Fast and Furious

The turbulent reign of Arnab Goswami

By RAHUL BHATIA | 1 December 2012

| 1 |

WHEN A MASSIVE FIRE ERUPTED at Mantralaya, the headquarters of the Maharashtra state government in Mumbai, shortly before 3 pm on 21 June, national news channels interrupted their broadcasts with live coverage of the blaze. Producers at Times Now, which calls itself “India’s most-watched English news channel”, borrowed footage from a Hindi channel until their broadcast vans reached the place at 3.20 pm, and the channel’s reporters and cameramen began to record pictures and describe the scene. A jittery camera found frightened people inching away from blazing windows on a ledge high above. A man dressed in white, just out of reach of the firemen, swung down from an air conditioner’s holding cage, put one foot on an open window frame a floor below, and gingerly reached out to another window, a few feet away, with the toes of his other foot. Nothing but the ground lay beneath. His desperate bid to stay alive replayed every few minutes, looped on a split screen alongside live images of the spreading flames.

Times Now, which is owned by Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited, publishers of the Times of India and the Economic Times, had earned a reputation for playing news fast and hard. On this occasion, the network was late to arrive at Mantralaya, but once the cameras were ready and footage streamed in to Times Now’s main bureau in central Mumbai, the operational machinery that set it apart from other channels came alive. Raw pictures of the fire arrived at the bureau’s “ingest room”, where two technicians were standing by. Under normal circumstances, footage is pushed through from here to the edit room; edited clips are conveyed onward to the output desk, and then launched into space from the production control room. For this event, the machine was primed to behave less like a conveyor belt and more like a catapult. Incoming footage was diverted straight to the production room, with words tacked on remotely as the digital footage streamed by. The entire chain of events, from recording to broadcast, took less than 30 seconds. This streamlined process was the primary reason editors and reporters said Times Now was unmatched in live coverage; as one former Times Now journalist told me, “There is no bureaucratic delay, as there is with other channels.” But nimbleness was only one reason why Times Now had consistently beaten its more established rivals in the ratings from late 2008 until early 2012. The frenetic coverage of the Mantralaya blaze demonstrated the channel’s other strength: a flair for creating drama.

By 4.20pm, Times Now had five reporting teams at the scene. (“We kind of went berserk that day,” a senior producer told me.) The broadcast cut rapidly from one reporter to the next, while the live images from the fire took up less than half the screen area: the rest of this real estate pulsed with banners and headlines. Over the course of one typical minute—between 6.04pm and 6.05 pm—there were 58 studio-induced flashes on the broadcast. No bar stayed still, words evaporated and reappeared, and at the centre of this sea of red and blue were reporters performing the simple task of describing what the viewer could see for himself. “We used to call it deaf and dumb,” said Naman Chaturvedi, a former associate producer who handled on-screen graphics. “Hum jo bolte the woh likhte the. Jo likhte the woh dikhate the. Jo dikhate the woh sunate the. (What we spoke was what we wrote was what we showed was what we told you.)”

The coverage that afternoon was a typical Times Now production, designed not just to attract viewers, but to mesmerise them with an array of visual effects and excited voices. Two of the channel’s rivals, NDTV 24X7 and CNN-IBN, were far less energetic: Times Now jumped between five cameras trained on the flames while workers in the building hung on for their lives; the NDTV screen, a placid white in comparison, stayed fixed to a talkative survivor for 45 minutes, rarely returning to the fire itself, while on CNN-IBN a single reporter patiently tried to assemble the details of the fire.

Few facts emerged as the fire raced towards the chief minister’s office at Mantralaya, but Times Now layered the incident with meaning. An editorial line was given shape in the form of a question: a flashing banner under the headline “Controversy breaks out” asked, “Could there be a sabotage angle?” The question referred to the Adarsh Housing Society scam, which involved impropriety by bureaucrats, politicians and military staff—and suggested, without evidence, that files related to the case were cooking somewhere inside the building. An anchor’s voice proffered that “there is a whiff of conspiracy theory”, while flashes on the screen read “Adarsh files gutted?” until the Central Bureau of Investigation declared that the files in question were safely in its possession. Times Now downgraded the Adarsh conspiracy angle, retreating to new lines suggesting many other “important” documents had been destroyed. (A follow-up report the next day ran with the headline “Who’s behind sabotage?”) The footage of the dangling man continued to run in a loop on Times Now for hours after he had made it to safety—long after NDTV and CNN-IBN had cut away from the event. That week there was one more fire, and then a child fell into a borewell in Haryana, where she remained for three days. When the weekly ratings were released the following Wednesday, they showed that more than half the people who had watched English-language news had been tuned in to Times Now.

BACK IN 2007, soon after learning that Times Now had beaten its rivals in the weekly ratings for the first time, the channel’s editor-in-chief, Arnab Goswami, summoned everyone in the office to a cake before him. He looked around and spotted someone he had waged a one-sided cold war on, and warmly said, “Naomi, come here! Come here!” his first words to her in a full year. “I don’t care about ratings,” he began, waving a knife at the newsroom, “but we’re number one.”

Broadly speaking, this was not true. Tall and wide, and possessed of an acid personality that singed the newsroom often, Goswami, who some privately referred to as “meethi churri”—a knife sheathed in honey—had come to care so deeply about ratings that he controlled every knob, button, lever and handle on the production line of news that ran through the channel. He dictated the colour of flashing panels, changing them whenever he wished. He decided the size of on-screen fonts, following no particular style guide. Even cameramen were told which angles to choose while filming. All this was to one end: Goswami was obsessed with attracting, and retaining, his viewers. “I will set the news agenda for India today,” Sonorita Chauhan, a former correspondent, recalled him saying. He did this by exercising absolute control over the flow, substance and appearance of news. Members of his “core team”, who ran various editorial divisions, spent vast stretches of their lives silently taking notes at an oval table in the editorial meeting room while Goswami dictated the channel’s agenda to them for up to six hours each day.

The cake was not simply for inching ahead in a race without end; these ratings had deeper meaning for Goswami. They represented his first major triumph over the two channels that had come to possess him. Before becoming the editor-in-chief at Times Now, Goswami had spent nine years at NDTV, rising to head its national news desk. At Times Now, he scorned his former employer openly, letting everyone know that the network was lumbering and irrelevant; he referred to it as “the white elephant”. “It was said to us, quote unquote, ‘Let NDTV do their social service,’” a former high-ranking editor who was part of Goswami’s core team said. When Rajdeep Sardesai, who had been Goswami’s boss at NDTV, launched CNN-IBN in December 2005, one month before Times Now went live, the ambushed newsroom watched nervously. (Goswami tried to keep up his team’s morale by trashing the new channel in text messages to his staff, a member of the Times Now launch team recalled.) To make matters worse, CNN-IBN quickly asserted itself against NDTV. Goswami had worked under Sardesai for almost a decade, and despised him so deeply that his son had made a charming drawing of Goswami triumphing over his former boss. Goswami is a dedicated father, and he proudly displayed it in his office.

The channel’s first victory in the ratings gave Times Now a legitimacy that had been elusive while it trailed NDTV and CNN-IBN since its beginnings in January 2006. Staffed with reporters from other channels and newspapers, the network began life as an unusual hybrid under an editor who was only 33 years old. It aired general and business news during the day, and light programming at night, a format that had been approved by the Times Group’s powerful proprietors, the brothers Vineet and Samir Jain. The mix was unique—news channels were usually one thing or another, not both—but weekly numbers were poor. What the channel stood for was unclear. An output editor from the core team who worked closely with Goswami recalled that “nobody watched the channel. He couldn’t get people on his show. Nobody wanted to speak to him. He had no access to the top politicians. Neither did his reporters. Nobody gave us an interview.”

Six years on, Goswami’s nightly debate show, The Newshour, has become the cultural and economic centre of Times Now. “It’s the centre of the solar system,” a senior manager at the channel said. Discussions about Times Now are invariably discussions about Goswami, whose abrasive moderation every weeknight has inspired angst-ridden open letters, a stream of parodies, and even standup comedy routines. The Newshour runs anywhere between 60 and 120 minutes and, partly by dint of its variable length, attracts more viewers than competing shows with fixed slots at 9 pm. Its advertising rates are among the highest for prime time news television, at Rs 16,000 for a ten-second spot. And the show is so vital to the relevance and well-being of the network that “60 percent of the editorial resources are used for The Newshour”, the senior manager said. It pulls in 40 percent of the channel’s overall viewers, and a fifth of its Rs 1.5 billion annual revenue.

Goswami isn’t shy about letting staff know that his show pays their salaries—its advertising revenue, the senior manager told me, nearly covers the channel’s approximately Rs 340 million wage bill, including Goswami’s own Rs 20 million paycheck. As his name became a stand-in for the channel, Goswami could do as he wished. He exercised this right roughly, creating an organisation obsessed with breaking news and setting the agenda to the exclusion of everything else. From the inner pages of newspapers he plucked events scantly explored but rich with emotional resonance. Ushered along by his producer, Charu Thakur—reportedly the only employee who has his ear—Goswami and a host of editors played up stories that addressed urban middle class concerns wound in old prejudices and insecurities. “He was quite clear about the formula,” a former senior desk editor said. “If you go with popular perception, and give it to people on a massive level, you win.” Editors chafed in private at this, but the only response that mattered to Goswami was the Wednesday numbers from the ratings agency.

The newsroom’s occupants fell in line with Goswami’s vision, and version, of the news. The output desk, where operators package reports and write the incendiary lines that flash on screen (“Obama administration dismissed gurudwara shooting as a case of ‘domestic terrorism’”), was particularly essential to the channel’s operations. From here Goswami directed reporters by yelling at them, above the lowered heads of editors, to follow predetermined lines of inquiry, and encouraged the desk, also by yelling, to distill developments to an emotional essence or an irresistible line. In his view, the desk served a more vital function than most of the journalists he hired; reporters only did what the desk in Mumbai told them to.

When I called Goswami to request an interview for this story, he declined, saying that he was interested in reporting the news, not becoming it. Reasoning that he was just a regular newsman, he expressed surprise that anyone would pick him as a subject, and offered that I was welcome to come by his office for a cup of tea if I agreed not to write the story. Shortly after my call, according to two current Times Now employees, Goswami informed his staff in Mumbai and Delhi that a magazine was writing about him, and asked them not to cooperate with any interview requests—a plea his employees took as an order.

In private, Goswami had no doubt that his channel was no ordinary news organisation, and that he was no ordinary newsman. In a speech to the newsroom in 2011, which was recorded by a former reporter, Goswami made it clear he believed the channel’s place in history was already secure: “Can the history of India be written honestly without the contribution of Times Now to a new form of journalism in the era that we are in?” he said. “Think about it. Think about the bigger picture. I can tell you it can’t be written.”

| 2 |

AROUND 8 PM EVERY WEEKNIGHT, two young researchers hand Goswami a slim file of information, talking points, and questions for The Newshour. His researchers discuss their findings with him, and he listens intently, looking for facts to bolster his line on that night’s topics. On more technical subjects, such as a discussion about law, he prefers to be left alone with their research. Sometimes Thakur, his producer, joins him in his office down a corridor on one side of the newsroom. At 8.30 he begins to type out the show’s introduction on the fly in loose conversational English. With ten minutes to go, Goswami heads to the green room to replace the clothes he has worn all day, usually a black kurta and dark jeans, with a full suit and tie. At 8.55, Rajiv from makeup arrives to powder and puff his face. He scrambles into studio 1 just before nine. Then Thakur’s voice crackles in his ear, and Goswami looks dead ahead and reads out what he calls his “address to the nation”.

One by one, Goswami introduces The Newshour’s panelists. The only two benchmarks for prospective guests, the desk editor said, were that “both sides should speak flawless English, and should be extremely aggressive”. The show is meant to be partly debate, partly journalism, and partly—if Goswami has his way—a public confessional. But it is mostly an open-ended chunk of airtime from whose centre Goswami live-directs an intellectual reality show where dramatic things happen. Participants abuse other guests and the show’s host. People walk away, leaving empty windows behind.

As a matter of principle, The Newshour pits people and their extreme views against one another—but its main character is always Goswami. A typical episode finds him demanding answers, making accusations, riling up participants and passing judgment, venting the angst of a man upset by how far his country has fallen. His pronouncements are rooted in everyday frustrations: Why is Pakistan dithering? Why can’t Australians admit that they’re racist? Why is the government indifferent to the middle class? Who is responsible for all this?

“I think that a lot of people must realise that the editor-in-chief of Times Now is someone who has excelled himself at executing, to the T, the brief that was handed down by the management,” the former high-ranking editor said. “The brief was to be relevant on urbane issues to the urban viewer.” They were to follow the Times of India’s lead, and draw out stories of particular interest to an under-represented Indian middle class; namely, the holy trinity of national identity, corruption and terrorism. “They are not a political constituency, and the Times Group was keen that their English news channel would give the middle class a relevance and, secondly, a channel of expression.”

The conduit for this expression is usually Goswami’s on-screen persona. He shakes his head vigorously when a question is met with a denial. He demands answers, insisting that India needs to know the truth. He cuts off discussions to share his own thoughts before allowing the show to continue. He dislikes separatists, child molesters, racist articles in foreign newspapers, and Pakistan. The projection each night at nine is of a patriot with widely shared beliefs. “If there is an obvious case of right or wrong, I can’t pretend not to know what is right and what is not. And if in that situation, I prevaricate or chose to be silent, then that is wrong,” Goswami said in a 2009 interview with “I am sure in what we do and my viewers are sure that Times Now will not deliberately keep the truth away from them.” His vocal stances and noisily interrogative approach have made Goswami an exception among Bennett, Coleman’s current editors, who are largely anonymous. “He’s the only editor bigger than the brand,” the senior manager said. “The Jains are not happy about this.”

But people who have worked closely with Goswami say his aggressive emotional nationalism is a practiced act designed to set him apart from Sardesai and the NDTV founder Prannoy Roy, who preferred a more subdued approach. Naomi Datta, who was among the first employees at Times Now, recalled Goswami’s Newshour practice sessions in 2005, months before the channel went live. “I would be the dummy guest on Newshour,” she said. “I remember he would say things like: ‘Okay, now, look into camera three, and hold your heart and tell me…’ Which is not something news anchors generally do. So I think, right from the beginning, he definitely did have this persona in his head. That I’m going to be this slightly hysterical, emotional kind of news anchor. That didn’t come later, it’s just started working now. But that was always part of the plan. Because that was part of his vocabulary from the dry run.” The output editor said, “once he realised that it had become a success mantra and people were following him, it started becoming a format for him. It would just be decided that, suppose we are doing China stories, then we’re always going to say that China are transgressors, and the dragon is attacking India, and so forth. It became really over the top.”

