Commentary/Amberish K Diwanji

Two deaths and the media

Diana, princess of Wales, may have cursed the media endlessly, but it made her the icon that she was. Without the media, her death would have been that of just another rich woman, albeit an ex-royal. There is no doubt that her death brought forth an outpouring of grief in Britain. Sociologists, psychologists, and media pundits, in the days to come, will debate the reasons for this national grief.

It is interesting to see how Britain's sorrow became the world's. More than anything else, Diana's was a creature of the media. She married Charles in 1981, just when the media boom and the Age of Information was beginning. Desperate newspapers, journalists, and photographers, ever hungry for a topic, saw one in her. That she was beautiful, blonde, and tall -- a perfect English rose, as some described her -- only added to the charm.

Royal watching soon shifted to Diana watching. Andy Warhol once said that in today's fast changing world, one only has 15 minutes of glory. Film stars, sport champions, the glitterati, they come and go: Amitabh Bachchan is yesterday's memory and today's gimmick artist; Sridevi is now a housewife; Sylvester Stallone is not such a hot commodity in Hollywood today, Meryl Streep long forgotten. But Diana went beyond 15 years!

Had Diana's marriage continued properly, she would have only made it to the press occasionally. But fate, and the media, decided otherwise. Her failing marriage became the mother of all soap operas. Her case of bulimia, adultery, kept the tabloids and television busy. Diana may have complained about the press more than once, but she also used them. A day before the 50th birthday of Charles' girlfriend, Camilia Parker-Bowles, Diana invited photographers and the now much-hated paparazzi for a shoot. Obviously Diana's charism buried any photograph of Camilia and Charles. This was no coincidence!

Europe is dotted with royals: Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Monte Carlo, and more, who rarely figure in the newspapers and television. It is here that the case of media domination comes in. One reason is language: English. The English-speaking media is the only global media today. The BBC reaches across the world, and remains important globally even though British power is a relic of the past. CNN, though American-centric, too covers the globe. Equally important, news agencies such as Reuter (Britain), AP (USA), and AFP (France) dominate news flows. Most Indian newspapers rely on these agencies for their international news. Two of the three are English-language controlled.

Thus, the concerns of the BBC, aired in English, translate as that of the world's. Diana's death, for a variety of reasons, was important to the British public. The BBC's 24-hour coverage for an entire week, and after, made this British event a global event. CNN too joined in. A primary reason for doing so must be the urgent need for a spectacular visual event. CNN and BBC, giving news day in and day out, constantly need events that can hold the audience's attention. Once such an event occurs, they have to literally milk it dry. On an average day, the staple news is of Bosnia, breakdown of peace in the Middle East, and such run of the mill stuff. Suddenly, Diana is dead, and long live her death! The television channels covering news, desperate for fresh and different items, got it.

Much earlier, in June-July, the world saw another event, the reunification of Hong Kong with China. The western media called it handover, never reunification. The western media's coverage repeatedly painted China as a gigantic Goliath seeking to destroy small Hong Kong. Programmes before the reunification started weeks in advance, almost like a daily drill, until the live coverage of the reunification.

The continuous coverage of Diana's death had a disastrous effect in India. On September 5, the eve of Diana's funeral and burial, Mother Teresa died. Amazingly, coverage of Mother Teresa's death was limited simply because most of the Western media had already committed so to covering Diana's funeral. The BBC almost forget Mother Teresa's existence, CNN carried brief bulletins. One can safely bet that had there not been Diana's death, Mother Teresa's death would have got the "treatment".

But it is not the Western media alone that is guilty. More so is the Indian media. Doordarshan, which has gone into 'mourning' on receiving the news of the death of the most useless politician, simply carried on with its regualar movie. Ditto DD2 and DD3. Mother Teresa died at prime time: late Friday evening. Only the DD Bangla channel began to beam classical music as a mark of respect. Zee, Sony, Star and the rest went on with their movies and soap operas. Mother Teresa, considered the saint of this century, did not merit breaking news on Indian channels; her death was only mentioned during the regular news.

Next day was worse. With the ongoing live coverage of Diana's funeral, Mother Teresa's death was almost blanked out. It boggles the mind to think that for all of India, Diana's death was more important than the Mother's. What had Diana ever done for India besides a couple of charity shows that even a Malayalam channel Asianet carried live Diana's funeral for a few hours. So did Star, and all others carried lengthy references to Diana's funeral. BBC and CNN, which consider themselves above regional and nationalistic considerations, showed the entire funeral for hours on end, with barely a mention of Mother Teresa. And ever eager for something fresh, both pounced on Earl Spencer's speech.

Only by Sunday evening, after it had been announced that Prime Minister I K Gujral was visiting Calcutta and that Mother Teresa would be given a state funeral did the import of the Mother filter in. But live coverage throughout the day? Certainly not! It seems the death of a so-called princess of hearts who is young, pretty, and dies in an accident is more newsworthy than an old lady who spent her life with the poor and dies of a prosaic heart attack.

The Western press has commented how Diana's death will affect the paparazzi and the tabloids who will be forced to be more circumspect. In fact, the British press has vowed to leave William and Harry alone. But questions need to be asked about the domination of the Western media over the minds of the world. CNN and BBC may beam to Asia, but their agenda is dominated by what the West considers news: the West saw Diana's death as being one of the most important events ever. The media fed the hype on Diana, and lived off it. It is a vicious circle -- Create the news, make it an earth-shaking event, and then exploit it to increase viewership, of course. It was done earlier with the Hong Kong reunification or "handover", then with Diana's death. The viewers got an overdose of the royal family, the speech, on and on, over and over again.

In India, we have to seriously consider our media's priorities. The well-known Indian magazine India Today actually had the cheek to put Diana on the cover along with Mother Teresa. Have Indians gone so mad as to equate the two? Where is the comparison? Indian television channels refused to interrupt their sponsored programmes to mention Mother Teresa's death: money is obviously more important. Diana's death is given tremendous coverage. Is it because readymade clippings are available from BBC and CNN? Or because no one sponsored the coverage of Mother Teresa's funeral?

Not one Indian television channel has done a great show on Mother Teresa, though her story is probably one of the greatest of the human spirit. Diana's miniscule charitable works are repeated ad nauseam, Mother Teresa's are taken for granted! Meanwhile, Dynasty, Hindi film songs, and singing women continue to appear on screen. The shows (those sponsored and with high ratings) must go on!

Tell us what you think of this column