Congress president Sonia Gandhi, scooped by Indian Express photographer Anil Sharma, as she leaves her daughter's residence in New Delhi on 14 September 2011.
Nothing has exposed the hollowness of so-called “political reporting” in New Delhi, and the fragilility of editorial spines of newspapers and TV stations across the country, than the Congress president Sonia Gandhi‘s illness.
Hundreds of correspondents cover the grand old party; tens of editors claim to be on on first-name terms with its who’s who; and at least a handful of them brag and boast of unbridled “access” to 10 Janpath.
Yet none had an inkling that she was unwell.
Or, worse, the courage to report it, if they did.
Indeed, when the news was first broken by the official party spokesman in August, he chose the BBC and the French news agency AFP as the media vehicles instead of the media scrum that assembles for the daily briefing.
Sonia Gandhi has since returned home but even today the inability of the media—print, electronic or digital—to throw light on just what is wrong with the leader of India’s largest political party or to editorially question the secrecy surounding it, is palpable.
Given the hospital she is reported to have checked into, the bazaar gossip on Sonia has ranged from cervical cancer to breast cancer to pancreatic cancer but no “political editor” is willing to put his/her name to it.
About the only insight of Sonia’s present shape has come from an exclusive photograph shot by Anil Sharma of The Indian Express last week.
In a counter-intuitive sort of way, Nirupama Subramanian takes up the silence of the media in The Hindu:
“That the Congress should be secretive about Ms Gandhi’s health is not surprising. What is surprising, though, is the omertà being observed by the news media, usually described by international writers as feisty and raucous.
“On this particular issue, reverential is the more fitting description. Barring editorials in the Business Standard and Mail Today, no other media organisation has thought it fit to question the secrecy surrounding the health of the government’s de facto Number One.
“A similar deference was on display a few years ago in reporting Atal Bihari Vajpayee‘s uneven health while he was the Prime Minister. For at least some months before he underwent a knee-replacement surgery in 2001, it was clear he was in a bad way, but no news organisation touched the subject. Eventually, the government disclosed that he was to undergo the procedure, and it was covered by the media in breathless detail.
“Both before and after the surgery, there was an unwritten understanding that photographers and cameramen would not depict Vajpayee’s difficulties while walking or standing. Post-surgery, a British journalist who broke ranks to question if the Prime Minister was fit enough for his job (“Asleep at The Wheel?” Time, June 10, 2002) was vindictively hounded by the government.
“Almost a decade later, much has changed about the Indian media, which now likes to compare itself with the best in the world. But it lets itself down again and again. The media silence on Ms Gandhi is all the more glaring compared with the amount of news time that was recently devoted to Omar Abdullah‘s marital troubles. The Jammu & Kashmir chief minister’s personal life has zero public importance. Yet a television channel went so far as to station an OB van outside his Delhi home, and even questioned the maid….
“Meanwhile, the media are clearly not in the mood to extend their kid-glove treatment of Ms Gandhi’s illness to some other politicians: it has been open season with BJP president Nitin Gadkari‘s health problems arising from his weight. Clearly, it’s different strokes for different folks.”
Read the full article: The omerta on Sonia‘s illness
Also read: Why foreign media broke news of Sonia illness
How come no one spotted Satyam fraud?
How come no one saw the IPL cookie crumbling?
How come no one in the media saw the worm turn?
Aakar Patel: Indian journalism is regularly second-rate
IJR 
Its funny. I work with a newspaper. One of our reporters spoke to the oncologist treating Mrs Gandhi in the US, the report was verified through different sources at the desk and yet the editor-in-chief flagged the story as sensitive and we never published the story. I still don’t know why he flagged it.
[…] Sans Serif wonders why there are so many reporters tracking Congress chief Sonia Gandhi’s recent illness, and yet so little published info on her. Tweet […]
Reporters don’t decide editorial content. It is the editors and publishers who do that.
The problem with India is that while we have too many reporters, we hardly come across top editors and publishers who have some kind of integrity and inner strength.
That is why our papers are incapable of giving us a complete picture of what is actually happening in the country.
India is facing a severe scarcity when it comes to right kind of media publishers and top editors.
the hoot has an interesting observation – how come the hindu, in which this piece appeared – didn’t report on sonia’s illness?
It’s not that The Hindu didn’t speak about Sonia’s illness, in fact it spoke often about the lack of information and sources about the incident…
But I still believe The Hoot’s observation is correct to some extent… It seems that Nirupama Subramnian and other journalists of The Hindu think they are supervisors of the Indian media-and they forget what the very daily for which they are working is doing about the very event about which they are commenting.
Indian Media is not honest, it is willing to sell its soul for a few bucks. Therefore, this is not surprising