The Newshour’s guests say they accept invitations to the show expecting a discussion, only to find themselves cornered and painted in stark terms and, if they persist with nuance, ignored. The activist and academic Madhu Kishwar, a frequent but exasperated guest, penned a widely-circulated open letter to Goswami, complaining that “panelists are expected to simply come and lend further strength to the anchor’s delusion that one hour of Newshour will rid India of all its ills”. The senior manager explained Goswami’s approach. “He feels TV is about drama. You have to stir something up or the audience will be lost. He sees his role as livening things up.”

In his recent book Pax Indica, Shashi Tharoor, the former minister of state for external affairs, recalled sitting for “a lengthy interview at the Ministry of External Affairs with a particularly egregious TV anchor—famed for his hectoring rants on assorted peeves, mostly unsupported by either fact or reason”. Tharoor did not name the anchor, but the subject was “a crisis in Indian-Australian relations” that he blamed on “channels whipping up mass hysteria” over alleged racist attacks on Indians, a campaign Goswami had pounded for weeks on end. “The cameras stopped to change their tapes,” Tharoor wrote, “and in the ensuing break I asked him whether he was really serious about the kinds of things he was alleging on air. ‘How does it matter?’ he asked perfectly reasonably. ‘I’m playing the story this way, and I’m getting 45 percent in the TRPs. My two principal rivals are trying to be calm and moderate, and they’re at 13 percent and 11 percent.’”

A former colleague of Goswami’s who knew him from the late 1990s as a sharp editor was pained by the change he saw. “Here is an intellectually sound journalist who has become very much of a comedian on air. What airs at 9 pm on Times Now is not news. It is a programme that revolves around an anchor who appears to be on instances, a comedian. Who makes the business of news into a farce. And for a lot of us, news cannot be a farce. It’s serious business. It’s all very well for an anchor to have his or her ‘informed opinion’, but beyond a point the style is so overbearing and so overwhelming and so comical on occasion that it distracts from the news. We believe that it’s not news at all.”

Chintamani Rao, the former CEO of Times Global Broadcasting, the television arm of Bennett, Coleman, was upset when I asked him if there was an absence of balance in the channel’s coverage. “News as we think news ought to be was done by the Old Lady of Boribunder,” Rao said, using a bygone nickname for the Times of India. “Where is that Old Lady of Boribunder now? News was done in a certain way in the 1960s. Another way in the 1840s. Another way in the twenty-first century. What’s wrong with that? Why do we have this cast in stone way of doing news?”

Goswami’s way of doing news may have been controversial, but it was working, and other channels soon adopted some of his more visible practices. “There was definitely pressure to be more like him,” a senior editor at CNN-IBN told me. “He forced you to adopt a certain aggressiveness and speed,” an NDTV reporter who knew Goswami well said. “Not just to tell a story, but tell it a particular way.”

“Look at English news television,” Rao said with satisfaction. “All of it looks more and more like Times Now.”

ON A SLOW NEWS NIGHT IN MARCH LAST YEAR, an editor weaving a brief newsreel for The Newshour discovered it was one story short. The editor, Mahrukh Inayet, had risen quickly to become one of only a few editorial decision makers at Times Now. That night, faced with a ten-second hole in the channel’s most popular programme, Inayet decided to put in a short report on the social activist Kisan Baburao (“Anna”) Hazare, a 73-year-old threatening to begin a hunger strike unless Parliament approved a new law to stem corruption. Goswami and the channel had reported on the growing tide of political misconduct and the government’s continuing indifference, and the Hazare story seemed like a natural fit.

After the programme ended, Goswami turned to Inayet in anger. According to two senior editors who were present, he tore into her: “How dare you put on Anna Hazare? Who knows Anna Hazare? This nation doesn’t know Anna Hazare. Why have you put him in?” Goswami had frequently voiced his distaste for social activists—“he detests them,” the output editor said, “he thinks they are con artists who don’t believe in anything and are just out to get publicity and money”—and he worried that Hazare had limited appeal for the channel’s national audience.

But Goswami changed his mind by the first weekend of April. He ordered the bureau to prepare a minute-long segment about Hazare for the next day, a Sunday. At the editorial meeting on Monday morning, Goswami explained his reversal. “You know, I don’t like Anna Hazare,” the output editor recalled him saying to a team of editors. “You guys know that. But the issue that he’s talking about is very pertinent. It’s corruption, and that gives a cause to every Indian. We are all affected by corruption. So we’re going to make a campaign out of Anna Hazare. And this is what we’re going to do: tonight, I’ll have a debate on Newshour, five minutes. Tomorrow, between 12 and 1, we’ll have all our reporters at Jantar Mantar, and from 12 to 1 no other story will play except for Anna Hazare.” As he said this, the extent of his turnaround became clear. “My eyeballs popped out,” the former desk editor said.

Hazare’s call for a new order fell squarely in the channel’s jurisdiction of apathy, national security, and corruption. When the fast began on Tuesday, Times Now lent the agitation its heft, with headlines such as “India for Anna” and “We are all Anna”. On The Newshour, Goswami declared it was “a movement that cannot be cast aside by just some cynics”, and repeatedly exclaimed “incredible” in the studio while the channel broadcast footage of people vowing to eradicate corruption. Goswami covered Hazare for two hours on Tuesday. He decreed that the channel would report from Jantar Mantar, the venue of the fast, for six straight hours on Wednesday. Editors asked him how he wanted the time filled. “He started thinking of these packages that we could do around corruption. People who’ve faced corruption will send in their stories. We kept bouncing all these ideas off him, and he said, ‘Yeah, we’ll do this. And that’,” the output editor recalled. Three hours after they began covering the fast on Wednesday, according to Times Now lore, CNN-IBN finally placed a reporter at the venue. Then NDTV began reporting live. The next day, 42 outdoor broadcast vans were seen at Jantar Mantar.

Goswami’s editors were certain that his relentless promotion of Hazare had single-handedly elevated the anti-corruption campaign to national prominence. To show that Hazare’s agenda was resonating beyond India, the channel’s staff pulled up contacts of Indians abroad and asked them to share their thoughts on Skype. “You start putting that out,” the output editor said, “and then you say ‘Anna becomes a world phenomenon’.” Only a few months earlier, a revolutionary wave of protest across the Middle East had toppled dictators in Tunisia and Egypt; now Indian wits paid tribute to Goswami’s ardent crusade for Hazare by dubbing his movement “the Arnab Spring”.

“He saw a popular wind that weekend,” the former desk editor said when I asked him about Goswami’s abrupt shift toward Hazare. The output editor, who worked closely with Goswami for years, said, “I know how his mind functions. He’s not a rightist, though a lot of people think he wears saffron chaddis—nothing of the sort. He believes in one thing, which is opportunity.”

GOSWAMI’S VISIBILITY AT NINE every night obscures the fact that his role in Indian news is much greater, and more pervasive, than his fiery pronouncements during The Newshour suggest. “He understands TV more than he understands news,” the output editor said. “He understands what makes for good television.” Under Goswami’s watch, reporters were instructed to thrust microphones at their subjects and demand answers because it made for dynamic television. (Cameramen at Times Now called it “the running away shot”.) “Doorstepping isn’t new, but no one did it in India before,” said Rahul Shivshankar, who served as Goswami’s deputy until 2010.

In a piece published in Outlook last year, Goswami recalled his early days as a television reporter, when he was “thrilled at thrusting my mic into the faces of the who’s who of Indian politics” as they emerged from a courtroom investigating the 1996 Jain hawala scam. “There was something deeply egalitarian and liberating about being able to ask a question,” he wrote. By asking questions, and guiding his reporters to ask questions, Goswami made the questions themselves the main event. “We put mics to people’s faces,” Shivshankar said. “That was not persecuting and hounding. It was soliciting replies from people who were really very evasive because that was the culture in this country. I think that’s changed for the better. I think politicians now know that they need to answer and be more accountable.” The need to be seen asking questions is so ingrained at Times Now that one reporter recently shouted a query at the closed windows of a minister’s passing car, before turning to the camera to explain that the minister had not replied.

Times Now’s visual identity embraced the main philosophy of its editor-in-chief, namely to hold on to viewers, and it quickly co-opted attention-grabbing devices from Hindi news and entertainment channels. “If you saw five windows on Star News, it would appear on our side of the fence very quickly,” the former high-ranking editor said. “Recently, ‘News will be back in 30 seconds’ between news breaks. Or you might have that thing on top [of the screen]: ‘Coming up!’ This is all borrowed from mainstream entertainment and news channels.” 

“I remember our colleagues at Reuters turning in their graves when they used to see or hear some of our packages with all those effects,” the editor said. “We brought in a lot of what was happening in TV soap operas into the way we were treating our stories. We brought in alarmist music and a soundtrack to our reportage.”

Goswami decided cameramen at Times Now would be called video journalists, and he empowered them to make decisions during live events—an inversion of the traditional relationship between reporters and cameramen. “At Times Now, reporters are called sound bite collectors,” a former Mumbai bureau chief said. “If there’s a story happening, video journalists take over.” If a broadcast van was not close by, reporters would leave the scene to deliver footage by hand so the channel’s video journalists could keep filming. 

Times Now had a smaller editorial team than its rivals, and tended to cover fewer events each day; to compensate, Goswami wanted to dominate the agenda on the issues he chose to highlight, and to be fast and first with breaking news. He prized speed, new information, and captivating visuals over explanation and analysis. “He realised that in today’s world, reporters are becoming passé,” the output editor said. “Except for the ones who get you exclusives, the rest are just event reporters—they just stand on location and tell you what’s happening, right? So he’s making them redundant.”

But the channel’s emphasis on reducing “bureaucratic delay” and broadcasting news quickly has come at a cost. “If you have a copy editor involved, it causes a delay,” the bureau chief said. Two reporters said that the channel had few internal filters to prevent errors from going on air.

According to the senior manager, “the obsession with speed” led to a particularly expensive mistake on 10 September 2008. A story about a provident fund scam involving a number of judges unfolded on the network that afternoon and, for approximately 15 seconds, Times Now broadcast the name of one judge, PK Samanta, along with what they believed was a picture of him.

The image was of the wrong man. Justice PB Sawant, who retired from the Supreme Court and now lives in Pune, was alarmed to hear that his face had been flashed on Times Now in connection with the scam. Within five days, Sawant demanded an apology and payment of Rs 500 million in damages. He received neither, though Times Now issued a correction on 23 September. When the channel finally broadcast an apology two days later, Sawant was still dissatisfied, and filed suit against Times Now in a Pune district court, which in April 2009 awarded Sawant Rs 1 billion in damages. (That financial year, Times Now and the other three channels that make up Times Global Broadcasting had an overall income of only Rs 1.47 billion.)

In court, Hector Kenneth, the output desk editor, testified that the mix-up happened because the channel’s image database “inadvertently displayed” the wrong justice. Goswami later told India Today that it was “a computer-generated error that involved no human interface”.

But interviews with three former senior editors and one current senior producer, all of whom were at Times Now when the incident took place, revealed that the mistake was indeed human. As the producer explained: “This happened when the rules were loose at every organisation. There was no footage of the guy, so we said ‘let’s get stills’. Now where are you going to get stills from? Now what happens is, you get on the web and get it off Google. It came from some place like that, off the net. So when you say there’s no human interface, it means the damn search engine didn’t give us the right picture. It’s a nice way of cloaking it.”

The desk editor described an internal system where the demand for instant news clashed with the messy reality of a small and overburdened desk division. “The input guy fucked up,” he said, referring to the reporter who sourced the picture. “But the discretion of the desk is to put the right things on air.”

When I asked the senior producer if any changes had been made as a result of this incident, all he could recall was that Goswami had told the newsroom, “Google journalism is not going to happen here”; the output editor had a similar recollection.  The senior manager, who had blamed the incident on an obsession with speed, said that “the premium on breaking news” meant “the Justice Sawant thing can happen again.”

| 3 |

THE GOSWAMI FAMILY originally came from a village in Assam’s Borpeta district, migrated to Shillong, and eventually settled in Bharalumukh, Guwahati. Goswami’s paternal grandfather, Rajani Kanta Goswami, practiced law at the Guwahati High Court, and later became the vice president of the Bar Council of the eight northeastern states. The pay was modest, and the work kept him so busy that he barely had time for his brood of seven sons and a daughter. “He would ask us, ‘What class are you in?’” Dilip, the third of the seven brothers, said. “He had no time to look after our education.”

Still, the children were driven. Rajani Kanta’s eldest son, Dinesh Goswami, grew involved in politics, and became the union law minister in the short-lived VP Singh government. Arnab Goswami’s father, Manoranjan, studied at the Delhi College of Engineering (later renamed Delhi Technological University) before joining the army. He set off on a whirligig of postings between Kashmir, Jabalpur, Delhi, Narangi and Shillong. Goswami was born in March 1973, and he found himself tugged along with his parents and older sister, now a doctor in Bangalore. The family returned to Bharalumukh occasionally. Goswami wrote that his maternal grandfather, Gaurisankar Bhattacharya, “a devout communist and intellectual”, broadened his mind on these visits by taking him on fishing trips which meant a lot to him. At other times, Goswami was an unwitting witness to history. He wrote of watching torch-lit processions march by his grandfather’s sprawling home, fleetingly aware of the popular, and sometimes violent, agitation against illegal immigrants in Assam. The subject was discussed at home, and what he saw and heard moved him two decades later to write that history was about to repeat itself in Assam if “a total crackdown against terror doesn’t happen”. Goswami graduated and gained admission to Delhi University’s sociology program, and then studied for his master’s degree in social anthropology at Oxford.

“He had a good way with people,” said Suranjan Das, the vice-chancellor of the University of Calcutta. Das had met Goswami at Oxford, and found him “intellectually alive, and acquainted with important things around him. We talked about the Assam question, and about the question of national integration in India.” Das was impressed by Goswami’s debating skills, and expected him to stay on in England in academia. When Goswami said he wanted to return to India, Das was surprised, but spoke to Rudrangshu Mukherjee, a friend who edited the opinion pages at The Telegraph, about considering him for a job.

