This is an analysis of certain notable aspects of the media coverage on The Big Fat Ambani Wedding by R. Rajagopal, Editor at Large, The Telegraph. This is sourced from his social media posts and has been edited by The AIDEM. 

Some journalism schools ask students to write a report without subjective words such as “major”, “significant”, “whopping”, “iconic”, “historic”, “landmark” etc to train them on writing precise reports. Many newspapers on Sunday morning and Monday morning reminded me of that long-forgotten exercise. Most papers have pulled off the impossible mission of covering or not covering the Ambani wedding without mentioning Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi.

None of the nine newspapers, barring one, I saw mentioned that Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the Ambani wedding. None, barring one, carried the picture either. How can a newspaper miss the Prime Minister? It indeed has to be a miracle.

The blackout was so stark that I thought there must have been some kind of non-disclosure agreement on the guests who turned up at what was essentially a private affair. Or, it must have been too late, I assumed.

Then I saw The Sunday Times of India, which had a picture of Modi with the newlyweds and the groom’s parents at one of the ceremonies linked to the wedding. The publication of the picture answered two questions: there was no non-disclosure diktat and if The Times of India, a stickler for deadlines, got the picture on time, the others also would have got it if they tried.

Besides, as the Trump shooting coverage in India shows (full with maps and graphics and the history of assassinations), if Indian newspapers put their minds to it, no picture will be inaccessible to them. The Trump coverage also suggests that the hearts of Indian newsrooms bleed more for him than the victims in Manipur and the Muslims who have been attacked in the past few weeks in India.

On Sunday morning, I had mistakenly assumed that the tempo that was made famous by Modi on the campaign trail would finally make the front pages. The tempo, Modi’s disclosure on Ambani bankrolling Rahul Gandhi and Modi rubbing shoulders with the Ambanis would have made a nice package with the bypoll results. Alas! It was not to be.

Neither did I see any story that mentioned Rahul Gandhi Gandhi was not seen at the wedding ceremonies — at least at the time of going to the press. You can’t blame the newspapers if Rahul Gandhi snuck in after the printing machines started to roll. Also, Rahul Gandhi’s pizza picture was undated. So, there is no way newspapers would print pictures that they cannot independently verify. So, that omission is understandable.

Unfamiliar with such rigours of journalism, Valson Thampu, the former principal of St. Stephen’s College, has pointed out that Rahul Gandhi was the only national leader who absented himself (till the time of writing this) at the Ambani wedding. Several India bloc leaders and even DK Shivakumar of the Congress were there. Thampu has described Rahul Gandhi’s absence as a “stirring moment” in Indian public life. He interprets it as a repudiation of the power of money that has been ruling Indian politics for a long time, especially in the past decade when money has been used to break and make governments in violation of the popular mandate and through a collusion of parties and the corporate sector as reflected by the electoral bonds scandal.

The “balak buddhi” of Rahul Gandhi understands that the greatest threat to Indian democracy is the collusion between the powerbrokers of the State and the corporate moneybags, Thampu contends. Rahul Gandhi is sending an unmistakable message to the corporate sector that some individuals are still left in the country who cannot be bought by money power, Thampu says. “He owes a big salute from us. This is the proudest moment, I dare say, in the history of democratic India… irrespective of party affiliations…. It is a powerful statement,” Thampu adds.

I also saw an excellent video by Sunitha Devadas, based in Canada, who connects Rahul Gandhi’s absence from the wedding and his appeal not to harass Smriti Irani and suggests an attempt to herald a new morality and decency into public life. Devadas draws a telling distinction between a “DEALER” and a “LEADER”.

You need not agree with Thampu and Devadas. As good citizens, we must be sceptical of all public figures, including Rahul Gandhi.

But the point is the decision to stay away from Mumbai on Saturday evening has been noticed by several people and made them wonder what it means. Can newspapers afford to or should newspapers ignore an issue that the citizens are discussing and debating? Can they completely black out the appearance of Modi and non-appearance of Rahul Gandhi and focus on the obscene display of wealth?

Most of the common people do not have ready access to public figures. Isn’t it the job of newspapers to convey these questions to public figures and relay their answers to the citizens? Or, are our newspapers happy reproducing the minute details of Trump shooting from The New York Times hours after the original reporting?