tried to talk. Arnab Goswami then said:

    AG: “[Pakistan] is a hostile terrorist nation and I’m asking you tonight. Old tactics will not work. Shabnam Lone’s inability to answer that straight forward question and respond in terms of ‘you’ and ‘them’ ‘us’ and ‘them’ reflects the hypocrisy of the pro-Pakistan brigade in India. Now we will get someone else in. [raises his voice] Shabnam Lone

    The Pakistani Directorate General for Inter-Services Intelligence or Inter-Services Intelligence (“ISI”). The Pakistani Prime Minister practices in the Supreme Court and refuses to condemn Nawaz Sharif. She is so paranoid that she will go and say anything, she is flustered and still speaking. Look viewers!”

    The Licensee said that the programme was an “internal debate and consciously did not have guest from Pakistan as it was the same day that Pakistan provoked India by allowing a march close to the Wagah border led by terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Syed Sallahudin”. However, Times Global added that within the series The Newshour as a whole, the viewpoint of “Pakistan and its government” was regularly represented. It provided details of various Pakistani guests that had been featured on The Newshour, which included “representatives of the Pakistani ruling party, which heads the government”. On the issue of linked
    programmes, Times Global argued that “there is a clear nexus between the Pakistani establishment and the terror outfits operating out of its territory. And yet, despite the expressions we use in our debates when referring to this terror nexus, we have ensured Pakistani representation in the interests of fairness”.

    The Licensee also made representations about the various editions of The Newshour broadcast during August and September 2016. It argued that The Newshour “over this very difficult time in India, did its best to allow the various views to be heard through the debating structure used in this programming”. It added that although the programme “clearly does not follow the same pattern as UK based news services, it did not attempt to promote any particular view of the upheaval occurring at that sensitive point of time”.

    Rather, it said that, as a news channel “completely independent from Government, political parties, pressure groups and religious bodies” it had “tried to reflect the varying views that were mainly based both in India and Pakistan”.

    Times Global also argued that “It cannot be the purpose of our channel to exactly balance the views from Pakistan or other countries in a rigid fashion to ensure that equal voice is given to all parties. It added that, in its view, over the range of its output it had “observed the spirit of the ‘Due Impartiality’ rule.

    The Licensee said it strives “to bring in as much objectivity as possible in our broadcasts”. It added that the various editions of The Newshour “had strong representations with guests
    present from Pakistan i.e. spokespersons of the ruling party, former members of the military establishment, former diplomats, and journalists”.

    Times Global also argued that The Newshour content needs to be “viewed in perspective and particularly in the overall context of our coverage over the last few months, primarily
    reflecting the public debate and political discussions on Pakistan. The relevant broadcasts complained about were therefore a continuation of the overall coverage of the channel, which at this time primarily focused on the terror attacks in India and India’s position on the same”.

    Concerning the presenter, Arnab Goswami, The Licensee said that “we can understand some people’s views that the presenter’s role on these programmes seemed to be rather overwhelming and confrontational”. However, it added that “he is no longer associated with the channel and has moved out of the organization”. Times Global also said that the presenters who had replaced Mr Goswami had “a very different approach” and had been “bringing in a wide range of reactions and comments from the participants on the show, while ensuring that no personal views” are included in the programmes.

    In conclusion, Times Global said that as a result of the Ofcom investigation, it had “conducted extensive discussions with the current team, specifically drawing attention to Ofcom Rules and Guidance” It added that it had also taken steps to “conduct training programmes” for its news teams and it stated its belief that “our coverage on sensitive issues such as these should always be undertaken keeping in mind the pertinent rules and guidance”.

    24 April 2017

    Decision

    Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom has a statutory duty to set standards for broadcast content as appear to it best calculated to secure the standards objectives, including that the special impartiality requirements set out in section 320 of the Act are complied with. This objective is reflected in Section Five of the Code.

    Broadcasters are required to comply with the rules in Section Five to ensure that the impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with, including that due impartiality is preserved on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy.

    When applying the requirement to preserve due impartiality, Ofcom must take into account Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This provides for the broadcaster’s and audience’s right to freedom of expression, which encompasses the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without undue interference by public authority. The broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression is not absolute. In carrying out its duties, Ofcom must balance the right to freedom of expression against the requirement in the Code to preserve due impartiality on matters relating to political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy.

    Ofcom recognises that Section Five of the Code, which sets out how due impartiality must be preserved, acts to limit, to some extent, freedom of expression. This is because its application necessarily requires broadcasters to ensure that neither side of a debate relating to matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy is unduly favoured.

    Therefore, while any Ofcom licensee should have the freedom to discuss any controversial subject or include particular points of view in its programming, in doing so broadcasters must always comply with the Code.

    Ofcom underlines that the broadcasting of highly critical comments concerning the policies and actions of any government or state agency is not, in itself, a breach of rules on due impartiality. However, depending on the specific circumstances, it may be necessary to reflect alternative viewpoints or provide context in an appropriate way to ensure that Section Five is complied with.

    The Code makes clear that the term “due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject matter. Due impartiality does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of the argument has to be represented. Due impartiality may be preserved in a number of ways and it is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to how it ensures due impartiality is maintained.

    Rule 5.9 states:

    “Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views”.

    The Code does not prohibit presenters of non-news programming from expressing their views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy.

    However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole (i.e.: more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like audience).

    We recognise there is a long tradition of political interviewers and presenters of current affairs programmes, including discussion programmes like The Newshour, robustly challenging the viewpoints of interviewees and panellists to ensure all viewpoints are appropriately scrutinised. In our view, the role of a presenter in challenging the viewpoints of politicians, political commentators, experts and other contributors is an essential feature of current affairs programme as it exposes audiences to a range of viewpoints on political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, under the Code, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.