The first time Goswami entered a newsroom, he wore a large-collared shirt, and carried an attache case and a tiffin. Even in 1994, the sight was unusual. “He looked like a typical Assamese,” said Indrajit Hazra, who was then an assistant editor at The Telegraph, and now serves as consultant editor at Hindustan Times. Goswami had wrangled a job as an assistant editor. Mukherjee, himself barely a year into the job, made it known that he expected high personal standards of his new hire, who settled in to cross-check facts and edit opinion pieces for the next day’s edition. Over time, Mukherjee noticed his curiosity and enthusiasm. “He was bubbling,” Mukherjee, who still edits the page, said. “This job was not going to be permanent.” Goswami later wrote that he lived in a “200 square foot room on a terrace at Keyatala Lane”, a locality Mukherjee referred to as a comfortable residential area. He spent most of the day at the bureau working, keeping his head low, and being extraordinarily polite, according to Mukherjee. He wasn’t ready to write editorials that represented what the paper stood for, but Mukherjee allowed him to try his hand at op-eds.

At The Telegraph, Goswami befriended Hazra; the newspaper schedule gave the editors free time in the evenings, and a number of them, including Goswami and Hazra, used to frequent Chunghwa, a nearby Chinese restaurant. Talk was loose under the influence of Black Label beer, but Goswami was cautious with both. He would have only one drink, and guarded against saying anything to incriminate himself when the alcohol-fuelled discussions were about Mukherjee. “He was very aware of what people thought of him,” Hazra said. “He was very keen not to be misunderstood, and much more scientific about it.” Still, Hazra enjoyed his company, and found him eager to establish himself.

I asked Mukherjee if he recalled anything in particular about Goswami. “I remember it for some odd reason,” he said on the phone from Kolkata. “He had done some mistake, and when I pulled him up for it, he didn’t say sorry. It struck me that, normally, when you point out a mistake to somebody, people say ‘it won’t happen again, sorry’ or something like that. We all do it. He didn’t say sorry. I remember turning around and telling him ‘Is sorry a word in your dictionary?’ and I walked away. I think he got the point.”

A year into the job, Goswami told Mukherjee he had a good offer. “He looked ambitious, and was looking for a larger playing field,” Mukherjee said. “I was pleasantly surprised at the successful transition to television.” Goswami resigned in 1995 to join NDTV. In doing so he inadvertently followed in the footsteps of Sardesai, who had left The Telegraph for NDTV a year before.

Goswami arrived at a channel that revered its founder, Prannoy Roy, and was awestruck by Sardesai. “Rajdeep towered over all of them,” a reporter at NDTV, who knew Goswami well, told me. “There was a constant tug-of-war, a one-upmanship between them. If a political story was breaking, Rajdeep would start reporting, and in response, Arnab would look for newsmakers on the subject”—an attempt to steal back some of the attention. “Neither of them believed in subtlety,” the NDTV reporter said. “They were open about it—brazen.”

Since leaving NDTV, Goswami has given vent to this low, rumbling anger obliquely, portraying himself publicly as an outsider to Sardesai’s consummate insider. His former colleagues at NDTV, who now occupy senior positions at the channel, denied the existence of any strife, but employees at Times Now say that Goswami felt overlooked at NDTV, and that his frequent derisive remarks revealed a simmering resentment that had still not abated. “It’s not a healthy attitude,” the senior Times Now manager said of Goswami’s distaste for Sardesai. “It’s beyond that.” When Rajiv Pratap Rudy, a spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party, called him “Rajdeep” during an episode of The Newshour, Goswami cut in: “You always mix it up. It’s Arnab. It’s Arnab, Rajiv. And I assure you there’s very little in common.”

By the time Goswami quit NDTV in April 2004, he had risen to the post of national editor; he co-anchored a show called Newshour with Sardesai, and a debate show, News Night, by himself. He had hosted a news programme before, called Surkhiyan, an abridged Hindi capsule broadcast on Doordarshan, but he came into prominence with the primetime debate show. He transformed it from a typical question and answer session to something more confrontational. A coordinator for the show mimicked his anchoring style then: “So are you committing on my show? Are you making this statement on my show?” The coordinator said that “his whole focus was political then. He only wanted vocal people on his show. Three voices for each side, and he wanted a hardcore debate.” Then as now, Goswami preferred his guests articulate and extreme, and if his coordinators couldn’t convince guests to appear on the show, he would call them himself. “Once he has the phone in his hand, he will convince you,” the coordinator said. “He’s good with people.” The NDTV reporter who worked closely with Goswami particularly remembered the quality of his news scripts. “They would begin with a punch that you’d find difficult to ignore. He wasn’t shrill then,” the reporter said.

On his last day at NDTV, Goswami was at an apartment at the India International Centre in New Delhi, where he told a colleague that he had been given “a great opportunity”. He was, in the words of someone who met him that day, “overwhelmed by whatever it is that was offered to him”. He returned to the studio that evening one last time for his final episode of News Night.

Goswami had spent nearly a decade in Sardesai’s shadow, and he emerged from the experience sour. “Ten years back, in the pit of another newsroom,” he wrote in Outlook in 2008, almost certainly referring to Sardesai, “a now-famous TV anchor had laughed me off when I fought to get a mention for the ten people dead [in a blast] in a remote part of Assam. ‘Ten deaths in your part of the world equals the death of one person from here, as far as news is concerned,’ he had said. ‘It’s unfortunate but that’s a fact,’ he added, looking for and, shockingly, getting a raucous response from his audience.”

Sardesai seems to make an unflattering appearance in another one of Goswami’s Outlook pieces, from 2011. Goswami again refers to an unnamed “fellow editor of an English news channel”, whom he describes as “a visible cog of a small power elite”, and who privately defends a corrupt chief minister at a meeting of national news editors, and then “punches his fist in the air and looks around for reactions”. In Goswami’s own accounts, here and elsewhere, he portrays himself as a newsman alone in pursuit of truth. Peers exist, but they are held as accomplice to the unforgivable journalistic crimes of being close to power and not putting their viewers first.

WHEN I ASKED former Times Now editors and reporters if they believed the channel’s top priority was the independent and objective pursuit of truth, most of them paused for while before answering; some said yes, some said no, and a few laughed derisively. “On the whole, I’d say Times Now was independent to do what it wanted,” the former high-ranking editor said. But a former reporter insisted that “if Bennett, Coleman doesn’t cover it, Times Now doesn’t cover it.” The senior manager noted that “Vineet Jain texts Goswami a lot during the coverage of big events”, and imitated an agitated Goswami reacting to Jain’s constant feedback: “He’s on my case! He’s screwing me over this!”

Former editors and reporters said that the issue was not so much independence as Goswami’s desire to isolate, and then amplify, the unique selling proposition for each new story. Sonorita Chauhan, who reported and worked at the desk for two years, said, “When you take a Times Now story in the morning, it runs with a decent, polished, and neutral journalistic point of view. The minute the man comes in, it changes. There’s no integrity. Watch it at six in the morning and then watch it at three, because that’s when I think the morning [editorial] meeting is over.”

“At certain times,” the editor said, “you can report the news as it is. Until 6pm, the news is reported as it is reported. After 6 pm, the news is reported to reflect a line that you might have taken—the edit meeting ends by 5.45, and after that the editorial line is given out.”

“I think journalistic integrity comes very low, in terms of the kind of things that we do,” the output editor said. “There was a rape victim in Kolkata. Usually you’re supposed to morph the face of a rape victim. But we were told that only the eyes will have a black patch, because the minute you see a morphed face on TV, you lose interest. And for a good two to three days, that story ran with just a black patch on the lady’s face and everybody could make out who the person was.”

Former employees described a tendency that worsened over time, in which the channel ignored facts that challenged its positions on air. “Militants had killed a 20-year-old girl in Kashmir,” a former reporter said. “It was in Shopian. Times Now kept asking on air, ‘Why are the separatists not reacting? Why are they silent?’”—even though one of the channel’s Kashmir correspondents had recorded and uploaded the separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s condemnation of the crime hours earlier. “Times Now did not carry the condemnation for the longest time,” the reporter said. “It was not in line with the story they had taken.” The desk editor chuckled when I asked if he could confirm the story. “I remember Shopian,” he said. “I don’t recall this, but I would not be surprised. Arnab’s TRPs are dependent on bashing separatists.”

The output editor said Goswami instinctively shied away from stories that could be perceived as critical of security forces. “We never did them,” the editor said. “We just never touched them.” The network also held back the taped confession of Ajmal Kasab—the Pakistani terrorist captured during the 26 November 2008 attacks on Mumbai—the former bureau chief told me. “It was with Times Now two weeks before other channels played it,” the bureau chief said. “But Goswami was like, ‘It’s not in keeping with our nationalistic line,’ because it made Kasab look like a mercenary. He played it safe. I was very upset for the young reporter who got it.”

The output editor, an integral member of the core team, told me about the time the channel discovered that the Ministry of Home Affairs was simply looking at a report on non-governmental organisations sent to it by the Gujarat government. “The home ministry was just viewing the report,” the anchor said. “We were aware of the fact that it wasn’t a complete story. It wasn’t that there was a certain charge against them, or [about] a hawala racket.” Navika Kumar, the political editor, raised questions about the story, but Goswami’s mind was made up. Times Now headlined the story: “It’s the big NGO crackdown, under the scanner are 100 NGOs who are violating rules and going against the national interest.”

“After two or three bulletins it was pulled off,” the output editor said. “But the fact is that many of those NGOs were doing bloody good work. Facts are paramount for a journalist, right? When you want to play around with them just to say that 100 NGOs are under the scanner, because it makes for a great headline, then I have massive issues with that.”

In November 2010, the US president Barack Obama arrived in Mumbai for a three-day visit. He addressed survivors of the attacks on 26 November 2008. “Those who perpetrated these horrific attacks hoped to drive us apart,” he said at the Taj Palace Hotel in South Mumbai, adding that the two governments were working more closely than before. According to a former high-ranking editor, when Rahul Shivshankar began to report from the Taj that Obama had not mentioned Pakistan because US diplomats felt the venue was inappropriate, he was abruptly cut off on air. “I don’t think I need to tell you who the anchor was,” the editor said. “There was no moderation, and it appeared as if Times Now was suggesting that Obama should have stepped on Indian soil and immediately attacked Pakistan.”

When Shivshankar came back on the air an hour later, his tone had a notably harder edge. Dressed in a blue and white pinstripe shirt with the sleeves rolled to his elbows, Shivshankar’s second report was more critical. “President Barack Obama’s first speech on Indian soil, meant to commemorate 26/11 victims, was widely anticipated to be a strong negation of cross-border terror,” Shivshankar said. “But, in his seven-minute-long address Barack Obama did not even mention Pakistan once. More than that, he did not even refer to the deep linkages between those who perpetrated the attack, and groups across the border in Pakistan.” The report was set within a broader narrative frame that Times Now titled “The speech that disappointed India”, and whose on-screen graphics included the complaint, “Obama only salutes Mumbai optimistic spirit”. The editor told me that the coverage of Obama’s visit made him consider leaving the channel. “That’s when I realised that we had crossed a certain rubicon. Now if you really want an example of a complete disregard for the facts, that was it. The Obama story was simple: it was decided that the channel was going to take a line that Obama was not really a friend of India.”

| 4 |

BY MOST ACCOUNTS, Times Now began in a haze of optimistic confusion. “The big news then was not Arnab, it was that the Times Group was getting into television,” the bureau chief said. Initially envisioned as a business channel, the unnamed network was expected to challenge CNBC, the market leader in business news. But Naomi Datta recalled that when she first joined the channel, Goswami surprised her one afternoon in December 2004 at their temporary offices within the Times of India building, asking theatrically, “Who do you think is our competition?” before swiveling to a whiteboard and writing N-D-T-V.

Goswami emerged as a driven leader who dispensed encouragement gloriously. From 1 June 2005, when editors moved into their new office at Lower Parel, the newsroom feverishly readied itself for the launch. According to the former bureau chief, Goswami told reporters, “We are not going to editorialise news. People will come here to listen to news and information.” Editors and journalists, newly hired, arrived for a three-week long training program administered by Reuters, who held a 25.82 percent stake in the new venture. Training lasted until sundown, and they returned to Sea Palace, a downbeat hotel (“where Arabs came to bonk”) in South Mumbai, to pass out drunk.

“It was like being back in school,” a former Mumbai bureau chief described the training program. “They were trying to tell us what they thought TV reportage was. Two sources had to confirm a story, and we had to get a sound bite to put the information on air. ‘No adjectives, and no embellishments’. Imagine that in TV news.” At the time, the nascent channel held established journalistic norms dearly; a detailed code of conduct was embedded in the articles of association—the company’s constitution—detailing how reporters and editors should report the news. Above all, the code stated, “always hold accuracy sacrosanct”. (The code also declared: “The company does not take sides in national or international issues, conflicts, or disputes.”) To include the code may have been a condition laid down by Reuters, because when they exited the partnership, the entire code of conduct was scrubbed from the modified constitution. (“They wanted it in,” the senior manager confirmed. “When Reuters left, it was taken out.”)

At the end of the training program, Sunil Lulla, the CEO, unveiled the channel’s name and logo during a party at a nearby bowling alley. “Arnab was in a light mood that night. Very gentle, very caring, very concerned,” the bureau chief remembered wistfully. The wait for the channel’s launch was interminable, but Goswami kept spirits up by making an event of everything: the unveiling of the logo, the new office, electricity in the new office, his excited declaration that he, instead of “these advertising types”, had come up with the perfect tag line: “Feel the News”.

“He said that we were going to shake the foundations of the elephant—the elephant symbolically being NDTV,” the output editor said. “We were the nimble-footed deer. We were nobodies in the industry. And NDTV was like a giant. All of us had our grouses against NDTV. We thought they were too arrogant, and full of people who came from political and bureaucratic families.”

With the weekend team, which produced feature stories, Goswami read every concept note, and sat through the creation of every promotional video. He turned producers pink with praise. He grew particularly involved in the production of a show called Men of Honour, a version of Jai Jawan, an NDTV programme on the lives of army men. “He didn’t want it to be frivolous. ‘[NDTV] makes it into a picnic. It’s not a picnic. Let’s show them the real thing,’” Datta recalled Goswami saying. “Then we realised that [the title] was sexist because they have women in the army.” They renamed the show Line of Duty.

In the months prior to the launch, Goswami exuded drive, charisma and civility. “They all had huge crushes on Arnab Goswami,” the former bureau chief recalled. At that time, Datta said, “he was a very inspirational boss”.

