OUTSIDE THE SPOTLIGHT, BEYOND THE HEADLINE
Nihal P
Angarika G
Media reportage of workers and their concerns is usually limited to accidents, suicides, unemployment or protests. There is little coverage outside the temporality of a ‘crisis’ , which dwells in the interior lives and experiences of workers. Unsurprisingly, this trend continued during the pandemic. Suddenly media coverage was aflush with images of the migrant worker walking home, begging for ration, demanding wages- in short, the cracks in the system lay exposed. However, despite this, there was no consistent reportage on workers’ experiences. Instead the ‘breaking news’ model senationalised specific incidents without situating them within the larger context of caste, gender and class exploitation. This made it seem as though problems were erupting due to the virus alone- whereas the truth is that workers continue to live and work in precarious and disempowering conditions. Ignoring the structural context, media representations led to a caricature of workers and their lives, diluting accountability for the state apparatus and wider middle-upper caste publics who perpetuate and sustain these conditions.
We were keen to analyse the patterns, omissions and stereotypes in media representation of workers. We selected a sample of content from eight mainstream Kannada and Malayalam print and TV media, for the period of April-July and September- October. This was the period when the lockdown was first announced, and workers were forced to walk home due to non-payment of wages, lack of jobs, and no access to basic amenities such as food and shelter. We also included the media coverage of the labour reforms that took place in October 2020. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analysis to understand the frequency of news relating to workers, the kind of coverage including content, tone and visual aesthetics and the representation of workers at large. The initial findings of the study are as follows.
The representation robbed workers of their dignity, and failed to capture their resistance toward state sanctioned measures, such as shelter homes, and inadequate supply of ration, that did not take into account their needs.
Prominence and Priority: How important is the story?
We take priority to mean the prominence given to a story with regard to placement (whether it is a front page story/breaking news) as well as the duration of the story. Given that the mass migration of workers could not be ignored, the sample period studied saw an increase in the coverage of workers issues. However, workers’ concerns made the headlines only during the period when they were on the road, walking home. The images of workers hungry and thirsty, in need of medical attention, walking with their belongings on long dusty roads, consolidated the stereotype of workers as victims. The data reveals that in the Kannada TV news under the sample, most stories were either 3 to 5 minutes long or were more than 5 minutes in duration. While in Malayalam TV news, almost all stories were between 1 to 3 minutes long. In Kannada newspapers most of the stories were either 4 to 5 column long or were single column. There was no story that was more than 5 columns. In the case of Malayalam newspapers, most of the stories were single columns with a few dispersed across 3 to 4 columns. This reveals how in-depth the reporatage was. The representation robbed workers of their dignity, and failed to capture their resistance toward state sanctioned measures, such as shelter homes, and inadequate supply of ration, that did not take into account their needs. The coverage focused only on their journey home, without investigating the structural contexts, the living and working conditions of workers in the city, that eventually led to their departure. Once the workers reached home, there was no follow up (in the sample size of this study) as to the conditions in their villages, ensuing unemployment, health concerns etc. Further, there was no representation of gender in the coverage, as the reports primarily foregrounded the male migrant worker. There was hardly any coverage across the two channels on the labour reforms that were passed during this period, which further rendered workers vulnerable to exploitation. Out of the sample of 96 news stories, there were only 4 stories in Kannada TV news and 3 in Malayalam TV news that even mentioned labour reforms. In the case of newspapers, it was mentioned in 10 articles in Kannada and 16 in Malayalam newspapers. Since there was limited reportage about labour reforms, there was hardly any mention of gaps in the reforms and impact of the reforms on workers. Thus in the media coverage across the two languages, there was no engagement with existing structural conditions of migrant work, nor any push to hold the system accountable.
Excluding workers voices from public discourse creates a lopsided public discourse around labour that is often far removed from lived realities. Workers are reduced to statistics and numbers and are not presented with agency in their own narrative.
Voice and representation: Who is speaking?