    Ofcom acknowledged that during the two-month period when the 19 programmes in this case were broadcast, there was a period of notably heightened tension between the Indian and Pakistani Governments. As such, we recognised that Times Now, as a news channel broadcasting from the Indian perspective would want to cover the ongoing relationship between India and Pakistan. In such circumstances, we also recognised that as a channel broadcasting from an Indian perspective, Times Now may have been more likely to broadcast content that took a more critical perspective of the policies and actions of the Pakistani State.

    However, as an Ofcom licensee, Times Global had to ensure that it adequately reflected alternative viewpoints. We also recognised that Arnab Goswami, as the established presenter of The Newshour was known to audiences as having a unique hard-hitting style. He was also known for vocally expressing his views on the various matters under discussion in The Newshour.

    Ofcom first considered whether the requirements of Section Five of the Code should be applied: that is, whether the subject of the debate concerned matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy.

    In our view, the 19 programmes in this case all contained a number of highly critical statements about the policies and actions of the Pakistani Government towards Kashmir and alleged terrorist activities towards India. They also featured highly critical discussion about the Pakistani Government’s policies and actions in other areas such as its treatment of the separatist movement in the Pakistani province of Balochistan. We considered that the programmes clearly dealt with matters of political controversy and matters relating to current public policy. The Licensee was therefore required
    to preserve due impartiality to comply with Rule 5.9 of the Code.

    The programmes included a number of statements that were critical and gave a one-sided view of Pakistan’s policies and actions in relation to, for example, alleged terrorist activities towards India. Given the gravity of the various criticisms being made about Pakistan (for example, Pakistan was variously described as a: “failed state”; “terrorist nation” and
    “international pariah”), we considered that a key relevant alternative viewpoint was one that reflected the opinion of the Pakistani Government, in particular challenging the criticisms made about Pakistani Government within the programmes.
    As outlined in the Introduction, each debate on The Newshour included three or four contributors that could reasonably be described as supporting the Pakistani Government or Pakistan more generally. These contributors included: Pakistani political analysts and commentators; retired Pakistani diplomats; retired senior members of the Pakistani armed forces; Pakistani journalists; and both current and retired Pakistani politicians.

    However, our concern is this case was the manner in which any views that could be characterised as: either being representative or supportive of the Pakistani Government; or challenging the Indian Government’s policies towards Pakistan; or otherwise arguing that the Indian Government should be more conciliatory towards Pakistan, were treated. We considered that the role and actions of Arnab Goswami were the crucial factor in determining whether due impartiality had been preserved in this case. Throughout all the programmes, Mr Goswami made clear his position on the topic under discussion and consistently expressed views that were heavily critical of the Pakistan Government and correspondingly supportive of the Indian Government. Ofcom underlines that presenters in non-news programmes can express views that are critical or supportive of particular nation states but they must not promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.

    In assessing Arnab Goswami’s role within the programmes, we noted the Licensee’s statement that: “With constant attacks being carried out on Indian soil, by terror forces from across the border, the pulse of the nation and sentiments in the minds of the Indian public and viewers were at a high pitch”. Therefore, it said that the programmes sought to concentrate on “what India should be focusing on at that juncture, in relation to Pakistan”. Further, such issues were “put out in the form of questions during these programmes and an open debate was conducted amongst the participants”. We noted, therefore, that the structure of the debates included within The Newshour followed a similar pattern, whereby Arnab Goswami would introduce the debate topic and then direct discussion during the debate by asking particular panellist questions related to the debate topic.

    In reaching our Decision, we considered the various ways in which Arnab Goswami treated the various viewpoints being expressed in the programmes. Times Global said the debates featured in The Newshour programmes “were represented by as many factions as possible and multiple views were put forth by the panellists who participated on these shows”. However, in our view, throughout the programmes, Arnab Goswami took a position that was consistently highly aggressive towards those panellists that could be described as taking a position that was either supportive of the Pakistani Government or suggesting that the Indian Government should adopt a more conciliatory attitude towards Pakistan. For example, when dealing with panellists who were supportive of the Pakistani Government, Arnab Goswami would consistently adopt a highly aggressive and confrontational tone. Frequently, when asking a question to such panellists, he typically afforded them very little opportunity to answer his question, and aggressively interrupted them, such as in the following example from the 4 August 2016 programme:

    AG: “What were you scared of? Were you scared that Rajnath walked into your territory and your soil and confronted you with the bare truth about your support for terrorism.Have the courage to listen to him. Barrister Zahid Saeed open the debate. It’s a free debate after that. Yes Barrister Zahid Saeed”.

    ZS: “Your home minister was welcome in Pakistan–”.
    AG: “[AG interrupts shouting] Why was he censored?
    ZS: “I’m trying to, I’m trying to explain. Can you please keep quiet please for a few
    minutes. He left before they could even answer what he was saying –”
    AG: “[Interrupts shouting] Absolute lies! Absolute lies! Absolute lies! How can you lie on
    Indian television like that Sir? Sorry, but how can you lie? [inaudible]”.
    ZS: “You have so much venom in you that its bursting out of you. You must listen! –”
    AG: “I am asking you why you sent home our home minister. And you know why ZAHIR Saeed because you’re scared because Rajnath Singh walks out of your hollow promises”.

    Similarly, in the 28 September 2016, there was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami and a Pakistani contributor, Shafqat Saeed:

    AG: “Is becoming a regional pariah enjoyable situation for you? Shafqat Seed is it for you?”
    SS: “To whom are you asking the question. Address your panellist?”
    AG: “You decide which one of you is speaking. This is the problem, Shafqat Saeed, you
    answer. Today, know your situation. You–”
    SS: “My situation is alright [inaudible]You have a stupid reason to undo this SAARC. This
    region is nothing without Pakistan”.
    AG: “One second, Shafqat Saeed, one second. Understand today you are globally notorious and you are globally notorious because you are an international pariah. You understand the seriousness of it? Never before has a country hosting a multi-lateral event faced a combined black out and boycott by other countries. This has never
    happened before. It’s not India anymore. Bhutan doesn’t trust you–”

    SS: “Who will be [inaudible] paid back? [inaudible due to AG shouting] you will–”
    AG: “[shouting over SS] What do you mean paid back? Don’t threaten people, are you
    declaring war? You are declaring war on South Asia because you have been boycotted.
    You have become an international embarrassment!”