By the time the channel went live on 31 January 2006, exhausted reporters and editors had worked six-day weeks for months without a pause. There was no respite; staff showed up seven days a week for the next two months. Goswami surrounded himself with several capable editors, making the channel top-heavy. “There were fewer people below to run around,” the bureau chief said. The channel relied on its output desk to make editorial calls. They were outnumbered by NDTV and CNN-IBN in the field, so the desk gave reporters editorial direction and even dictated lines to repeat in their ‘P-to-C’, or piece to camera, a statement made looking directly at the camera.

But within months of the launch, at least 20 former staffers told me, Goswami began to behave unusually: he grew unsettled, unpredictable, and deeply insecure. “He started finding faults in everyone,” Datta said. “So from being the best, most quietest, wonderful bunch of people, we became these people who were just no longer in sync with what the channel wanted. Everything was too long, everything was too boring.”

Goswami’s day-long meetings began to follow a pattern. Editors said they started with Goswami in a fine mood on most mornings, but turned into one-sided diatribes by the afternoon. He would vent at them, tearing up the story list, and accuse them of not understanding television. In time, editors coined several names for the daily meeting: some called it “bhagwan ka pravachan” (the word of God), while others said they referred to his complaints as “daily ka randi rona”.

On television, Goswami was loud and passionate, but still restrained. In private, away from the eyes of the millions who watched him, his behaviour consisted of throwing things, kicking chairs, and, in one instance, dislocating his own shoulder during an argument with an executive producer. “Have you watched that movie, The Last King of Scotland?” the desk editor asked me, referring to a film about the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. “That was the story, man.”’

The change in Goswami’s demeanor was related to the channel’s poor ratings. CNN-IBN, which had launched in December 2005, a month before Times Now, had grown popular, in the view of former editors, while their channel languished. “Arnab had all the right ideas,” the former bureau chief said. “But the market didn’t allow it.” The mix of general and business news made the channel look indecisive, and Goswami seemed out of his depth.  “Arnab doesn’t know the ‘B’ of business, okay?” the output editor said. “He doesn’t understand business, like most reporters and news anchors, but he had to run the channel.”

There were questions about Goswami’s capability as a news editor. The numbers refused to improve in a meaningful way. It became common to discuss his imminent departure as if it were true, and former editors told me Goswami came under severe pressure before a year was up. “The minute we went on air,” the output editor recalled, “Arnab started facing pressure from the Jains.”

The editorial director of the Times of India, Jaideep Bose, was sent to sit in on meetings at Times Now, the senior manager said. “Gautam Ojha, the principal secretary of the Jains, also sat through editorial meetings so he could carry back impressions to Vineet Jain,” he added. “Jain had doubts about Goswami’s ability to carry it through.”

When a member of the Times Now launch team met the former Hindustan Times editor Vir Sanghvi in late 2006, he asked her how Goswami was faring, and she replied that he was doing well. “He said, ‘Really? Then why are the Jains shopping?’” she recalled, and said Sanghvi told her he had been given “an offer to head everything” at Times Now within months of the launch. The senior manager confirmed that a placement agency specialising in media had been retained to search for Goswami’s replacement.

Under strain, Goswami reassessed the approach he had taken so far, and came clean with editors he trusted. “Look, it’s now or never. Or I’m history,” the former high-ranking editor recalled Goswami saying.

In the months that followed, Goswami used the low ratings to convince the channel’s managers to let him jettison business coverage. The channel’s financial reporters were assigned to other tasks as Times Now slowly became a general news channel. Weekend programming, conceived as a cornerstone of the channel, was watered down, and eventually the weekend team was disbanded. “The horrid time he had for those three to six months really crystallised his thinking,” the senior manager said. Reporters found that Goswami, who had spoken of his desire to do much more with the news, now assigned them to stories of questionable import. A short while past midnight on a Friday in August 2006, employees were woken up by Goswami and ordered to report to work. The water at Mumbai’s Mahim Creek—a malodorous spot where the Mithi River, thick with industrial effluent and human waste, hauled itself into the Arabian Sea—had turned sweet, and people from across the city had arrived to consume it. “We realised it was not journalism a long time ago,” the desk editor said. “Arnab woke us all up and said, ‘This will be the biggest story that you guys will do!’ and went back to sleep. The entire Bombay team was in the office at three in the morning. Rahul Shivshankar was like, ‘What the fuck is water is meetha? What is Mahim Creek?!’”

While Times Now had at its disposal a fully functioning editorial team that delivered news all day long, it found the highly fragmented cable market a difficult hurdle to surmount. The channel was available on some networks and not on others, and this, in turn, had depressed the channel’s ratings. Even as Goswami felt pressured, and in turn squeezed others below him, the channel’s managers initiated a “fair share analysis” to understand how Times Now was faring on cable networks that offered rival news channels. The findings, the senior manager said, were very encouraging. It is unclear if the results eased the pressure on Goswami.

Goswami grew more certain of himself as his new editorial approach began to work. He began to give employees the distinct feeling that his editorial choices were not open to discussion. “There’s no point talking about issues at Times Now once the line has been discussed,” the high-ranking editor said. “Dissent on an editorial line is not well received. You could say that perhaps other channels suffer because there are too many voices in the room, and therefore there is confusion. Maybe this is one way of directing a channel’s energies towards covering one particular story, so that your line gets reflected at the end of the day in a sharper way.”

“That’s the reason why a lot of people say that the presentation of events is very simplistic, it’s very unidimensional,” the editor continued. “It’s news for the lowest common denominator. Now you can say that this was by design. I don’t think so. It was by default. I think Goswami wants to say it like it is by himself, and in doing so, he is dumbing it down to the degree where it might be devoid of substance; it sounds like noise, baseless. That’s where the problem comes from. No one individual knows everything about everything.” The bureau chief told me that “his strategy has been to dumb down things he can’t understand. He tears down all its facets and keeps the dumbest one.”


| 5 |

AS GOSWAMI CUT HIS EDITORS out of the decision-making process, he became more removed from them. Sometimes he declared that he and Charu Thakur, his producer, had built the channel alone; employees later spoke of these moments with acute hurt. When he yelled at them for “screwing up my channel”—as multiple people said he had done—the bonds they had formed with the company began to snap. Once, a young editor pleaded in response, “Don’t say this, boss. It’s not just your channel. It’s our channel.”

In the course of reporting this story, I interviewed more than 25 current and former Times Now employees, and every single one described the experience of working with Goswami as emotionally, physically and psychologically wrenching.

“He humiliates you,” the output editor said. “It’s not just about picking holes. He’s the editor. He’s supposed to pick holes. But to humiliate a person, to demean the person, to bring the person down, to almost terrorise the person in such a way that your self-esteem hits rock bottom?”

The high-ranking editor recalled Goswami’s handling of an employee whose talents were more suited to longer features than breaking news: “You called him lazy. You called him a blockhead. Things that are not meant to be said to an employee. Idiot. Moron. Incompetent. Because you didn’t know how to harness his skills.” Employees believed Goswami kept tabs on where they went after work, and who they met. The belief that Goswami sought control not just over their work, but over their lives, was a commonly held one.

A former writer described Goswami’s behaviour as classic bullying. He had stood up to Goswami immediately and put a stop to it, he said. But years later, he was still afraid that Goswami would find out he had granted me an interview. Most former employees insisted on speaking anonymously, even if they had left the company years earlier. “Because he’s a very vindictive person, and I don’t want to deal with him,” a former top-level editor said. “He pulled me off air, he took away all my responsibilities.”

The former high-ranking editor, who worked closely with Goswami for years, said, “You’re dealing with an individual who is deeply complex, unstable, and absolutely vindictive. A brute of a human being. A complete philistine.”

Among the biggest mysteries at Times Now was the question of why Goswami had been allowed to run riot. From above, where the air was cleaner, the answer was obvious: the editor-in-chief of Times Now had delivered the ratings. But from the ground, where the abuse was personal, reporters and editors wondered if there was anybody at all who would listen to them.

The former head of human resources, Zahira Crasta, encouraged employees to speak up, and emphasised to management the damage Goswami was causing. Crasta had reportedly seen early signs that Goswami did not want to be bound by the strictures of human resources. When the department laid down procedures for routine matters such as annual leave, “he didn’t want them put online,” a former manager said. “He didn’t want a situation were employees are capable of making decisions for themselves. It’s an insecurity. A mindset.” Editors told me that Goswami called appraisal forms a waste of time and discouraged staff from completing them; instead, he conducted all the appraisals himself. Employees felt there was no recourse, and no safety net. According to a person from human resources, Crasta became “his biggest opponent”. Most editors agreed that Crasta tried to make a difference. But it seemed like nothing could displace Goswami, whose effectiveness was measured in numbers, not gross happiness.

Interviews with dozens of present and former staff revealed that the management was of little help. One CEO, Sunil Lulla, was described by the former bureau chief as “a rubber stamp”. When Hector Kenneth, who manages the channel’s desk now, called a female anchor a “cunt”—according to several witnesses—Crasta encouraged the anchor to lodge an official complaint. That very day, Goswami announced loudly, “Every employee should strive to be like Hector.” The output editor said, “Arnab picked holes in her anchoring… it was quite clear that since she had complained and taken the whole thing to HR, she was targeted after that.” The anchor resigned, and now works with another network. Chintamani Rao, the CEO who replaced Lulla, and Crasta spoke to Goswami, the person in human resources said. “He seemed ashamed in hindsight. He agreed that what he did was wrong.”

An employee who had been involved in the search for Goswami’s replacement said, “He understood that he couldn’t just fire people. So he found other ways of dealing with them.” To squeeze people into leaving, Goswami favoured the television equivalent of denying them bylines. Promising editors, such as Inayet and Shivshankar, were taken off air. “Reporters who were more visible were shunted,” the desk editor said. “If you get popular, he doesn’t say it in as many words, but it’s a fact: You’re gone. You’ll be told, ‘Yaar, there’s so much work to be done on the desk. How can I let you go out [to report]? You’re my pillar.’ What the fuck do you do?”

The Goswami experience has left everyone, including those who resisted him, a little unsure. One former editor reached for fantasy to describe his effect. “I used to call him the Dementor because you see him and all your happiness gets sucked out. It’s like there’s a chill in the air and everything sad and bad and negative in your life comes out.” After leaving Times Now, Naomi Datta wrote a fictitious account of life in the newsroom, called The 6pm Slot. “Officially, it’s an exaggerated prototype of a news editor,” she said, producing a copy of the book. “A lot of people thought I was too soft. They said, ‘What is this? You should have done something to him in the end’.”

Times Now had, and continues to have, a higher rate of employee attrition than any other English-language news channel, according to the senior manager. A person who previously worked in the company’s human resources division estimated that, on average, two people resigned every week.

Last year, in a move seen as a signal to Goswami, the company assigned Grant Thorton, an accountancy firm, to conduct an employee survey between November and December. The ratings-based questionnaire came with the promise of anonymity. Staff took this as a sign that management was about to crack down on Goswami, but still had their reservations. (It didn’t help, one current employee told me, that Goswami had the unnerving habit of looking people in the eye and joking, “I know what you wrote about me.”)

On the evening of 24 February 2012, the head of human resources announced the results of the survey in an internal email. The mail, shared by the senior producer, began discouragingly: “I would like to share the good news that the overall Employee Engagement Score for Times Television Network has been 70%, which is better than the industry average of 67%. This really means that most employees are fully involved in and enthusiastic about their work.” The survey had discovered that the channel’s managers helped to develop a positive team atmosphere, and were rated at 76% versus the industry average of 65%. This wasn’t just news to surveyors, but also to the channel’s unhappy staff. Senior leadership was found to be “strong and accessible” with a score of 72% against an industry average of 68%. The senior producer said that the survey’s findings gave him “a communist Russia kind of feel. Like the voter turnout is at 100 percent and the party has won.”

The senior manager thought it over and said that a descriptive survey, where employees were asked to write how they felt about the company, instead of grading their experience, would have been more useful. I asked him if dozens of exit interviews hadn’t already served that purpose. “The difference with exit interviews is in convincing Arnab that it is a mirror to him,” the manager said. “The disgruntled part of exit interviews gets prominence.” The officer from HR said that Goswami waved away suggestions of dissent. “There’s nothing like that,” the person recalled him saying. “My people love me.”

The first thing people who quit Goswami have discovered, apart from a life with vastly more time and silence to fill, is that he has rented a house in their head. He is present in their Facebook status threads, is the subject of BlackBerry messages, and his memory dominates conversations. “Our favourite pastime is talking about him,” the output editor said with a laugh. His missteps are shared electronically as a kind of group therapy. “The bitchiness was all directed towards one entity. That was one of the most fascinating features of Times Now.” Others spoke of the relief they felt after leaving. But in time, it dawned that while they did not miss Goswami, they did miss the tingling energy of their work at Times Now. That this too was Goswami’s doing was not an easy admission to extract. “If he goes, I’ll come back,” the former desk editor said. But could there be a Times Now without Goswami?

Outside, he is its sole human reference. Inside it, he has eroded the authority of the organisation’s pillars while bolstering his own, and has methodically ejected potential replacements. In doing so, he has made himself ever more indispensable. “He isn’t a conformist, but he wants conformists working for him,” the senior manager explained.

I asked Chintamani Rao, the former CEO, about the precariousness of this arrangement. “The obvious thing to an outsider is the importance of a single person as a lynchpin,” he said. “It’s true that it’s not ideal. From a management perspective it’s not ideal. In this situation, you can never ever have a backup sitting ready in your pocket. You can’t. When you’ve decided to back one leader all the way, you don’t have another leader sitting in your pocket.” When I asked the manager if there was any possibility of Goswami being asked to leave, he thought about it and said, “I see Arnab himself looking for a change. I get the feeling he believes he’s not respected. He knows he’s the name, and he’s the face. He’s clear about that.”

In a speech to the newsroom two months after the Mumbai attacks in November 2008, an event that propelled the channel in the minds of his viewers and noncommittal advertisers, Goswami addressed a large news team which was young and largely optimistic. They looked at the floor as he spoke. He told them that “there has to be a sense of pride” even if they did not share in the glory. He was charming, and funny, and on a roll. “The competition is already looking for places to hide,” he told them. “We have to take this fight to its logical conclusion.” It is entirely possible, Goswami said, “that Times Now will be the only channel that is around at this time next year.” Goswami was in the mood now, and his thoughts came out fluently, as he saw them, and had expressed them many times before.

