In an increasingly materialistic world, it is unrealistic to expect the news media to remain unsullied.

 But the way vast sections of the media in the recent election to the Maharashtra Assembly bartered away editorial freedom in return for bundles of cash, it was clear that it had sold itself to Mammon.

 And, thus, vitiated the electoral process by feeding readers partisan propaganda dressed as free, fair and independent news. The cash-for-news practice was so widely prevalent that barring an honourable exception or two, none was willing to expose the scandal.

 Unafraid of punishment by the authorities or censure by peers, news media treated the poll as a cash cow, extracting as much money as possible from candidates and parties in exchange for positive coverage in the print and audio-visual media.

 Indeed, various "coverage packages" were devised with variable rates of payments.

 For instance, payment of a couple of million rupees in cash assured you four double-column "news" items with the candidate’s photo in a leading Marathi daily on four different days. On-the-spot coverage of a day’s campaign required an equal amount.

 Those who did not pay, or were too strapped for cash to do so, found themselves blacked out by the media. This made the electoral fight unequal, markedly tilted in favour of the wealthy candidates.

 The Elections Commission (EC), which oversees the entire poll process, set a clear limit on election expenses by candidates but was helpless in preventing the cooption of media by cash-rich candidates.

 In a recent expose in the authoritative daily, The Hindu, P. Sai Nath laid bare what he called "the financial orgy that marked the Maharashtra elections." The "low-end" coverage packages cost up to 2 million rupees (US$43,000), while "high-ends" cost far more.

 Those who did not pay were simply blacked out.

 Editors of regional papers detailed their district correspondents to seek out various candidates for firming up "coverage packages." Even those candidates who were reasonably confident of winning had to give in to the demands of the venal sections of the media for fear of inviting negative propaganda.

 Significantly, candidates could have bought advertising space to take their message to the voters, but this would not have enjoyed the imprimatur of "free, fair and independent news" which the "coverage packages" assured.

 Also, given the low ceiling on election expenses imposed by the EC, candidates were happy buying "coverage packages" on payment of cash.

 The "cash-for-coverage" malpractice actually has been prevalent for quite some time.

 As an editorial in The Hindu noted, "The new shame is the extensive and brazen participation of not insignificant sections of the news media, notably large-circulation Indian language newspapers in two of India’s largest states, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, in this genre of corruption – which a politician speaking at a Hyderabad seminar memorably characterised as a ‘Cash Transfer Scheme’ from politicians to journalists."

 Following Sai Nath’s exposure of the unholy coverage packages by newspapers and television channels, a couple of senior journalists lodged a formal complaint with the Press Council of India (PCI), the official media watchdog, which, in turn, set up a two-member inquiry committee.

 Unfortunately, nothing much can be expected from the PCI since it is a toothless body without any statutory powers to penalise errant members of the so-called Fourth Estate.

 The PCI is supposed to exercise moral authority over the media, but even leading English-language papers have treated its recommendations with scant respect.

 It is thanks to the dominant role moneybags have come to play in elections, and not just in Maharashtra but throughout the country, that those who do not have enough funds at their disposal are at a great disadvantage.

 A candidate’s chances of winning an election are directly proportionate to the amount of money he has; more money, the greater his chances of winning. And this in spite of the fact that the EC has put in place clear limits on expenditure.

 It is wishful thinking to expect the media to remain untouched by rampant commercialisation in every walk of life. With political corruption at its zenith, commercial rather than altruistic interests have become dominant in the media as well.

 In recent years, major media houses have broken fresh ground by making editorials wholly subservient to commercial interests.

 Several years ago, a large newspaper group institutionalised "advertisement treaties" with corporate houses, wherein it most blatantly plugs propaganda in editorial pages.

 Local events such as weddings, social events and other festivities are covered with photographs on payment, but without informing readers that these are paid features.

 The line between marketing/advertisement manager and editor has been so blurred that the latter has become irrelevant.

 Not long ago, there was a clearly defined tripartite division in media houses. The editorial, the blue-collar printing press workers and the administrative/commercial/advertisement departments were like watertight compartments, with the editorial department enjoying near-monopoly control over printed matter.

 Not anymore, though. Today, the commercial department calls all the shots.