    There were also examples when Arnab Goswami, after posing a question to a panellist supporting the Pakistani Government, would aggressively interrupt them, and then immediately allow a panellist from a viewpoint that was critical of the Pakistani Government to speak uninterrupted and at length, such as in the 1 August 2016 programme:

    AG: “And I want to know from Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, whether he agrees with such a statement. When these people say they, ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’ I want him to tell me whether he feels that’s a home grown problem’. G.D. Bakshi I will come back but let Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam reply to me please”.

    MNI: “Mr Arnab Goswami, do you, do you hear me?”
    AG: “I’m hearing you loud and clear”.
    MNI: “Ok. Let me begin by paying my tribute to Burham Wami?–”
    AG: “Eh listen–”.
    MNI: “ –and 70 others who were martyred”.
    AG: “No, no, no. Here you see. I will not, no, no, no one second, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. You, no, no, no, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you don’t have to say things to
    provoke. I can tell you. I can, no, no, no, one second I will not allow you. Nalin Kohli’s on the debate!”

    NK: “Any innocent person is not somebody who can be idolised. Next you’ll be saying we should pay tribute to Osama bin Laden. Another time he’s going to say we should pay tribute to somebody else. terrorist is a terrorist! It doesn’t matter those, those who want [continues to talk over MNI’s attempts to talk] participate in democracy and get the aspirations each one is welcome. Those who give up their weapons are welcome but all these tributes of terrorist please not on any show–”.

    Arnab Goswami also voiced his enthusiastic support for panellists who were critical of the Pakistani Government, as shown by the following example from the 8 August 2016
    programme:

    AM: “Baloch and India are one. We are one. Why shouldn’t India be involved in Balochistan? I say it is the right of India, not only the right of India, it is the moral responsibility of India to openly support Balochistan. The main foreign interference in Balochistan is the presence of your military boots”.

    AG: “[Shouting] Well said!”
    AM: “How many have you killed of my blood and bone?”
    AG: “[Shouting] Well said!”
    AM: “How many have you killed and how many do you want to kill?”
    AG: “[Shouting] Answer him, Ambassador, answer him!”
    SAH: “Do you know the Geneva Convention? Do you know the lines of diplomacy? If India
    supports Balochistan openly, this will amount to intervention–”.
    AG: “[shouting] What about Kashmir?! What about Kashmir?! What about Kashmir?!”
    SAH: “Kashmir is a disputed area”.
    AG: “Oh for God’s sake! For God’s sake”.

    In our view, throughout the 19 programmes in this case, Mr Goswami adopted a markedly different approach when interacting with panellists who were critical of the policies and actions of the Pakistani Government, compared with panellists who supported the policies and actions of the Pakistani Government.

    Ofcom underlines it is an editorial matter for broadcasters how they preserve due impartiality, including the format of any programmes they may broadcast dealing with matters of political controversy and matters relating to current public policy. Therefore, in principle it is possible for presenters in panel discussion current affairs programmes to robustly put forward their own views and challenge different viewpoints. However, the editorial format of a programme, and in particular the manner in which a presenter moderates a panel discussion, must not compromise due impartiality.

    We took into account that Times Global argued that it had “tried to reflect the varying views that were mainly based both in India and Pakistan”. The programmes did include guests who represented the viewpoint of the Pakistani Government and/or opposed the various criticisms being made of Pakistan more widely. However, we did not consider that over the series of programmes taken as a whole these viewpoints were given sufficient opportunity to be expressed to ensure that the audience was presented with the various sides of the topics under debate.

    We also considered the various other representations made by Times Global. First, the Licensee said that The Newshour “clearly does not follow the same pattern as UK based news services”. We agree. Ofcom’s published Guidance states that Ofcom research has demonstrated that in relation to due impartiality “there are greater expectations for news
    channels that are perceived to be aimed at a UK audience than there are for channels with a global audience”.

    However, the Guidance goes on to state that: “Broadcasters can criticise or support the actions of particular nation-states in their programming, as long as they, as appropriate, reflect alternative views on such matters”.

    Second, Times Global also argued that “It cannot be the purpose of our channel to exactly balance the views from Pakistan or other countries in a rigid fashion to ensure that equal voice is given to all parties. It added that, in its view, over the range of its output it had “observed the spirit of the ‘Due Impartiality’ rule. As mentioned above, the Code makes clear that due impartiality does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. However, alternative viewpoints must be reflected as appropriate. For the reasons described above, we did not consider this happened in this case.

    Finally, the Licensee said that The Newshour content needs to be “viewed in perspective and particularly in the overall context of our coverage over the last few months, primarily reflecting the public debate and political discussions on Pakistan. The relevant broadcasts complained about were therefore a continuation of the overall coverage of the channel, which at this time primarily focused on the terror attacks in India and India’s position on the same”.

    However, in order to comply with Rule 5.5, alternative viewpoints had to be reflected, as appropriate in programme or series of programmes taken as a whole. Therefore, a television broadcaster cannot rely on its coverage over its schedule as a whole as evidence of how it may have reflected alternative views on a particular matter.

    In reaching our Decision, we took into account that the Licensee told us that the presenter “…is no longer associated with the channel and has moved out of the organization”.

    Times Global also said that the presenters who had replaced Mr Goswami had “a very different approach” and had been “bringing in a wide range of reactions and comments from the participants on the show, while ensuring that no personal views” are included in the programmes. In addition, the Licensee said, as a result of the Ofcom investigation, Times Global had “conducted extensive discussions with the current team, specifically drawing attention to Ofcom Rules and Guidance”. It had also taken steps to “conduct training programmes” for its news teams.