Workers’ voices were rarely foregrounded within the sample of our study. There were very few stories where workers were directly quoted. For example, out of the sample of 96 stories, there were close to only 10-12 stories in both Kannada and Malayalam TV news that had any direct quote from workers. While close to 40 stories had quotes from other people speaking on behalf of or about workers. It was worse in the case of newspapers where only two stories in Kannada newspapers had quotes from workers and there were none in Malayalam newspapers. Across TV news and newspapers in both languages under the sample, even when workers were quoted, no mention was made of their caste and religious identities which intersects with class exploitation. Rather than to capture workers’ political opinions, their analysis of the situation, their demands and needs, most coverage was filled with the voices of political leaders, cabinet ministers, civil society representatives and academics speaking on behalf of the workers.
Exclusion and Othering: Who is ‘the worker’?
Excluding workers voices from public discourse creates a lopsided public discourse around labour that is often far removed from lived realities. Workers are reduced to statistics and numbers and are not presented with agency in their own narrative. Furthermore their lack of control over a narrative allows for it to be turned against them. For example, rather than focusing on the impact of the pandemic on workers, the perspective was also negative. Reportage around crowds of workers at train/bus stations labelled workers as ‘super spreaders’ of the virus rather than focusing on the exploitative conditions that led to this desperation.
The lack of workers’ experiences in their own voices, led to caricatures of workers as full of fear and sorrow, at the mercy of the state/their employers. News media showed workers walking back home during the lockdown but it was not clear what work they do in the cities. The data shows that most of the news stories in TV news and newspaper did not mention the nature of occupation of these workers. In both Kannada and Malayalam TV news, the most prominent word used to describe the workers during this crisis was ‘victims’. A few stories also called them ‘ignorant’. This representation fails to capture the multi-dimensionality of workers’ experiences, who confront oppression with resilience, resolve and creativity. By reducing workers to victims, the media dehumanizes them as mere cogs within the labour machine.
The labour reforms were hailed as progressive, whereas in reality the reforms render the workers more susceptible to exploitation and violence.
Governance & Labour Legislation: What about accountability of the state?
Media coverage in our sample size rarely raised questions on the central and state governments mismanagement of the covid 19 crisis. They highlighted the schemes put together by the government, without questioning delays, efficacy and relevance of the schemes for workers. The labour reforms were hailed as progressive, whereas in reality the reforms render the workers more susceptible to exploitation and violence. For example, Malayalam TV news, under the sample, fairly covered the schemes and measures by the government during the lockdown for migrant workers but they hardly mentioned any discrepancy in those measures. It is worse in the case of newspapers, both Kannada and Malayalam newspapers covered the schemes and measures by the government but there was almost no mention of any discrepancies.
The findings of the study reveals that mainstream media coverage of migrant workers lacked sensitivity and rigor, often dehumanising the workers or labelling them as the cause of the crisis. The coverage failed to situate the concerns of workers during Covid, within the broader context of labor exploitation. The coverage was lacking in representation of diverse gender, caste and religious perspectives. The coverage did not go beyond the optics of workers returning home, on foot, to investigate unemployment, lack of wages, lack of access to amenities as well as the lived experiences and political opinions of workers during this time. There was no push to hold the state or central government accountable, nor upper caste employers who were responsible for casteist behavior toward workers during the lockdown.
As we find ourselves amidst yet another lockdown, there is barely any coverage on workers’ experiences. Crippling debt, homelessness, lack of work, caste and religious discrimination rendered workers vulnerable after the first lockdown, conditions that are further exacerbated during the second lockdown. Yet there is a conspicuous absence of their concerns and experiences. Is it because there are no dramatic visuals to capture of workers walking home? No ‘new’ crisis to present as breaking news? Beyond sensationalism, what will it take for the media to recognize that the precarious living and working conditions of workers is worthy of news?
***
The samples used for the study are as follows:
Kannada newspapers: Vijayvani, Udayvani, Prajavani and Kannada Prabha
Kannada TV news channels: Digvijaya News, TV9 Kannada, Public TV and Suvarna Kannada
Malayalam newspapers: Mathrubhumi,Deshabhimani,Kerala Koumudi and Madhyamam
Malayalam TV news channels: Asianet News, Mathrubhumi News, Manorama News and 24 News
In all there were 96 news stories/articles collected in the two languages across TV news and newspapers for the period of April-July and September- October 2020. Sample was selected on the basis of higher TRP and readership.