“What you are doing today is revolutionary,” he said. “What you are doing today will be written about ten years, twenty years from now. It will be remembered.”



The following changes were made to the article after errors were pointed out by readers:

i) The name of the hotel was changed to "Sea Palace" in the sentence beginning, "Training lasted until sundown, and they returned to Sea Princess, a downbeat hotel.."

ii) The name of the news programme was changed to "Surkhiyan" in the sentence beginning, "He had hosted a news programme before, called Surkhya, an abridged Hindi capsule.."

Rahul Bhatia is a reporter. He previously worked for Open magazine, Mint, ESPN Cricinfo and The Caravan, among other places, and his writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal.


1,021 thoughts on “Fast and Furious”

Without saying a lot about your grammar, i just want to ask you.. how much have you been paid by NDTV, CNN IBN or any of the other channel who just couldnt keep up with Arnab to talk nonsense here?

Its B.S Yeddyurappa. I had read that article in which Mr. Sardesai allegedly said that since Mr. BSY is a mass leader its not good to accuse him like that.

I don’t think you can simply draw parallel between Rahul Bhatia and Sanjeev Bhatt. Rahul is narrating from research and interviews what otherwise looks obvious. Arnab & probably Times Now too will go like a thud whenever it will…

Wat is disturbing is tat employees of Times now have passed judgment on Arnab. It is very unprofessional on their part to do so. Is Times now run on public funds?? no?? If t employees r so concerned about unprofessionalism, they themselves r behaving in t same way…….sometimes Arnab might be going overboard but credit needs to be given to him for capturing t imagination of so many ppl……..Caravn’s next article will be on Mr Kejriwal i guess blaming him for taking politics to an altogether different new (((low in their definition))))….lol…..

There is nothing great about an editor trying to handle his team with a competitive spirit. Journalism is anyways corrupt, why nail a single person. Audience has a job of watching news and criticizing it. More than that, who cares?

Excellent article. Long awaited one indeed. somebody had to bring this out. I mean, everyone knows how he does the shows and how crude he is. No one can deny that (including the ones who praised him here). The other traits brought out from behind the camera shows that he belongs to the breed which is increasing in corporate India – BAD LEADERS WHO MAKE IT BIG IN THE SHORT TERM. Bennett and Coleman / Vineet Jain need to wake up. I’ve stopped watching Times Now for long now. And I’m sure that any right thinking, educated, suave Indian would be staying with NDTV and CNN-IBN anyday – of course discount Barkha Datt.

A very sagacious journalist once said “Just describe the event accurately and correctly. Leave it to the readers or the viewer to form their own opinion”, precisely what Arnab Goswami doesn’t do. Majority of invitees as participants in his coloured debates are decent people. They rarely fight back. However, in this demanding age of paid news, all of it, in most channels no viewer is so naive so as not to make out why anchors raves & rants & why still currently hot news is suppressed. Arnab Goswami has sadly spoilt our evenings.

very funny story trying to draw his fake personal opinion in order to distort arnab..guess you area NDTV and CNN IBN follower lol nice try

Well the article is well written and interesting. I wonder did the writer used the same style to write what Arnab is known for. Also even at least for Trp he did help India by the Anna coverage.

I prefer Times Now to the unbearable nonsense of channels like NDTV or CNN IBN. Times Now (thanks to arnab) has entrenched itself at the top of the Industry and there is nothing others can do to dethrone it.

totaly agreed wht NDTV and CNN IBN show is toltal crap..times now is far better..this article seems to be completely biased..

Finally an article on a monster of a man written by Rahul Bhatia. I was extremely unfortunate in having directly worked with Arnab and still I don’t have words to narrate the nightmare of my association with him. The thought of him and the environment he has orchestrated at Times Now still sends shivers down the spine. He is simply inhuman!

There were times when I felt like killing myself, throwing myself from the the top floor of the office and bring my miseries to an end! I also always wondered why his extreme behavior went unchecked by the top management. But in the end I realized that there was only one way out of relieving myself and I quit Times Now.

The pain and suffering inflicted by him on my psyche still has sores and it hurts whenever his thoughts come to me. I have forgiven him and have been able to move on though still not in entirety. The damage that he has caused to so many of us who worked at Times now is irreparable and the scars of that shall remain forever etched in our heart and memories.

I am posting this comment not with my real name for he is so vindictive that he might chose to return back and haunt me, something I do not want and have completely left behind.

And let’s not forget that TRP ratings in India are based on fudged data and no one can really know who’s no.1
Even if Times Now is no.1, it still doesn’t deserve my attention. I’ll continue watching the No.2 or No.3 who do proper journalism.

For someone who shoves camera in the face for a living…denied comments for this article. If there was a trophy for double standards ….Arnab would win hands down

This man did real damage to Indian journalism with his shouting and screaming and extremely unprofessional behaviour. (in journalistic terms). I am not surprised he also did damage to real people.

This has to be one of the best articles on one of the media’s top folk ever. I hope you will be writing on Rajdeep, Barkha, Sagarika, and some others too someday. Their histories should be interesting to read. And yes, NDTV and CNN IBN are just as preachy as Times Now. But their agenda is beholden to their political masters. Arnab does not seem to have the Jains pushing him to promote a party…. yet.

Long ago, we had Doordarshan which used to broadcast only those news which the Govt wanted us to see/hear. Now we have NDTV and CNN IBN (yes, the most awarded news channel as claimed by Rajdeep) , which are doing the same . They are nothing but the Govt’s ‘mouthpiece’. I became a die hard fan of Times Now after that non stop coverage of ‘Anna Hazare’ s fast in aug 2011. Times Now sacrificed its advertisement revenues for days together just to be part of that anti corruption revolution. Hats off to Times now and Arnab Goswami. God bless him.

Damn, you have ruined ‘Arnab’ for me now… Who knew he was such a tyrant behind the scenes, and Times Now was like ‘Hell’s Kitchen’… But a thoroughly entertaining dose of scandal.

A friend of mine worked with Times Now for a few months. He narrated an incident where Arnab once picked up a keyboard and threw it across the room in a fit of rage. Luckily for him and the person it was thrown at, it missed everyone and fell among the chairs.

Pathetic. It beats why you chose Arnab as subject to write such a long article. Don’t you think you should have written about all TV anchors and them analysed their style, but not that was not your agenda. Really pathetic

Reading all the biased opinions about Times Now and putting NDTV and CNN-IBN in the good light, it is crystal clear this article must have been sponsored by either of the other two news agencies. For your kind information Mr Bhatia, Times Now is the only unbiased news channel that covers all the events happening in our country today. Mr Gowswami has exposed all the scams and covered all the stories happening across India irrespective of whichever political party is responsible behind it. He’s the only journalist who actually plays the devil’s advocate while he coordinates his Newshour debates asking to the point questions to his panelists and remarking every unanswered question of his as “dodging the question”. Are you intentionally blind or stupid to not see the blatant biased journalism evident in both NDTV and CNN-IBN? They are nothing but the unofficial spokespersons of the ruling congress party at the centre. I can never forget the video images of Prannoy Roy of the NDTV raising Kejriwal’s hand in appreciation when the latter received an award from that news channel for being voted as the best Indian, at a time when Anna Hazare’s August 2011 anti-corruption movement had just been over. Ironically, when Anna launched his second wave of campaign in December the same year in Mumbai, NDTV didn’t even bother to report it on their channel forget covering it live. Most shockingly, when Anna and co decided to wage their final war against corruption from 25/07/2012 in New Delhi, they decided to broadcast a debate on the day before for which the main goal was to spread a negative message about them and simply malign the movement. The debate was coordinated by none other than the biased journalist, Mrs Sonia Singh who is better know for her affiliations with the congress party since her husband, R P N Singh is part of the PM’s cabinet. To be a part of that debate panelist was invited the crook lawyer, Harish Salve who simply kept on vehemently hammering the composed Kejriwal who kept on answering his fiery questions. Not to mention, they also selectively showed only those tweets which were against the campaign launched by Hazare and Kejriwal to create a notion that the people of this country have lost faith in them. Having said all of this, I prefer not to watch Times Now because I am very much against the sensationalism by which they show their news by adding all sorts of background music to add spice and masala to their stories.

The story planted by mr. Bhatia totally seems at the behest of others.Arnab has given a reason for the people to watch the poltical reality of the country.Shouting at others necessiates when the replies putforth by people are unrealistic and politically motivated. He has highlighted the corruption of all political parties in an unbiased manner and not like cunning journalists of other channels.Country has full faith in him.Arnab keep it up

fake prejudiced looks like you were asked to write against arnab your words are filled with lies everyone can see that so please spare me your ‘ i am unbiased lecture ‘.just shameful from you are fake prejudiced and a political stooge who wants channels like NDTV and CNN IBN and not a good unbiased channel like TIMES NOW

No surprises here…the roiling pot that is the Indian media, leaves very little for the discerning viewer. Nothing to process, think or wonder about- just ‘wham, bam’ all day long. Arnab, Rajdeep, Bharka- all cut from the same bad cloth in my opinion, all they do is give you a headache with their loud in your face journalism and a legit reason for a spouse to refuse the other some good times, with the good ol’ reason, ‘but darling I have a headache…’

He looked at the camera once and said, “Arundhati Roy, you must be disgusted with yourself ” That’s like the pot calling the spotlessly clean china black. Roy had rightly termed Times Now “Fox News on acid”. It was evident that Mr. Goswami had consistently tried to stamp out the rational voices on the left, he was embarrassingly jingoistic and really twisted every the story to suit his bigoted ideology. At least that’s what I thought. My respect for him, the little I did have for his passion, has vanished. He wasn’t even ideological turns out. He was just opportunistically using the right wing middle class and making money off of them. Exploiting their fears to talk about terrorism and national security. The causalities have been everybody, from journalism to the misinformed viewers but mostly the people who have been oppressed by the state. In the process of getting his fat check, he has cushioned and comforted the comfortable while further afflicting the afflicted. I guess he must have got his phrase mixed up. It’s interesting to see in this excellent piece on Mr. Goswami the inner workings of the decreasing quality of journalism as a consequence of increasing competition in the market. If you haven’t already done it, it’s high time you boycotted the Times Group!!

I had the pleasure of working with Arnab Goswami. So when I read comments from those supporting him I want to laugh. I have no vested interests. I am a full-time mother to two young kids and I couldn’t care less if my future as a journalist goes up in smoke. Let me tell you each day, working with this man, was a horror story. He has no moral compass. I personally met and complained to the then Ceo Chintamani Rao about the humiliation that we on the news desk were exposed to every single day. The writing was on the wall. Arnab Goswami would stay, the rest of us were expendable. I have lived and worked as a journalist in the Middle East, the US and Canada. I have also worked with Arnab Goswami during his NDTV days. But I have to say nothing could every have prepared me for the man I met and worked with in 2009. Personally, I have never experienced the sort of debasement Times Now expects its employees to undergo on a daily basis. Arnab is a dictator. the language used by him and his cohorts in the Times Now newsroom is more befitting of a brothel in Mumbai’s red light district where women are treated as animals. The words “cunt” “bitch” and “motherfucker” are so common place, no one even raises an eyebrow. I quit Times Now in 2009 disgusted and disbelieving. The man who pretends to care and shouts into your face about your rights, your chance, your moment is a mirage. He is a hollow, shallow, selfish brute of a human being who while he commiserates with a rape victim on air is more likely to believe and say aloud, “the damn whore deserved it.” For those who think the world of him, I would say write in to him and get a job. With the highest attrition rate in the business in all likelihood you perhaps will be hired. If you last beyond 3 months you deserve each other or you have no other options. For those like me who’ve worked with him, I wish you healing. We all do…. terrorized, emotionally beaten, humiliated, debased, fractured, we’ve all moved on. But we’ve never forgotten. The moment I saw this article, the only words that came to my mind are: “So there is such as thing as God!” Peace!

I agree with Amith. Times of India sensationalises news. Stopped reding it for the past One year. I am really happy about my decision now and am more informed about the developments in India. TOI and Times Now have no sympathy towards women and this guy is definetely sexist..

if someone says proper news channel, that’s doesn’t mean to be NDTV or CNNIBN only, all of these three news channel are idiotic and ostentatious in their own way. If i want to get informed about the news, which is the only thing i expect from news channels and newspapers, i ll just listen it at any source or read it on internet without subjecting myself to these crude and biased opinion makers. One who dislike times now, doesn’t automatically like NDTV, CNNIBN. i HATE THRICE OF THESE CHANNELS. so i check news on any of the site like rediff or online editions of newspapers and then make my own opinion without anyone’s interference. NDTV and CNNIBN are mouthpiece of congress for sure, but that doesn’t exonerate arnab of his complete senselessness, brazenness and malarkey. There are enough sources in world to get informed than these three downmarket news channels.

“…it is crystal clear this article must have been sponsored by either of the other two news agencies.”, “Are you intentionally blind or stupid to not see the blatant biased journalism…”
Is it the case that those who air views contrary to yours must be the worst of idiots and morally inferior to you?

Arnab is the saddest thing that happened to English Channels. He brought the standard to the level of Hindi channels. I stopped watching Times Now long back

Congratulations are in order. It must have been difficult getting people to talk and then crosschecking each statement. Pray that the whistle-blowers’ careers are not hampered in any way.
It is not often that we have dirty laundry of the media out in public. Newspapers do attempt to have their public editors but newsrooms of the broadcast media are mostly closed doors. In such scenarios, the public face of the reporter also becomes his personal face. We associate character traits to an anchor based on those perceived during his show. It is akin to judging the personalities of actors in movies and on television shows based on that of the characters they play. As such, any information regarding the real faces of the character is likely to result in cognitive dissonance.
As the other comments shows, it is a difficult task. It is much easier to defend previously formed thoughts than to new entertain contrary ideas. Arnab Goswami the character is different from Arnab Goswami the person just as Amitabh Bachchan differs in real life from the characters he plays. Since we have little information of the Arnab the person, any defense of the person not sufficiently backed with data holds no ground and till we have further information, we must accept the research as unbiased and complete.

noup its is you who is intentionally blind and stupid,people like you are prejudiced so what if he is calling NDTV and CNN IBN biased its his right then why are you having a problem then are you a stooge for those 2 channels?

Loud,yes! Opinionated ,yes! Persuasive yes! But not corrupt like Rajdeep&Burkha! so this article clearly has been either paid by NDTV or CNNIBN or the writer(s) at Caravan have immense sense of sour grapes! An utterly biased article which could best be used as an ass-wipe by Arnab!