    However, for all the reasons above, we considered that the presenter used the advantage of his regular appearances in the 19 programmes in this case to promote his views in a way that compromised the requirement for due impartiality.

    Our Decision, therefore, is that the programmes Breaches of Rule 5.9.

    Ofcom understands that Arnab Goswami resigned from Times Now in early November 2016.

    Also Read

    Republic TV buzzing with pre-launch teasers featuring ‘soft’ targets, issues

    Copy-right vs right: Who can stop Arnab from using ‘nation wants to know’

    Times TV gets into a gunfight with CNBC TV18 on Budget Day claims

  • Republic TV buzzing with pre-launch teasers featuring ‘soft’ targets, issues

    MUMBAI: “Can the cocktail circuit media and Maoist sympathisers please stand up and name themselves?: Arnab Asks”. The latest tweet from Republic stated. With Arnab Goswami and his new project Republic TV, it cannot be the normal. Rather, true to his style, honed to a level of art, hype is the new normal and the pre-launch marketing campaign of his new venture too is no exception. 

    Now that Republic TV is set for a confirmed 6-May launch, Arnab chose to tease the audience, mostly comprising 20-40-year something who survive on high adrenalin, with a series of online ‘Wait, I am coming soon’ creative that highlight more Goswami the man than the actual fare, which, if people have forgotten, is news.

    A series of campaigns with catchy taglines like “Long time since we met….”, “Gaikwad has done it again…” and “Good Times has come to an end” are doing the rounds of social media on Republic TV’s FB page, Twitter TL and on LinkedIn posts — all targeting and featuring people who may be in the news for some reason or other.

    In the “Long time since we met….” video Congress party veepee Rahul Gandhi is featured, for example. However, Gandhi no longer conjures up most Indians’ fancies, what with the man and the party doing badly for the moment in national politics. Similarly, the Ravindra Gaikwad creative too is a tad tame as he owes allegiance to a regional party that seems to have lost its charisma vis-à-vis its bigger political ally. And, the one on king of good times, runaway liquor baron Vijay Mallaya too seems like an obvious one. The media created a hype over his arrest in London, which turned out to be a routine affair in the very long journey of his extradition to India (if that happens at all) and laughed at by the man himself via tweets from London.

    While critics have panned Goswami and Republic TV for choosing ‘soft’ personality-targets for his marketing campaigns, others have criticised him for failing to highlight real issues that media should be really seized of.

    Issues such as Article 370 in the troubled state of Jammu and Kashmir where BJP, along with its partner PDP, is in power or the financially beleaguered farmers from south India protesting in the Capital city, a few kilometers from the Parliament, over government apathy or the Rs 20,000 crore (Rs. 200,000 million) Ganga clean-up initiative that’s making little progress or why PM Modi’s Clean India campaign still has people scratching their heads or why pseudo-nationalists and patriots call for boycott of China-made goods, while the PM’s picture is used in an advertisement of digital wallet company that’s more than 40 per cent controlled by Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba or was it correct to try rewrite science by saying a cow inhales and exhales oxygen or…many other such examples could have been taken up, but were not in favour of issues that were aimed at getting more eyeballs and create more noise.

    Still to be fair to Goswami, he cannot be faulted for not being true to himself and believing in a philosophy that, he feels, should be the norm instead of being a rarity — opinionated news instead of old school news shorn of opinions. The series of videos started hitting the social media platforms with the first one coming on 15 April where the star is sitting in his office with the voiceover ‘Dear Viewer’ setting the tone for the rest of the narrative.

    Goswami has had his share of controversies too in the lead up to the launch of his news channel and its digital avatar. First, BJP MP Subramaniam Swamy questioned the use of the world ‘republic’ for commercial use, citing Indian laws and forcing the name to be changed to Republic TV from just being called Republic. Then, the star anchor’s previous employers, the Times TV Network challenged him for trying to poach personnel and cautioned him against using his pet phrase — the nation wants to know — claiming IPR over it.

    Pointing out that he had received “another legal threat” from Times group, Goswami on social media took a high moral ground: “A media group has sent me a six-page letter threatening me with imprisonment if I ever use the phrase ‘Nation Wants to Know.’ They say they own the phrase. I have watched the nervous antics of this media group with amusement and horror for the last few months. Today, I am replying to them. I say: The threat of imprisonment will not deter me. Bring your moneybags and your lawyers, file the criminal case against me for using the phrase (the) ‘Nation Wants to Know.’ Do everything you can, spend all the money you have and arrest me. I am waiting right now in my studio floor. Come, enforce your threat.”

    In a recent interview with Indiantelevision.com, Goswami mentioned his company was facing problems in distributing the soon-to-be launched TV channel as some other news channels were allegedly offering MSOs and LCOs more commissions to not carry Republic TV on their distribution platforms. That the promoter of a big MSO, DEN Networks Ltd, along with his brother, is an investor in Goswami’s company gets failed to be highlighted by him.

    Though such one-upmanship does resonate with his target audience, it raises other questions too. Questions like why he did not raise a storm when one of his main investors had sent a legal notice to an online news site and forced it to take down a news article on the investor and his investments in Goswami’s venture?

    Some incumbent news channels and competitors of Goswami’s TV channel may not be saying it in so many words, but aren’t amused much. “We will not simply make noise. We will concentrate on good reporting, fact-checking and research,” said CNN News18 managing director Radhakrishnan Nair while speaking to Indiantelevision.com about the change in news presentations’ style in recent times.

    But don’t for a minute think that Arnab’s marketing advisors are playing a mindless game. Though the English news viewership universe may not be very big — according to BARC India, it’s approximately 1.5 per cent of the total TV viewership that has risen to 27.3 billion impressions as of Week 15 — it does cater to the middle class viewers. All these teasers — targeting ‘soft’ targets or featuring not-so-serious-issues — resonate widely with the target audience nowadays, bred on a staple diet of hyper-nationalism and on thoughts like a Congress-free country. Good or bad, such hype does create a buzz, apart from disruptions.

