Over 810 million voters, in 543 constituencies, have had their say — the curtains draw on voting in the world's largest procedural democracy tomorrow. Pre-poll rankings for the 16th Lok Sabha make the BJP favourites to win — sparking apprehensions that India's secular character might be at threat. It's a new dawn for India, and as the country wakes up to a new reality, so too does the region.

The question is, whose truth? All through the election campaign, politicians have complained about the media coverage and accusations of bias have been flung back and forth. Little proof of such bias has been provided though, according to politicians at least, the honest journalist has become an endangered species.

To better understand this wellspring of outrage, one must look at case studies. The best person to start with is Arvind Kejriwal, the former Chief Minister of Delhi, and the head of the Aam Aadmi Party. On March 14 this year, at a fund raising dinner in Nagpur, Kejriwal went on a rant against the media. He accused the media of selling out to the BJP, and threatened to throw those found guilty of indulging in such practices in jail, if and when his party comes to power. He also insinuated that the media was guilty of promoting Modi, and was more interested in debating his (Kejriwal’s) security cover and not the 800 farmer suicides that have happened in Gujarat over the past ten years.

Kejriwal later tried to play down his comments, but his fellow party men came out in full support. When former journalist and now AAP party member, Ashutosh, was put under pressure by journalists asking him to clarify the statements, he insisted that Kejriwal’s tirade was directed at a “specific section” of the media and there was nothing wrong in questioning journalists and editors if they are suspected of running paid news.

It was not always this way; the love story between the AAP and the media goes back a while. As long as the media hailed Kejriwal and his party as anti-corruption crusaders, journalists and media persons were seen as allies in their war. It is worth noting that during the state elections in the Capital, the AAP got almost blanket coverage and it is quite possible that without this attention from the press Kejriwal and his party would not have done quite as well in the polls. The elections were held and the AAP came to power in the capital, soon rumblings in the press about how Kejriwal was running his government, his constant dharnas, and accusations of excessive populism dented his image. It was now that the media tide started to turn against Kejriwal and his party. The relationship has not been the same since.

Other parties have also indulged in their fair share of media bashing. The ruling Congress Party in November of last year decided to boycott all opinion polls and TV debates about poll findings. In a statement released by the press wing of the Congress, Opinion polls were cast as "unscientific". This move came about after TV channels predicted that the BJP would sweep assembly polls in key battleground states. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry also sent a warning note that was cloaked as an advisory to various media houses. The government claimed that TV channels tried to denigrate the office of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by comparing his speech to one made by Modi. The advisory quoted the section of the law under which further violations of programme code could attract penal provisions, a move that was roundly criticised by media bodies.

With accusations of bias, personal attacks on media persons have also increased. Manohar Parrikar, the BJP chief minister of Goa has said that journalists are unqualified and they take money to write, and on social media — that temple of outrage — journalists are routinely abused and are accused of being part of the Paid Media.

This perception of news-space being bought is only empowered by interviews of politicians that are quite visibly staged. Just last week, the editor of India TV, Qamar Waheed Naqvi, resigned over an allegedly “fixed” interview of BJP’s Modi. The interview was hosted by India TV chairman Rajat Sharma and came under almost universal criticism, with many calling it a public relations exercise. Another interview that Modi did last month with Madhu Kishwar, a well-known supporter, turned into a monologue. The interviewer was hardly ever seen or heard apart from the occasional “hmm”. Modi may seem to be quite focused in these soft interviews, but when difficult questions are asked, he either refuses to answer or just looks away.

Contrast this with the interview Rahul Gandhi did with Arnab Goswami on Times Now. The Gandhi scion was asked some hard-hitting questions; he was also cornered on issues like the 1984 Sikh riots, although he was allowed to have his say on his pet themes like women’s empowerment and reforming the system. He was later on panned for giving boring and non-committal answers, but to his great credit he did not walk out, or refuse to answer questions. Arvind Kejriwal’s recent Google hangout with Rajdeep Sardesai, where the tone of the questions were most confrontational, again to Kejriwal’s credit he took them head on.

There may be an institutional root to all this, when asked about whether he thought the media coverage of these elections is the most vicious he could remember, eminent sociologist Shiv Visvanathan said: “The problem with the media is that it is an amplifier. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but in these elections where the politics of personality have overshadowed the politics of issues this creates feelings of bias. This happens because all the ideological parties like the communist parties are in decline. Whatever might be said by one politician is amplified in a hundred other contexts; this gives rise to mudslinging and accusations of bias.”

Visvanathan goes on to say: "media ownership has become a major issue, but that will be resolved later on. People are only now seeing the impact of such practices. Slowly but surely, the public is beginning to realise is that the media is being bought up by a small group of people. What this does is, it stifles voice and it kills debate. This in turn adds to a kind of political correctness, which is the ultimate hypocrisy. Certain people will never get coverage; the Boat Yatra in Gujrat which is one of the most innovative forms of protest against Modi will hardly ever feature in the mainstream narrative. Developmental issues and stories that take time to develop are almost always ignored and this is a tragedy.”