Farah, we salute your courage and restraint. “We” as in the silent (hundreds of past & present) employees who’ve suffered this psychopath… who out of pure fear dare not speak out even now. Just look at the number of anonymous comments here and the number of anonymous sources Rahul Bhatia had to use! This man is powerful, vindictive and and can destroy anyone who crosses paths with him. He’s done so in the past and pompously paraded those like trophies. … and everyone at TIMES NOW and beyond knows that. We salute the courage with with you stood up to this man and walked out with your dignity intact. The only thing you didn’t mention is that the man is so far gone, that only a Psychiatrist may be able to help… but even then, how can one possibly cure a power crazed sadist?

Spot on with this write-up, I actually feel this amazing site needs a great deal more attention.
I’ll probably be back again to see more, thanks for the information!

The scale of abuse at Times Now is staggering. Arnab needs a doctor and his staff need a lawyer. The company should be sued for the abuses they have allowed against their employees. Good job Caravan for blowing the lid off this secretive, scary workplace.

you shld watch NDTV and CNN IBn if u want to about prejudiced and personal attacks..arnam is far bettr den barkha dutt and sagarika ghose ..far betr please dn’t b prejudiced..peace out..

He is good unbiased and understands the pulse of the audience. As for journo errors..that can happen to anyone. I love to watch him and miss him on weekends. Good job and keep going.

This is a piece many were waiting for years. I stopped watching Times Now from 2010. Their Pakistan and Kashmir policy is just pathetic. Now we know why.

Essentially two parts to this. One is Arnab the journalist and the other is Arnab the boss-administrator. By mixing the two you have painted a confusing picture of the man. The two can be and are independent of each other. He may be a horrible boss who does the mentioned things but that is hardly unique in todays cut-throat corporate environment.

As far as the journalism is concerned, well, he is only giving the viewers what they want. The comments here are quite clear about that. When viewers stop watching, he will change track to whatever it is they want. That is the reality of the opinion-making industry today. There is a need for ethical journalism. Standards can only be enforced by those in power.

Highly biased n malicious article. Arnab is the lone hope in English media n he is the best anchor of tv debates. I am really surprised to see such a poison filled article against him. The writer sucks

So you like him only becoz u like him, and there is no reason other than that you like him. The writer has written on basis of proofs and eyewitness accounts. Tell ur Arnab to do a Newshour debate on the issue if he wills!!!

Good work Caravan.
It was high time some one spoke about media, and you had the courage to.
I stopped watching TV after I watched Rajdeep Sardesai.

I do not want Arnab Gowsamis and Samir Jains in my house.
I do not want my kids growing up thinking that discussion is yelling.
Young people who try to learn public speaking or presentation skills, start talking so arrogantly, imitating Arnad and Rajdeep and Burkha Dutt.

Recently Indian Express had an interesting story

It is time people are taught critical thinking vis-a-vis media…
Probably that is a stupid idea, because Times of India and Times Now would launch a campaign on “Critical Thinking and Media’.

If Times Now gets the TRPs, then India deserves Arnab. Don’t know what is sadder. That Arnab Goswami hankers for TRPs and sensationalism and makes news for TRPs, or that English-speaking urban Indians seem to want just what he offers.

It is very clear from above that there is a deliberate strategy by Times Now Supporters to challenge the views of the article as well as the true comments posted by people who had the misfortune of working with Arnab. They are recounting their actual experiences and few have been brave enough to come out in the open. No one can dispute this fact and despite all the chest thumping and sycophancy by these so called Arnab loyalists, it is very clear that he is a monster who has terrorized people for his selfish needs and ego. I hope he gets to suffer some day, the same way he has made others suffer.

You should watch His Girl Friday (Movie)… Arnab runs a serious kind of news channel like the one in that comedy movie..

Here is the sequence:


IBN & TIMES = yelling, lying, bizzarre drama and sucking up to corporates and congress!

What Bill OReilly is to FOX, Arnab Goswami is to TIMES-NOW, Entertaining as hell and controversial to boot. I think people want to be entertained even when they are consuming news, so most of the India news shows (like in US) are now becoming OPINION-SHOWS and everyday each show pushes the boundary ever so much to get the higher TRP. People like Bill’O and Arnab are not Journalists they are Actors with a stage they come with a rehearsed agenda and know exactly how to deliver their lines to grab the audience and keep them glued to their channels! And to be honest I like it.. If Arnab doesn’t do it somebody else will so why not Arnab! He is good at it.

i feel this is too biased.. though he may be a terrible boss he is fearless and seems unbiased unlike other news channels… i think the issue with other eng news channels is bias not much with reporting or presenting… anyway the politicians he speaks to deserve someone like him…

I used to watch News Hour until about a year ago and wonder how Arnab was tying politicians into knots. Not anymore. Most of the topics that he takes up for 1 hour plus are not worth even 15 minutes. And these debates have no purpose – with both sides sticking to their stupid sides and Arnab interfering every time and never allowing anyone to make a point. Some where, it has gone wrong into his head that he is bigger than everyone else. The downfall is going to be hard for him when he comes thudding down.

I have heard stories of horror from Times Now staff. This article is really well balanced and does highlight the fact that Arnab is not totally undeserving of where he is right now. But it also does not paint the whole negative picture of the scenario that this mad man has managed to build in the office. Times Now is not really about news, presentation of facts or painting the true picture of an incident, its more about sensationalising the lesser evolved Indian brain along and selling negative opinions. Times Now office is filled with inexperienced youngters who try too hard to fiddle around vanilla things and try to make it controversial, their half baked pretentious heads not being able to analyse or understand what news actually means. And amidst all this is one lunatic birdbrain leader whose style of deranged leadership has transcended down the echelons of power. So what you basically have is a team of howling sophomoric fucchas of the newsworld feeding empty content to a narcissistic buffoon whose imprudent antics are aptly displayed on Newshour, where he treats his guests like shit and manipulates the discussions to sell his sordid fancies. Arnab is a such a unsecure and naive ch*t*ya.

Superbly researched piece Rahul. You have literally mentioned how visual media has been compromised. I used to watch television news. Not anymore. I have also stopped reading mainline newspapers. Prefer reading the blogs now. Journalists no longer serve the readers. They serve a corporate agenda/ agendas. I will take a subscription to the Caravan magazine. And I hope you along with your collegues will continue to meet those high standards you have set. It is tough. But journalists with courage are few in number. At the moment you happen to be one of them.

It is interesting to see the divergent tones of the articles on two protagonists of the Times Of India group — Samir Jain and Arnab Goswami… While the article on the first, though lengthy, stopped short of open lambasting. Lambasting, however, was the leitmotif of the Arnab article, an enormous compendium of horror stories. That makes me think that journalists reserve most of their bile for their own kind… Why?

All articles on media in this issue, this article included just points to what the urban middle class in India seem to hanker for. The Times Network is after this demography and they deliver brilliantly what the consumers seek. Dumbed down news. Entertaining, titillating and easy to consume. God forbid they are made to think! Arnab is what they seek, Arnab is what they get. Period.

I have a simple solution for debates anchored by Arnab Goswami. The CONTROL of both sound and visual ,during his debates, must be in the hands of the invited audience in the hall. Anyone talking too much or out of turn or nonsense can then be taken off in favor of one who ,sometimes, talks most reasonably but gets the least time.
But alas,none of our self righteous anchors would do anything like it.

First of all must compliment the writer for his exceptional insight on the true side of Arnab Goswami. I am no editor or writer but a viewer. He does come out as a megalomaniac and I see these traits in him coming out in the way he conducts himself. It is indeed sad that he treats his colleagues this way but this is the way present generation is made of. He is self eulogizing and extremely irritating.

This article, clearly has called the emperor, Naked.

Such articles and pieces are necessary for preventing power logging. Something which The Times hate doing. Your article is layered man. There’s something in it for everybody. Sardesai, his biwi and chelas would be laughing their lungs out while NDTV might be thanking heavens for not being called in the same line when “Randi ka rona” was used. India remains a land of circus lovers and our entertainment media is just that.

Hope to read something about AAP & Swaraj as your cover story next month.

Great article. The research and thought put into this article justifies its length. And while almost everything you’ve written sounds has to be said, that man’s dictatorial behaviour also trickled down to all these output editors and anchors (named and unnamed) that have been quoted here. These guys in their turn were equally insufferable and mean and everything arnab was to them, to the minions (read graduates, freshers)..and some of the quotes are a result of injured egos themselves. So..boohoo guys. But to the writer….great article on the guy and his Ego;

If there is so much anger and negativism about Arnab,just do not see Times Now.But that is not showing up in the TRPs.Times now continues to occupy No 1 position.I think they are fiercely neutral on politics compared to cronyism of NDTV and CNN the way what is wrong in being a demanding boss if success is driven by performance.In any case we are not China and Times is not state controlled.Just quit if you can not tolerate pressures of performance.
At the end of the day Media is a business and is meant to bring profits.It is silly to talk about owners.They run a very a successful business and are more involved in PhilanthropyFor most losers in this business it’s Heads I win and Tails you loose dreaming.

I have stopped watch Times now because he talks very arrogantly so his panelists. earlier used to watch because he was from NDTV.

Initially I used to get hooked to Times Now for the debating style, but slowly I started feeling that Arnab takes up issue like Coalgate to take on Congress then he would pull Sancheti etc. as if it is NDA which is in power. I have seen many occasion where he just messed up the debate direction and the viewer feels watching a harangued speech. Persons like Renuka Choudhary shrieks, Manish Tiwari Exalts, Abhishek Manu Singhvi cries with reason – but others are painted worthless people not deserving any valid appearance and made shown as joker if they do not toe the line. Nirmala Sitharaman, Yatin Ojha, Ravishankar Prasad are some who are able to take Arnab on….

Totally agree. NDTV is so biased. Just recall how Barkha Dutt boosted Kanimozhi before the scam broke out. He is the sort of journalist India needs. If his behavior bothers his subordinates, they could always quit and move to other channels.

Arnab really makes our crooked politicians miserable. He has the guts to do it. He may be dominating, but that is the way it should be done in our hypocritical society.

Arnab Goswami often does hit jobs on behalf of others. Pefect example was his hit job against Shashi Tharoor . It was a clear hit job, for reasons best known to Arnab. Anything and everything Shashi Tharoor mentioned was made into breaking news , and was followed by a demand to remove him from the ministry.

Still remember when during a discussion about the Timesnow discussion regarding Tharoor using the word ‘interlocutor’ about Saudi Arabia , Arnab Goswami yelled on national television ” How can you have someone as notorious as Tharoor be in the ministry”. It is a different story that finally it emerged that Tharoor’s choice of the word interlocutor was absolutely correct ! Perhaps Arnab too knew it – but he had an agenda- Remove Tharoor from ministry!

Uncouth, uncivil news salesman . That is what Arnab Goswami is. Really pity the journalists at Timesnow working under this megalomaniac narcissist called Arnab Goswami !

Arnab is very interesting journalist that India Media badly need now a days. You need to be ruthless to the great nethas to make them naked off their cooked stories and unrealistic statements; fooling ordinary viewers.

hats off to Arnab Goswami for what he has done for the channel but as a editor i chief of no 1 channel, all this kind of alligation will come and he have to tackel it

Bal Thackeray was a great person. He lived like king size. He was a real King. He saved Bombay from terrorists like Dawood. Have you seen how many people were there in his funeral? How much love people had and have for him. Bal Thackeray was anytime far better than Madam Mussolini. Everyone, who knows him sung songs for him.

Not biased? More honest? Were you watching him sing paeans of praise to Bal Thakeray during the gushing LIVE coverage of the funeral?! A few days later he was talking about how a lone terrorist can create fear among many – did he even get the irony? Or was he in Calcutta when Bombay was burning in 92-93??? Or every time Bal and the Senas called for a bandh…

As it stands today, Arnab is now bigger than his channel. His forceful presentations during the news hour and his take on issues that are close to the common man’s heart earn him his TRP and the Jains their ROI. However, his show cannot go on forever, as the news hour format is becoming more and more predictable with similar faces of condescending people who would dare not contradict Arnab ‘s agenda. Arnab may like to reflect and do some course correction in order to stay relevant to his viewers.

People can say anything about Arnab but he is a brave journalist/media man…..he’s only one who can spin the ears of the people as well as politician with his tough questions………
Arnab can be best journalist if he starts his own news channel like how Rajdeep separated and started CNN IBN… arnab job as a journalist which is known as fourth pillar of democracy….

Excellent article! Superbly researched and really brings out the essence of the man… or rather, the monster that is Arnab!

the fellow has very high views about himself. He is certainly an “INTELLECTUALLY IMPOTENT” person. This interview just substantiated what i used to think of him seeing his show few months back. I feel good that i stopped watching newshour after his complete idiotic presentation of assembly elections early this year.

It’s an insightful piece. It throws light on how news has become all about the person presenting it. As a journalist myself, I think you have done an exceedingly good job

Well my take is Arnab potray himslef really fast and furious and if what we see and hear is to be believed ,then he is truly a bold individual.But I believe that there is lot behind scenes and politics and newsmen go together scratching each other’s back. But, my take, he has to believe that there is a world beyomd his thinking and other people also have some individuality and allow people to also express…

Congratulations. You just gave credence to a comedian by an unwarranted, lengthy piece describing his antics. Someone, who till now was mere laughing stock has suddenly become important and a man to reckon with, if the tone you employ to describe him is anything to go by.

The space could have been better utilised to point out how deeply his brand of journalism has killed any semblance of intelligent dialogue in the country and corrupted other media houses as well. But, I suppose sensationalism, well, sells.

I must put on records Arnab makes the Newshour quite interesting and informative getting deeper into the truth of news. A few modifications can make the News hour more interesting. First of all i dont understand why 2 to 3 people talk simultaneously . Second, the participants hardly listen to each other. Both these things are basics of communication, I hope Arnab will take note of these things and make NEWS more enriching .

I think he really needs to sharpen his listening skills and some basic ethics of Journalism. Else, the discussions/debates will be only sensational.

Arnab’s concept of debate constitutes a social menace decibel-wise. Families where he and his invitees are allowed to shout all evening are to be pitied. He’s ingenuous, which females find quaint, but his ludicrous tirades against the U.S. are embarrassingly juvenile. Rather, he should focus on the cold-blooded mechanical types that dominate the U.S. power structure, rather than the use of power itself, which India envies and would ape in detail if it had the opportunity.