    So keep tuned in for Arnab-ism on the small screen and on social media.

    Also Read :

    Arnab’s ‘The Newshour’ lands Times Now in soup in UK

    Republic appoints Laqshya media group  as the OOH Agency

    Times TV gets into a gunfight with CNBC TV18 on Budget Day claims

  • Copy-right vs right: Who can stop Arnab from using ‘nation wants to know’

    MUMBAI: Editor-turned-Republic TV entrepreneur Arnab Goswami now says that he has been served a legal notice by his former employer Times Group for using the phrase — ‘nation wants to know’ on his Republic TV venture. The phrase was common on Newshour on Times Now till Arnab quit on 1 November 2016.

    Sources associated with Republic TV said test runs for the channel’s May launch are in progress. Goswami’s frequent interviews across various media was a run-up to the launch, they said.

    In an audio clip on YouTube, Goswami claimed that he has been served with another ‘legal threat’ for using the aforestated phrase. In the clip, Goswami said that the threat of imprisonment would not deter him and that he has been using the phrase for the last 20 years throughout his journalism career. Goswami  became closely associated with the phrase during his tenure at Times Now.

    “ARG Outliers (Republic TV) had filed for trademark for these and similar phrases which were already filed for and extensively used for years by Times Now. We have responded with a standard caution notice. He (Arnab) is just trying to gain soundbytes from it,” Times Network said in an emailed communication to the media.

    Goswami added in the clib: “I have watched the nervous antics of this media group with amusement and horror for the last few months. Today, I am replying to them in public.” To them I say: The threat of imprisonment will not deter me. Bring your money bags and your lawyers. File the criminal case against me for using the phrase ‘nation wants to know’. Do everything you can. Spend all the money you have. Arrest me. I am waiting right now, on my studio floor. The phrase ‘nation wants to know’ belongs to you, me and to all of us. To every citizen of this country.”

    Arnab has alleged that his team members had been harassed and threatened with  “untoward action”, and that this media group’s aim had been to stall and delay the launch of Republic.

    Also Read :

    Arnab Goswami: Best time to enter news market when there’s no leader

    Times Now will be globally ‘regional’, non-mirror HD by next quarter

    No-frills, non-agenda Patrika channel wants to air news – unequivocally

  • Times Now will be globally ‘regional’, non-mirror HD by next quarter

    MUMBAI: Success does not end at leadership, it begins!

    With an aim to create value and make a difference, he is a man on a mission. He quit News X in November 2016 to fill the the big shoes of Arnab Goswami. Known to be an insightful, incisive journalist, Rahul Shivshankar joined Times Now on 15 December as the chief editor, coming back after six years. In his second stint, Shivshankar has a clear strategy in place for growth and expansion of the undisputed leader in the English News space, Times Now.

    Leading a channel that has already set a high benchmark is not an easy task. And, he seems to be doing a fairly decent role as Goswami’s replacement.

    Right after rebranding its real estate channel Magicbricks Now to Mirror Now, Times Network is all geared up to launch the HD feed of Times Now by the next quarter (Q2). In an exclusive interview with www.indiantelevision.com after his appointment, Shivshankar shares his experience after joining the network, his game plan with Times Now, its programming, morning time slot, anchors, Mirror Now, the network’s digital properties, launch of Republic TV, etc.

    Edited excerpts:

    It’s been four months since your appointment in Times Now. Was it difficult to fill Goswami’s shoes? How has been the response both, editorially, and from the industry?

    I have done this for two other channels. I think, for me, it was, in one sense, working with a lot of familiar faces. I have worked in two other newsrooms also in a very senior position and ran them. So, I have great experience in carrying things around. I am a team player by nature. This new role was not discomforting.

    What initiatives have you worked on with MK Anand? Remonetise India being one of them.

    At a strategy level we have been discussing a lot of things. Some of them are already on air now — Mirror Now, for instance. Times Now is going HD very soon. It will not be a mirror of the SD version. Times Now HD will have diffferent programming. All the backend is ready. It is all a matter of plugging in and playing. 

    There is going to be a much differentiated Times Now. The channel is going to evolve into a hydra-headed entity. This will not just redefine the way you are looking, it is about redefining content. Times Now is spread across 100 countries. We are going to use our HD technology to variegate content. So, for different markets you will have different content. Times Now will become a multiple platform.

    When I joined, I saw that we were interested in only one Times Now which we have been pushing and defending for 12 years. All these years, we had not done anything different. Success does not end at leadership, it begins. The journey to innovation comes after you become a leader. The previous dispensation was in some ways complacent.

    Here is an opportunity for a brand that you can differentiate in so many ways. You can make so much value. So much capital and content is locked up.

    We want to go globally regional with the channel. We will have different types of Times Now. Maybe we will do an Asia feed which will have content about Asia or an America or Europe feed. We will become a truly global news entity. We will curate content for different markets. Even with Times Now regionally, we might have a regional feed competing in Karnataka with the local channels. There are a lot of things that we have planned.

    Who is the channel competing with?

    We are competing with ourselves, to better ourselves. The platform that I want to create out of the start that I have inherited is one that put facts right in the center. A lot of people say that facts are for Wikipedia, its plain vanilla. When people say this, they are doing a disservice to journalism. They are doing disservice to the viewers. Are people trying to say facts are incidental of people’s rights? Do they not need to be informed about facts? After that, you can take informed decisions. But, fact is the soul of journalism.

    If you see the show I present, I try at nightly basis to put facts out there because I do not want to take my viewers for granted. I don’t believe that the viewer should be treated with contempt. What is this — if you want facts, then look at Wikipedia? It’s contemptuous, professional hubris.

    There are entertainment channels out there that have no regard for facts. There are the Kapil Sharmas of the world, they are also very successful. But, if your business model is based on a psyche of infotainment quotient, that is also there. It has viewers.

    We are very clear. Times Now will put the facts first.

    How has been the recovery of your revenues post demonetisation in the last three months?

    It’s looking very good. GEC has started to recover a lot of money from the market. The market is coming back. I think we have to focus on remonetising India. That is what we did. We were quick to understand that this was a short-term pain, and a long-term gain.

    We realised that whether you like it or not, this is a move people will have to stick to for a while because we have created this problem ourselves. Corruption is not created by vacuum. It’s created by stakeholders. We had to pay the price, and we did.

    What about ‘The Newshour’? Is it doing well? Do you plan to change the format? I believe the viewership has declined after Goswami’s exit.

    A certain number of viewers who wanted a particular type of narrative have left. But, the channel’s leadership is there. We are getting 40 per cent share every day on The Newshour. How much more can we aspire for?

    I think it is important to give value. And I think when there is a change in the way you are presenting things, when you are moving from one paradigm to another, this will happen. We are adding viewers also. I don’t think 229 per cent higher from any other channel was our leadership on the counting day. Never in the history of Times Now have we had this viewership. I think people re incidental to news.

    So, there was a period of change when people were expecting certain things from a particular slot. Obviously that has changed but, the aggression has not. The advocacy has not. We continue to strongly advocate people’s issues.

    Times Now also plans to start a morning band. What is the programming strategy? How will you attract viewers to your channel with the existing  competition in the industry?

    I cannot talk about it. The moment I use the word “differentiator”, you will be able to piece together our strategy. This is at a tactical level. We have got a very paradigm altering plan for the mornings. It’s going to redefine news TV.

    Will you strengthen your faces on the channel? Will it be about face or news?

    Yes. We will strengthen the faces on Times Now. My predecessors were very focused on one individual. I think that is not how it should be. I believe networks should be built around many people, and we should all share value. In no other country in the world will you have a photograph of one person plastered in six places across the screen. You look at Aaj Tak, you don’t even see the anchors. You look at international channels, there are several anchors with different styles and different hours and are equally successful.

    I think it is very important to acknowledge the contribution of several other people. I believe in rewarding people who have done fantastically well. It’s high time we repaid the people who supported us. They are very talented. Without their hard work, you will not have any brand. So the time has come to recognise them.

    You have rebranded MagicBricks Now to Mirror Now. What was the reason?

    I think there was a demand for a product which was at some level more variegated in content. The start we made with Magicbricks was a good one. But, the response we were getting to the 4-6 hours that we were putting out was so overwhelming that we realised that under the rubric our realty, property, etc, there were many issues that people face — such as civic issues. And, nothing exists in isolation. We wanted to acknowledge these other realities, and therefore we wanted to go 24 hours. The response is huge.

    People wanted us to take up issues which were limited to the logo and branding. We could not justify that.

    So, what is the programming like? Will it also have a celebrity component as its print segment, Mumbai Mirror which is famous for its Bollywood content? Will the print and TV journalists work together?

    Those are things that are coming up, but there is crime — for instance. The programming is premature. There are a lot of things we might inhibit and lot more where we might want to expand. So, I don’t want to deceive anyone. Everything and anything that touches the heart of the city goes into Mirror. It’s a very simple equation.

    Yes, the print and TV journalists are working together because we have great synergy across. We have so many different platforms and stories from everywhere. And, Mumbai Mirror does some fantastic work. We will be partnering those different levels.

    How do you see things changing once Arnab launches his channel?

    It is good to have competition in the industry. The more the merrier.

    Your social media followers are less than that of Republic TV. You are lagging there. How do you plan to leverage it further?

    We will figure that out as we go along.

    What about your websites? How do you plan to manage your digital sites with India Times and Republic giving you a strong competition there?

    We are big on all digital platforms, and are working on our digital strategy.

  • Arnab Goswami: Best time to enter news market when there’s no leader

    MUMBAI: Whether off screen or on screen Arnab Goswami is a passionate and animated speaker, though some would say he’s given to histrionics. “The best time to enter the (news) market is when there is no leader,” Goswami said with his trademark flourish, barely few months after leaving Times TV Network as group editor where he often claimed Times NOW was the No. 1 news channel in the country.

    He delivered this almost knockout punch against his previous news platform in a sotto voice dressed casually in a jeans with a jacket draped over it. Hopefully without batting an eyelid (his eyes were hidden behind dark shades, though), he delivered his next punchline: “English news market has flattened out. There was a gap of about 15-20 per cent between Times NOW and other channels when I was leading it, but now there is no clear leader.”

    Gearing up for the launch of his entrepreneurial venture Republic TV, an English News channel, and Republic World, a digital platform, Goswami, in an exclusive conversation with indiantelevision.com on the sidelines of FICCI Frames 2017 here, noted that flattening of the news market was good for his venture

    Though Goswami sounds confident about his venture, but, probably, his previous employers do still rile him still. Remember the story of David and Goliath?

    “One TV channel constantly says that we are not going to let Republic crush us. Every morning they wake up talking about us, giving interviews. I would tell that channel to stop being paranoid,” he drops his voice — may be for effect — and goes on to add loudly, “Your paranoia about us will make you fail.” Full marks for being candid!!

    Well, even when we thought Goswami was through with rubbing it in and we could move over to other topics for discussion, he holds the line, if we use cricket’s bowling analogy: “Unhealthy practices in the TV industry have started. One news channel, which has lost considerable amount of viewership, is going around telling distributors that they would be willing to pay more money if they (distributing platforms) could stop broadcasting Republic for a month. I am horrified.