Only aim of Goswami n Times now seems to condemn n malign Aam Admi Party. It’s not a fair journalism. I agree with ujjal he don’t let other speaks on his show n force himself on participants.

Goswami’s ONLY agenda now a days is to milgn AAP….looks like BJP has paid huge amounts….i have unsubscribed TIMESNOW forever as even a person with ZERO IQ can understand the agenda timesnow and goswami is running…..shame on indian paid media !!

At least he has had the guts to crack the 2G,CWG and other scams. Name one journalist who has had the courage to do so?

I too felt like that. Now a days I don’t watch his show which are monotonus. Same theme, night after night. If he continues then Times Now will have a lock out very soon.

I read this whole article. It is laughable. Full of quotes against Goswami from disgruntled former employees of Times Now.

no wonder that there is never a simple controversy..its gotta be massive,also uproar are always huge…people are always ‘devastated’ by small lil things…..

Great article, i remember details of particular wikileaks cable in whhic Pakistani officals where describing to US Emboffs how an over aggressive after Indian media after the Bombay attacks elicited a similar response from Pakistani media and in effect made it Politically impossible for Zardari who was willing to co-operate with India and made him to reverse his earlier decision of sending his intelligence chief to India. This guy may be a threat to National security.

Times Now ..the brother of of TOI sensationalist journalism. article paints a clear picture of Arnab Goswami. Times Now is the most overrated channel according to me and seen by only he illiterate hoodlums . Who is Arnab Goswami . ?! He isn’t any journalist . He is just alike any producer who adds an item number to boost the ticket sales. Nothing new in this article . Justa big expose of the truth behind .

An excellent piece . Caravan has done a great service.

I fully agree. In fact in the process of trying increase the sales, he makes himself look like a duffer. Very shallow and superficial journalist

What to say about him and his company? He support some against others for benefit. He shouts, interjects and interrupts when few panelists do not say as he want to listen. It is not journalism what he is doing but something else in the garb of journalism.

The article shows Arnab as a replica of Gail Wynand from The Fountainhead. If he’s able to keep a neutral balance and not favor any of the politicians or business barons who strip of the nation for their greed (not on a selective basis but on an absolute basis) I do not care what Arnab is like (after all Wynand did commission the Wynand Building helping Roark and restoring balance in favor of what signified good). May he achieve it with the highest attrition rates. The moment he’s conclusively proved to be partial in his journalism you screw him where he seems to be hurt the most – quit watching times now and let the ratings hit rock bottom.

The article is all about Arnab negativity but Rahul forgot to look on the other side of the coin i.e Positivity…He takes care of his staff when they are in need..he doesnt show off like others…His outer (approach) heart may be hard & strict but inside he is very calm & soft….So Mr Rahul you did excellent job by finding its critics but you lost when you couldnt find people who have acheived impotance in life because of him….let me Remind you..Times Now could not be what it is today without him….

Hey, he may not be your favourite anchor or mine, but why just pick on him and one network? There are no saints elsewhere on other networks, and the malaise is deep.

It’s a good article.. well-researched beyond doubt.. but completely biased too.. arnab may be a monster but surely there must be some qualities to him.. the writer here completely chose to overlook them.. feels like it was his way of taking revenge from someone who denied him an interview.. i may be wrong but this is the feeling that one gets.. having said that one has to give it to the writer for the well written and exhaustive piece..

I don’t think the article is completely biased. The author has made efforts to convey his intelligence, on-screen if not journalistic competence. Unfortunately, the picture that emerges is a brilliant man whose insecurity and hunger for success undermined his sense of ethics. The world has seen numerous such examples and history has a knack of repeating itself.

wow. i can’t believe i read a piece that long about something i care so little, but couple of tips – this is really, really bad writing – “whose effectiveness was measured in numbers, not gross happiness.”

Gross happiness?? really? Not only is it a cavalier misappropriation of a contested (and largely dismissed) new agey idea, it’s also positing a dubious normative ideal to contrast all that you do find egregious about goswami/times now/TRP chasing.

Also, I’m not sure why the Mahim Creek sweet water story is somehow “not journalism” or “of questionable import”. Is this only according to the Times Now folks you interviewed, or your own opinion? It’s hard to parse through. Seems like a pretty important health and environment issue to me.

Thanks for the criticism. You’re right. That is a terrible sentence, and on reading it again I can’t believe I wrote that. As for the Mahim sweet water story, Times Now’s reporters would have preferred reporting it as an environmental story. But the angle they played up initially had nothing to do with science. By “questionable import”, I was referring to their early take on the event. This is what the reporters themselves felt. I asked them about their reporting that night, and here’s the raw transcript of one reply:

Me: You were woken up early one morning and everyone was told to handle the Mahim creek thing. What kind of reporting were you doing then?

Editor: We were not tendentious. We were reporting fact. Yes, some of us didn’t quite know why we were doing it because it seemed a bit outrageous. But it was still news. And many people had put that on the front page.] So when an incident like that happens, it’s an issue of faith. And I think faith is dear to every one of us. I’m not saying divine faith, but we have faith in ourselves, in our destinies, in luck, what have you. But certainly it was of wide-ranging public interest. So we went and reported it. At three in the morning we couldn’t get a rationalist into our studio, but we did by about eight or nine to explain what was going on. It has been explained as effluent discharge which brought down the saline levels in the water. It was a mass ingest of freshwater through drains that were decongesting, rainwater that…, etc. But that at that point wasnt the center of the reportage. At that time it was that this thing was happening and all these people were, rather illogically, drinking this water. There was a health scare.

Me: How did you feel about the story?

Editor: Well, I’m a professional journalist. I’m not supposed to be sitting there letting my prejudices or biases affect my reportage. So if it was happening, and there were two sides of the story, we were merely being the interpreter for our viewers. I don’t remember the numbers on the back of that event, but I do remember that it was a hugely talked about event.”

This article focuses too much on Arnab the boss. I think one of those former employees of Times Now must’ve given most of the sound bytes to this article to prevent future journalists from joining Times Now. If this article had focused on Arnab the journalist, perhaps I would’ve been more interested. But reading about Arnab the boss got boring after a while. How many people are really bothered about what he’s like as a boss?

What a bigoted, one-sided critique that smacks of professional jealousy of the journalistic clique towards Mr Goswami! Granted AG didn’t grant an interview to the writer but how come Bhatia couldn’t find even a single admirer of Goswami to present the other side.

Nicely done piece , it appears a bit lacking in details of more of his very apparent biases pertaining to politics while reporting and the reason behind it, but still a very well done article !!

After going through this brilliantly written piece I could not stop myself comparing Mr Arnab Goswami with the legendary apple co founder Steve Jobs. There are many similarities between them.Mr Goswami like Mr Jobs is very motivated, passionate, sharp and fully focused on his work but has dictatorial and narcissist tendencies. Very brutal and emotionless towards his employees and co- workers.
Mr Jobs was mad about his ideas and design of the products his company made and had this highly creative bent of mind. He would go to any length to ensure that what he thought was right was always adhered to and would not tolerate any dissent or difference of opinion. He was very mean, took credit for other people’s work, yelled and shouted at his employees who feared him like anything.There used to be story at Apple that if you walk into office lift and meet Mr Jobs there, then by the time you come out of the lift you might have been fired. He never allowed any leadership to emerge in his company that can challenge his authority. He was hugely successful and was admired outside his company like a cult figure who changed the world for good through his products. His critics coined a term Realty Distortion Field to describe his ability in making others believe in whatever he said , how much absurd it might be.
Same is case with Mr Goswami. He is a feared boss and has changed the English Electronic media landscape of our country. He has been a sort of phenomena with every other channels adapting to his style. When he repeats his “The Nation wants to know” rant it seems as if he is speaking for all the countrymen and make them believe that he is their only voice which in fact is farther from the truth as pointed out in this article. He distorts news to suit his agenda and then make people believe that he is the only person speaking truth in the whole country and is unbiased. People buy into it and that shows in the TRPs and through some of the comments here and in other forums (from his fanboys). Realty distortion field working perfectly.
Apple was Steve Jobs and Time Now is Arnab Goswami.

Very well written article. The most revealing thing about this is that as a viewer I am also realising how gullible and vulnerable I have been in being influenced bybthe “middle class mindset” of being frustrated at things around us and wanting to question everything. The right thing instead could have been being presented with a balanced view of news and analysis which make you think. But populism gives way to classical hournalism given the constraint on time and multiple options available for viewers. But things are becoming too predictable for Times Now and Arnab. He needs to listen more often” even to his guests on his show” and is distinctly defensive and arrogant when people with stuff confront him on the show. Wish things improve…

come on michael keep ur biases and ur abuses for urself…dont impose dem on others….understand it ..there are many who simply respect arnab..we need not be swayed by the authors biased piece..

One thing common between Arnab fanboys and right wing nutjobs – they both write atrocious English. Just like their favourite news channel Times Now and its evil fount Times of India, which run headlines, tickers and captions with elementary grammatical mistakes.

As per of above article, Arnab is worst? Is he worst than Barkha ‘Radia’ Dutt or Rajdeep Sardesai who once called Dawood a ‘Patriotic’ man or Shekhar ‘Coup’ Gupta or Karan Thapar who declared Genral Singh as weakest ever but his own father was army chief at the time of 1962 defeat.

May be he is not a good administator but as anchor Arnab is best available options we have right now. Rest all are mouth piece of Congress or BJP.

Whenever i feel the need to laugh at the plight of our country, Times Now is what I tune in to. Arnab is first a self appointed judge, then an entertainer, then he is a loud mouthed joker and finally a sub standard news anchor. This is what everyone I know thinks of Arnab Goswami too. He is an extension of television soaps, except that he is the only one who delivers lengthy dialogues. There was a time that Barkah Dutta annoyed the whole nation with “We the Barkah”. But even she would be relieved by the existence of this guy to lessen the hate burden on her. This spectacled dude takes no chances at making a spectacle of himself at every given opportunity. Milking peoples plight to maximize TRP is not why news channel exist. Am sure the Jain family has many avenues to scale up revenues. Spare news, please. Am sure they can have one business that’s more about giving something to the people than taking from it. If they have the slightest respect for the people of this country, they will have Arnab replaced by a far more competent news anchor. Otherwise, the day is not far away when every channel will make a living out of being obnoxious. That’s when there will be people clashing with police & water jets in front of Times Now office. That will make for some interesting news, what say?

If you talking about Grammar, then you should know that English people are no better than us. So keep your grammar, comma, Punctuation, etc with you.

useless article. Didn’t understand why a magazine needs to spend its valuable pages to analyse a contemporary anchor. It is more of a personal attack on Arnab Goswami. Unfortunately after reading such a long article the reader is not benefited at all. Poor journalistic example.

Great piece, Rahul. Glad to have played some role in its conception. Even if it was as minor as transcribing a few interviews =P

You are the same piece of crap who makes these kind of a**hole journalists who are good for nothing. These Journos are as bad to our nation as our crappy political class

The article talks about Arnab as a boss and not much into Arnab as a journalist. He might be aggressive and dominating but History is often written by assertive people. It is a matter of choice to take it or leave it. I simply adore his program.

Just wanted to point out that your usage of fount is incorrect in this context, which is ironic considering the crass generalizations you make in your post.

This man, “Pratap Simha” also happens to be a renowned Kannada journalist whose work I haven’t read. But I have learned from my friends that he is heavily biased towards the right wing. After this inane comment, I wouldn’t bother to read his work.

Understood Most of the comment written by same person or a group, But one-thing is sure that people are fed up with barka and rajdeep who are simply acting like congress worker. Unless they change till then we may not be interested in NDTV and Cnn ibn most biased in the earth.

How can we be sure that this article is not doing the same thing which is written about the protagonist i.e Goswami ?? I feel Caravan targets the people who are helm

First of all let me compliment you, ‘Good Study’, presented well. The topic “Fast And Furious” is very appropriate to current ‘Arnab Goswami’ (AG). After reading your this reportage, I have been watching him narrowly, AG regularly keeps trending every now and then on twitter. Currently, mostly humor prevails around his name: is this him, or have we misunderstood him, or is it viewers demand (then he is good actor). He has been successful in popularizing his signature line ‘Nation wants to know,’ where literacy, urban Vs rural population, English Vs Vernacular education are still discussion topics. These all (even this article of your’s) is keeping him alive, in the mind of people.

Just asking you: What’s the point in writing this much about him, and reader has been left to judge him.

Our family has nicknamed him MADARI for the same reasons .His NEWS HOUR is the best soap opera going around on the Telly . While Rajdeep at CNN-IBN strains every nerve shouting out his point to the penalist ,Sagrika is shrill and shreiky in repeating for the seemingly nincompoop viewers what a panelist has just said so clearly , AG calmly ,makes , a tongue in cheek comment setting a cat among pigeons . He watches the fun as do his viewers. Yes, he is the producer ,director , script writer et all . Too many bosses do spoil the broth . Whoever takes the debates seriously ?A

very well researched article indeed! while i despise the act of fabricating the news and not bringing the truth before the public ( such as the kasab tape or the mahim creek), the news presentation today has seen a huge change and i see no wrong in a bit of sensetionalization and putting news in an entertaining way! But the news channels must present both sides of the story and give an equal opportunity to both sides to present their take on a story and not suppress any one side!