    “It reveals a sense of deep insecurity (in Republic’s competitors). They say things like ‘some small channel that has not stopped, has been renamed twice and would be renamed the third time just around the time of launch’. These are all signs of growing paranoia and nervousness. I want to tell these channels to not be worried and do something innovative and prepare for our launch. It’s a more healthy way of being in the business. ”

    So which are these TV channels that are maligning Republic and are “nervous” and “insecure”? We urge him to come clean on this name game. This time Goswami ducks the bouncer and counter-questions, “Well, everybody knows who they are. Don’t you people know the facts?”

    According to the media buzz, Goswami will launch both his digital platform and the news channel in two months’ time. Though Goswami refrained from divulging more programming and other details of his ventures, buzz says the TV news anchor, who grew bigger than the company that employed him till few months, will return to the TV screen by anchoring a show on the channel in his trademark style —- critics claim he would continue to be the prosecutor and judge making mincemeat of his panelists. “It will happen soon, much before what is been speculated,” is all that Goswami is willing to state.

    But, just as he cannot let go of a chance to add to the suspense, Goswami pulls back his long-ish hairs and noted with a flourish: “Starting with news in English, the channel (and the whole venture) will expand wherever the audiences exist.”

    The two platforms have received an array of supporters from the advertising and sponsorship worlds. “Loads of people have been lining up to advertise with us. There has been a fantastic reception from the market. There has been a tremendous response from the advertisers from all categories — those who are advertising on news and those who are working with us. They are all excited about the venture,” Goswami boasts, adding bashfully, “This is going to be the most exciting media launch in 2017.”

    For him, viewership is not just limited to market share, but is based on the total number of people watching a product. Strongly believing that unless a TV channel starts engaging with the audience, it would rapidly loose viewership, Goswami explains: “There has been a fall in viewership (of news channels), but that is because there is lack of innovation. Copycats don’t work. You must evolve your own style. I wish people in the English news business start doing different formats on their own. It will be good for them. But, they don’t have much time for that because we are coming with Republic. They just have a few weeks.”

    Is he looking for additional funding for his venture after BJP-backed MP of Rajya Sabha Rajeev Chandrashekhar put in reported over Rs. 3,000 million, apart from several other high networth individuals in their personal capacity? Goswami refused to speak on funding. But he was overheard telling a person, after delivering a keynote address at FICCI Frames 2017 here, that funding for the TV venture is over, though he is actively looking to raise additional investments for the digital platform.

    While delivering his keynote address, reeled out in his usual style with emphasis on anecdotes, theatrics and requests for support from “you all”, Goswami highlighted the changing landscape of new business in India. Some of the highlights are as follows:

    – Plain vanilla is boring. It is overused and dead.

    – Opinion is the future. Having an opinion as a journalist is necessary. Opinions are sacred.

    – Encourage speaking of English the Indian way. ‘Hinglish’ is the way ahead.

    – Content will remain the king (where does that leave distribution platforms, the vehicle on which content will ride, we wonder. More specifically, where would that leave one of his many investors, Sameer Manchanda, who also is founder-promoter of MSO DEN Networks?)

    – Television will outlive all news genres. There will be a collaboration and not competition of TV and digital.

    – Technology will be the democratic enabler for media.

    – Delivering news is what matters to India.

  • Times Now ex-CFO Sundaram joins Republic

    MUMBAI: Former Times Now CFO S Sundaram has joined Republic, Arnab Goswami’s media entity, as the group CFO for the TV and digital venture.

    Republic is India’s first independent media venture managed by content professionals. As a media-tech company, Republic is India’s first global media brand.

    In a career spanning three decades, Sundaram has served as the CFO for 15 years in different organisations – his footprint running across Finance, Legal Compliance & Business Development functions. He was CFO for the Times Network between 2005 and 2012. Sundaram now takes charge of the financial leadership at Republic.

    Commenting on S Sundaram joining his team, Republic founder Arnab Goswami said “He’s easily one of the best CFOs in the business today.” Republic CEO Vikas Khanchandani added. “Sundaram’s range of experience in financial leadership is unparalleled in the broadcast business. His successful stint in the broadcast industry will help Republic scale new financial benchmarks.”

    Sundaram said, “Seeing Arnab rewrite the rules of television, I am excited to be with him at Republic and see him become India’s voice for the world.”

    Sundaram has been a part of a large bouquet of businesses: Consultancy (A.F.Ferguson & Co), FMCG (PepsiCo India), Luxury Consumer Products & Services (Bausch & Lomb India & INOX Leisure), Internet (india.com),Television News Media (Times Global Broadcasting). His last stint was with the Edutainment Theme Park – KidZania India. Apart from being hands-on with Financial & compliance management, the depth of his start-up exposure has equipped Sundaram to be an active business participant -essential to build a robust business process within an efficient value chain from scratch.

    Also Read:

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/people/republic-appoints-chauhan-to-set-up-global-innovation-centre-in-bengaluru-170207

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/news-broadcasting/bloomberg-quints-tv-distribution-head-priya-mukherjee-moves-to-republic-170203

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/news-broadcasting/rbnl-ex-cbo-khanchandani-joins-arnabs-republic-170120

  • New digital player Go News voluntarily submits to NBA self-regulation

    MUMBAI: ‘Nayi Nazar, Asli Khabar, Mobile Par’ (new outlook, real news, on mobile phones). The tagline in itself exemplifies the vision of Pankaj Pachauri’s news venture Go News.

    Catchy tagline apart, it could well turn out to be the first digital news provider to voluntarily come under News Broadcasters Association (NBA)’s self-regulatory code. Reason: it wants to be a responsible news broadcaster following journalism ethics and breaking the `noisy’ norm presently prevalent on most TV news channels.

    The app-based service, which is planned to be available on hand-held devices, is yet to get a formal approval from NBA for a membership of the Association.  

    “We have applied for NBA membership. Go News (probably) is the first digital news venture to voluntarily apply for it because our aim is to become a responsible broadcaster,” Pachauri told Indiantelevision.com.

    Positioned to be a digital news channel with new method of delivery and thrust on news, the mobile-only news platform (to begin with) is racing against the clock to go live by the second week of March 2017. The channel will initially host news and short format videos in Hindi language.

    However, as growth and reach does come with servicing consumers of different languages, next in line for Go News is an English feed, followed by an Indian language.  Six months down the line, the app plans to provide news feed in three languages.

    Pachauri, a former NDTV news anchor and media advisor to the former PM Manmohan Singh, spearheads the new venture that currently boasts of a team consisting of 40 professionals, including 10 anchors and six reporters. Professional boosts come from the likes of former BBC and NDTV anchor Darain Shahidi, a former colleague of Pachauri.

    Pointing out that people are getting away from television news as the number of viewers decline, both for English and Hindi genre, Pachauri said, “English audience is annoyed with the way news is treated on TV channels…and they are walking away. The news space is crowded and loud, and journalism is dying.”

    So, in an effort to bring back in vogue traditional and good journalism, Go News plans to do things differently and make an effort to provide video news of international quality. But haven’t we heard that before too from other stars like Arnab Goswami and Barkha Dutt?

    Go News is a tech-heavy platform, which would be compatible with smart televisions and smart mobile phones and would aim at providing news for the “smart citizens.” Pachauri explained, “We want to break the grammar of TV news by giving people the liberty to choose a time, day and platform to consume news.” The app would also allow consumers offline viewing and as also no-pay downloaded content.

    Apart from reporting on urban cities, sports, business, politics, which are the usual stuff, the channel will report on and from the rural pockets of India and will collaborate with people from the hinterlands — for news. “The experts and teachers can talk about several issues and events on the digital platform,” Pachauri added.

    Targeted at the 25-49 years age group, the channel has no advertiser or sponsor on board — yet. That means no immediate revenues. Does that frighten Pachauri and his band of ethical journalists as several of them must have chipped in with funding of this not-for-profit news venture?  Seems not.

    “No annoying ads, no annoying anchors and no annoying attitude. We have received many enquiries (for advertisements and sponsorships) but, for now, we are not looking at the business side. If we do good journalism, business will follow,” Pachauri said.

    ALSO Read:

    Pankaj Pachauri’s Go News unveils logo

  • Pankaj Pachauri’s Go News unveils logo

    NEW DELHI: Another one has bitten the digital bullet. This time it’s former NDTV news anchor and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s media advisor Pankaj Pachauri who’s going digital with his first entrepreneurial and news venture called Go News. And, keeping in tune with times, the logo was unveiled in a short video on Twitter.

    “Dear all, our news venture is getting ready for launch. We seek your support, blessing s and retweets!” Pachauri tweeted recently and it promptly got pinned and retweeted by media personalities and celebs. The tagline for the on-the-go news venture is `Credible, Co-creative, Concise.’

    The news venture, which is claimed to be a not-for-profit endeavour, is targeting all those who want their news on the go and on their hand-held devices, mostly smart phones. The product will be available across a variety of mobile platforms, including the popular Android and iOS.

    public://FullSizeRender_0.jpg

    According to industry sources, though Go News is still a work in progress as hiring of staff continues and other fine-tuning happens, the message is quite clear: take the traditional TV newsroom and journalism online — something that another digital entrepreneur Raghav Bahl described in a column for indiantelevision.com as “gods of the digital newsroom.”

    public://unnamed.png

    Though there are several credible digital news ventures in India up and running, two of the recent high-profile ventures include Arnab Goswami’s yet-to-be-launched Republic TV (renamed from the original Republic after political grandstanding by a politician and which will have a digital avatar too apart from the traditional look of a TV news channel) and former NDTV news anchor Barkha Dutt’s tie-up with Bahl’s The Quint for online video and written coverage of the ongoing State elections.

    Go News is being pegged as top class journalism available on hand-held devices in a country that soon may become the world’s largest mobile phone market. India may boast of over a billion mobile phone subscribers — which need not necessarily mean that one billion people own phones — but the Mint newspaper quoted a Pew Research Center survey released early 2016 as stating that only 17 per cent Indians owned smart phones and India stood among the lower half of surveyed countries in Internet usage between 2013 and 2015. Things may have changed for the better since such surveys, but availability of bandwidth and its quality remain amongst the top challenges for consumers here

     

  • Republic appoints Chauhan, to set up global innovation centre in Bengaluru

    Republic appoints Chauhan, to set up global innovation centre in Bengaluru

    MUMBAI: Jay Chauhan has joined Republic as COO for the digital venture and CTO for broadcast news.

    With 20 years of experience spanning television, digital and healthcare, Chauhan will be responsible for setting up and establishing market leadership for Republic’s global digital properties. Additionally, as CTO, he will be introducing innovation into news gathering as well as mobility solutions into technical operations for broadcast.

    Prior to joining Republic, Chauhan was CIO at NDTV Worldwide where he built two healthcare start-ups. Chauhan has led engineering teams leading to the launch of NDTV’s flagship channels, led the technology consulting division and successfully driven high-margin sales initiatives across the APAC region.

    A key focus area within Republic’s digital strategy will be setting up of its global innovation centre in Bengaluru to house its team of data scientists, machine learning experts, developers and UX architects to build Republic’s sophisticated content platform.

    Republic founder Arnab Goswami said, “A gifted tech leader guiding our digital venture is a strong statement of what Republic stands for and what it will become – a true media tech company.”

    Chauhan added, “It’s an exhilarating feeling being part of the Republic team’s vision of innovation and disruption on a global scale. I can’t wait to roll up my sleeves, deliver amazing digital content products for our global customer base and build a profitable digital business.”

    “Jay is a digital native and technology enthusiast and brings immense experience and value to Republic while we together build this business in a digitally active and screen-agnostic environment,” said Republic CEO Vikas Khanchandani.