The man has been a phenomenon in an otherwise cozy & seemingly co-opted “mutual win-win” equation bearing relationship between those in public-life & news-networks. Its evident given the “not-so-private” dislike expressed by others from the fraternity. It isnt least surprising that usage of terms – “noise”, “nakra”, etc are used to describe his shows/channel approach. When Dr. Prannoy Roy started off in those days bringing some freshness in an otherwise dull and dubbed (to speak in-praise of the Govt of the day just as the feudal royal kingdoms used to have “praisers” in the durbar to sing eternal praise of the lordship/royalty) DD News era; it was path-breaking. There were some people who felt uncomfortable then just as some do today. When you notice the “rendezvous” type “cheesy” interview on prime-time national television with ‘a victim of random rhetorical utterance of a CM aspirant terming the so-called victim as “a 50 crore girlfriend”‘, its all right. Nevermind, the deliberate intent to mislead public by claiming a discussion “LIVE” when in-fact it was pre-recorded, its all okay.. no much noise needed please. Push it under the carpet! When a journo follows a neta into fodder yard et al, ask seemingly never-ending (literal terms – never ending line with complicated sentences) questions while cautioning the respondents with “fierce head-nodding”, “jumping the seat”, “uncouth” and clammer for air-time, its all okay… no problem there!! But, this new lad, loud no-doubt, irritating at-times – yes, (but arent they all?), is all of a sudden a threat to the fraternity and TV news journalism’s practice and ethics..? And yes, not to forget, The Editor of a national English newspaper claiming on TV that his 4 letter c word could be construed as being cool, calm, and not coup is okay to “walk and talk and dance”. :-) World’s a stage.. no dearth of naatakbaazi!!

whatever it is! at least he doesn’t do biased reporting like Barkha dutt and others! I personally prefer to watch Times Now first to get updates about recent happenings

A few days ago, Justice Markandey Katju, Majeed Memon and Mahesh Jethmalani were on Times Now panel. Arnab Goswami asked the question: “Why does Justice Katju’s heart bleed for Sanjay Dutt?” and addressed the question to Mahesh Jethmalani. It was quite hilarious as Justice Katju immediately butted in and demanded to know from AG, “How can Mahesh know what is happening in my heart? You must ask me that question as only I know what is happening in my heart”. AG was literally caught napping in the middle of the News Hour debate. God alone knows what he was thinking. Perhaps he was brooding about his looming ouster from Times Now: “GO-Swami”. It reminded me of the moral of that well known story: “Even bullshit might take you to the top, but it won’t help you to stay there”. Its lonely at the top for executives without substance. They are the ones who know themselves best. That is why they resort to cheap tricks like bullying their subordinates etc. The only way to stop an unreasonable person in his tracks is to file a law suit with credible evidence against him. When the history of Indian electronic journalism is written, Prannoy Roy, Vir Sanghvi or N. Ram will still come out tops with their cool analysis and depth of knowledge. The hysterics of Sardesais and Goswamis will be dismissed and forgotten as humbug.

I agree with other comments that the article goes too deep in Arnab Goswami the boss. It is possible that he is a terrible boss. However if we look at him solely as a journalist, compared to other journalists in the Indian English news media he is a breath of fresh air. Unlike the leading lights of Times Now’s ‘biggest competitor’, whose journalists are hand in gloves with the political and business elite, Arnab challenges the elite in front of everyone and asks the tough questions that need to be asked. Maybe Rahul Bhatia thinks that is not a good thing, but I will bet my last rupee that a huge majority of the country thinks that is what needs to be done.

In fact, the hate that is directed towards Arnab on twitter by TV anchors (who also work as fixers in other avatars) is testimony to the fact that Arnab is breaking up the comfortable relationship that has existed between media and the ruling elite.

Incidentally, there are other anchors who are also becoming popular by taking on the system in their own ways. Look at Ravish Kumar, a very popular hindi anchor on NDTV who unveils the absurdity of the system layer by layer although in his own calm collected manner. I contend that popularity of Arnab is not because of his apparent hyperventilation but because he has become a credible outlet for voice of the middle class. If other anchors and news channel are comfortable with being voices of the elite in return of junkets and govt housing, that is not Arnab’s problem.

Basically Caravan Magazine is unknown to masses..Only way to gain some ground is such smear campaign…. what you are writing about him is what you have been doing in a way just to smear him to gain your viewership… But its not your fault..Its the typical Indian mentality.. You always hate achievers… Go and do something on your own… Launch a channel..beat AG.. that you can bloody never do !!!!! cheers to you

Vir Sanghvi???? Yes he is on top when it comes to crony-journalism.. Haven’t you heard of something called Radia tapes.. Same with NDTV…

I have been regularly watching the debates on TV for the last 3 or 4 years especially from 9 pm. It is paining and quite appalling to see the quality. All the panelists talks at the same time making it a total cacophony. There is absolutely no decency while asking questions. Some have a rude posture and tone while asking questions. (See Ms. Jayalalitha’s and Mr. Ram Jethmalani’s interview at CNN – IBN which is a proof). A few anchors of the news channel doesn’t allow the panelists to complete their sentence and take over. probably they wish to hear their own voice. This has adversely resulted in other new news readers / anchor aping their styles. This is pathetic. I am sure that they have studied journalism and they are taught the proper ways. At the same time I i wish that they pick a leaf or two from from Larry King, Christiane Amanpour, Jim Clancy etc and learn how to properly behave at the shows. All the NewsChannels are JUST MEDIOCRE. Most of them are in a frenzy when some real breaking news happens and cross all borders to get the higher TPR. Some even dangle on the wrong side and wriggle out saying it is mis-judgement (Radia Tapes). You would be surprised to notice the spell errors in the captions very frequently. I am of the conclusion that these are a bunch of worthless buffoons.

It’s absolutely fine to discuss and criticse arnab’s style of journalism(if I may call it so). However, the article is mostly about Arnab, the boss. It’s more like office gossip.

About the news hour, I love my hearing ability and the show is a serious threat for it.

Finally, if you want to know about megalomania ask a phd student about it. Even walking out is not an option for them. I guess, ‘the nation needs to know’ why people can’t handle power?

the article reeks of jealousy,unfortunately.i started reading it in ilusion of a great journalistic piece.instead what i got was a smear campaign.pity!!
arnab is the most sharp and incisive news anchor we have on tv today.that he is non conformonist is an advantage for us viceless viewers.added to the fact is his avoidance of any pretension to be a secularist,like a barkha dutt,and presenting news as it is.
this article looks more like a personal atack on him than anything else

There was a time when more than half of India questioned ways of ‘Bhagat Singh’, And please do not abuse me here, in no ways i am trying to compare the two.
The issue is, India has never been in the past, and not even now, a country where most families have thinkers(might not be the right word) or social activists in and around home, blame it on education and general awareness and powerty. In such circumstances, seeing neutral debates often confuses people. . . .something like you would hear congress talking and believe that Mr. Vadra did nothing wrong OR Mr. Gatkari from BJP is being victimized. I kindof like the strong views he enforces/tries to enforce to the audience, by always supporting what is right. As an Indian national with the power of media, I think that should become the moral responsibility for all in media. What would it mean if the anchor remains neutral when one of the participants in the debate says that rapes are happening because of girls wearing skirts and people eating choumin. Someone, for gods sake need to shout back at them and become our voice. You can argue its bad journalism and against its principles,. . . so be it. His TRP’s are increasing, so be it, he becomes a billionaire, so be it.

Are our countrymen getting effected by his debates…YES. Are they learning to call a spade a spade.. YES. You don’t believe it, go find out.
And that’s good enough reason for people to switch to times now from 9 pm to 10:30 PM( I too feel the debates are over heated some times, but thats ok. Browse other channels for some time.)

And about this article, it dint make much sense to me. How he operates in office is his companies and other employees business and as long as he is not doing something illegal, I do not see much wrong in it.

PS. i believe that, 50 years form now, when history is re-written or updated, there will be a mention of Anna Hazaare, Arvind Kejriwal and role of media(Times Now, or just Arnab Goswami).

I have had a chance of being threatened by him to give a statement when I was refusing on an extremely sensitive international issue….when I refused he threatened me about my job….told him to lay off….he requires people like Raj Thackerey whom he interviewed to put him in his place…..hezz actually trying to destabilise the nation through his rants…..not bothered about the consequences….affecting national and international interests…..I just watch his show for humour as to who can shout him down

You must visit to a doctor as soon as possible….something is terribly wrong with you—11 page report on times now out of which 90% covers story about Arnab Goswami.
You must go for a book on Life Biography of Arnab Goswami. Man you are seriouly obsessed with this man. Either you hate him or you are a big fan of him.

Arnab at times is so irritating that many of us either change channels or simply switch off the TV. He has a habit of repeating some points time and again and I dread to hear and wonder what will be the mood of the participants. At times he doesn’t allow participants to compete their views which is insulting to the viewers. All in all Times Now is a little better than the crony journalism we see in both NDTV and CNN-IBN. There is one channel which can give Arnab run for his money and that is upcoming NewsX, except for their artificial pronunciation and meandering with some topics they may pose a challenge in the times to come.

Arnab, Just shut up, jouranlism at his worst and chatter box rowdism at his best.

Allow people to speak. You truly are a irritating journalist out there in India. You can be given a first prize for the same.

Intriguing read indeed. I wonder if the author of this has read Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead. I strongly recommend it to the author as well as others who have decried the “historic Injustices” caused to them by this “evil” person. What a bunch of losers.

Arnab is a great jurrnalist. I like his debates. But since few days I do not see him in debates in Times Now.
I miss this bold journalist. No one can replace him.
I wish to see him only in the debates.

I have watched Arnav hitting erring Politicians below the belt to dumbfound them but the shamelessness perpetuates, the basic qualification, i guess Politicians must have and over the course of ugly years their practicing it has help them to excel. This in turn when caught almost red handed, they bid desperate to change course bringing in such factors that’s miles away from what the debate requires them to respond to. Well, this has been the misfortune Countrymen have been made to live with and yet lured by the fresh approach of promises during election period are carried away ( in midst many other consideration ) to bring them back to be ruled.

Since the election is closing in fast, i would like to invite Arnav’s voice to high light the following if he considers the merit of it:

1. Each Party brings out a manifesto which i would take it as their Promise to bring about if they come to Power for the prosperity and well being of the People as much as the Country. As experience reveals, this documents hardly bears any relevance and is as a tradition grown is mere a false promise hardly having any possibility to gain routes.

Can the Parties be made to spell it out on a time frame basis to implement. Party/ Parties coming to Power must be responsible for what they have High Lighted as Promise to achieve. This must have a time frame ( grace period granted ) and should they fail, they ought to have the grace to step down giving way to the second best. Perchance if they succeed, Country would collectively salute them for being true to their words.

Perhaps this is a tall suggestion considering the mess we have gotten used to live with. But then a start has to be made at some point and considering what we have done to ourselves recklessly for which both the elected and the electorate are responsible, this probably could be an ideal moment to consider introducing it.

2. The second point i would like to high light is the following:

At this juncture the Country has so many Parties including the regional Parties each having its interest to thrive. The collision Govt. formed either in the Center or in the States invariably get into tug of war and which if not amicably resolved ( in whatever way it is appeased and which is never in the interest of People ) make the Govt. fall and the people have to bear with the cost of re-election not counting the colossal harm it does to People in many ways.

Can we have two or three (maximum) National Parties and all the regional Parties must be affiliated ( to be recognized ) to as per their choice to one of the National Party. I feel, somehow if sanity is made to respond and this happens, it may considerably reduce horse trading and i feel, despite odds may succeed setting and achieving objective since the ruling Party can hope to complete its terms achieving their Program high Lighted in their manifesto.

This again is a tall order but guess, to go far the first step does count a lot if it carries will with a creative zeal.

This is a humble suggestion from a nobody.


What right do people like Arnab Goswami have to point fingers at Shoma Chowdhary’s and Tarun Tejpal??!!

Look at his track record when it comes to handling sexual harassment cases in his own organisation (see below.) Caravan magazine reported this case in it’s December 2012 Issue; however, it lists only one instance of the harassment; anybody who was at the TIMES NOW News Desk at the time knows that this abuse extended over a period of several weeks and months. It was not an isolated instance.

The perpetrator happens to be Arnab Goswami’s best friend from his school days, so no surprise that the complaint was quickly hushed up. No Visakha guidelines were followed, no committee, no investigation, no penance, no laceration, no mail to the proles, no NOTHING. Arnab Goswami treated the case so INTERNALLY that he himself played the prosecutor, judge and defense… and openly sided with the perpetrator. The complainant was mercilessly targeted in the aftermath of her complaint and the HR department simply stood by meekly, quaking in it’s shoes. The Anchor was forced to resign, and the perpetrator has gone on to become one of the Troika that runs that Gulag called TIMES NOW. An interesting contrast to this is how Mr Goswami dealt with a case involving a production department person who was accused of sexual harassment (The year was 2005, and a single sms was all it took!) and was dismissed summarily. Here’s an open challenge to TIMES NOW: make your (Vishaka) Committee reports public on both these cases.,10
“Interviews with dozens of present and former staff revealed that the management was of little help. One CEO, Sunil Lulla, was described by the former bureau chief as “a rubber stamp”. When Hector Kenneth, who manages the channel’s desk now, called a female anchor a “cunt”—according to several witnesses—Crasta encouraged the anchor to lodge an official complaint. That very day, Goswami announced loudly, “Every employee should strive to be like Hector.” The output editor said, “Arnab picked holes in her anchoring… it was quite clear that since she had complained and taken the whole thing to HR, she was targeted after that.” The anchor resigned, and now works with another network. Chintamani Rao, the CEO who replaced Lulla, and Crasta spoke to Goswami, the person in human resources said. “He seemed ashamed in hindsight. He agreed that what he did was wrong.”

Immaculately researched, the article is a nuanced character sketch of Indian electronic media’s most visible personality today.

I am not bothering to read all the 11 pages. The first page is enough to know which way the article goes. From what I see, and as democracy enable’s each man to have an opinion, India is in a mess right now. Our country’s in a havoc and the Congress led government has just sold us for most of our worth. This is where Arnab’s one hour in the news comes as a reference to the havoc in the country. He raises concerns which bothers the masses, and then the show is about our cheap minded leaders and influencers shouting at each other and blaming each other. Well, unfortunately this is what our nation’s prime-time news has come to. A bunch of idiots playing hide and seek. After reviewing Arnab’s career, he seems to be a smart person with a commendable education and specializations such a degree in social anthropology. Maybe he doesn’t fit many people’s norm of journalism, but I believe his show is right for the degrading times we live in. Another sorry affair is that the other shows are worst and have been sold to the corporates and the politicians. They mostly show news which in an oxymoron kind of way happen to be favored. I’d rather see the truth of our idiotic politicians shouting it out with Arnab Goswami in Times Now than watch news which is bought by money. Again, Arnab’s far away from perfect. The Indian television is desperate for a news channel which is honest, classy, and have the ability to bring the curtain down on all who are betraying this great nation and the entire planet.

If your are trying to tell me that Arnab has propaganda and other news channels have none, sorry I beg to differ. You have to judge them as equals, as a part of this whole environment of competitive news channels who are all just a decade or so old, I like Arnab because he is some one who actually has stood up to people even if as a part of his drama but he has done it irrespective of consequences. He was once a part of middle class, so is symbol of power and control over these politicians that we don’t have but oh boy! we would love to have it. So kudos to Arnab

Page 4 of 4»1234

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *