The days when mainstream media set the agenda are over. Too many of today's editors decide the running order of their news bulletins and the lineup of their front pages on the basis of Twitter storms.

By Neena Haridas

Last Saturday, Mrs Raj Kumari Kaul passed away peacefully at the age of 86. For at least five decades Mrs Kaul and her late husband, the warden of the Ramjas College hostel had provided Atal Behari Vajpayee with a home and a sense of family. While the Kauls (husband, wife, children etc) had lived with Vajpayee for so many years, the press had treated their privacy with the respect it deserved. But now, with both Mr and Mrs Kaul gone, the trolls and hate mongers on Twitter wasted no time in letting the innuendos fly.

We may think that Mrs Kaul, from all accounts, a dignified lady who was widely respected by many generations of Ramjas alumni as well as students from other colleges throughout the north campus of Delhi University, deserved much better. And we would be right. But such are the times we live in that even those on the fringes of public life -- let alone those in the centre of politics -- are not granted any privacy, respect or dignity.

Just days before Mrs Kaul passed on, the media had splashed details of Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh's love life. It appears somebody hacked into the personal computer of Singh's girlfriend and extracted intimate photographs of the couple as well as love letters apparently written by Singh to the lady in question.

In a pattern that has become all too familiar, the photographs and letters first surfaced on social media where a concerted attempt was made to ensure that the topic trended. Congress haters and self-proclaimed moralists weighed in with abuse and disapproval. The next day, newspapers which do not normally devote much space to the private lives of politicians, front-paged the story.

Mainstream media had its excuses ready. The papers did not care that Digvijaya Singh had a girlfriend. All they were doing was reporting that a storm had broken out on social media. And naturally, to explain what the storm was about it was necessary to reveal the details of Digvijaya's private lives. This is not an entirely new explanation. It follows the pattern adopted by mainstream media in covering the Abhishek Manu Singhvi case. Once again, the press and the TV channels defended themselves by saying that they were only reporting a social media controversy and following the legal action taken by Singhvi to prevent the video's distribution.

Most journalists will tell you that the golden rule for the Indian media is that a politician's private life is his or her own business unless it can be demonstrated that private actions have had public consequences or affected the manner in which the politician has performed his duties.

That was why nobody pried into Vajpayee's private life. And that principle should still hold true. Digvijaya occupies no official position but is merely a party functionary. There is no way his private life can affect the discharge of his public duties simply because he does not have any public duties. Much the same is true of Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

Even the moral righteousness is without foundation. Even if Singhvi did have sex with the lady in the video, the footage makes it clear that it was entirely consensual. Perhaps his wife has a right to take exception. But as for the rest of us, it really is none of our business. In the case of Digvijaya even the bogus, feigned moral outrage about infidelity does not apply. His wife died in tragic circumstances sometime ago and his girlfriend is separated from her husband and in the midst of divorce proceedings. (A dignified statement from her husband has made this clear.)

So why then have we thrown all the old rules out of the window? Why are we suddenly acting as though the private lives of politicians are matters of national importance? Worse still, why are we condoning criminal acts and illegal infringements of privacy? The Singhvi video was shot on a camera that an enemy of his had planted in his chamber. In the Digvijaya case, somebody actually hacked into a computer and stole data. And yet, the illegality of these acts hardly seems to bother the media. We are so busy focussing on the salacious aspects of the relationships that every principle of good journalism and every point of law is buried in the pursuit of a sensational story.

The short answer to all of these question: social media. The days when mainstream media set the agenda are over. Too many of today's editors decide the running order of their news bulletins and the lineup of their front pages on the basis of Twitter storms. Terrified of their own imminent obsolescence, the mainstream media are now taking their cues from the likes of Facebook and Twitter. If social media users know about Digvijaya's girlfriend then they will expect to read more in the next day's paper. If somebody has seen the Singhvi video on YouTube then he/she will also enjoy an animated discussion on the subject on prime time TV.

The danger with all this is that, first of all, social media are completely unregulated in our country -- unlike, say, in England, where the courts frequently issue injunctions against tweets. So the editorial filter simply does not exist and without that filter, no rules can be imposed. Secondly, social media are notoriously susceptible to manipulation. It is easy for either the Congress or the BJP to manufacture a Twitter storm or YouTube frenzy by instructing their control rooms to get to work. The political parities know that the mainstream media has lost its nerve. Once a social media storm is created, the TV channels and the newspapers will meekly follow.

What all of this portends for the future is truly depressing. Yes, the old rules about privacy are dead. But more worrying still is this: there are no rules any longer, just the agendas of those who would clinically manipulate social media.

Neena Haridas is an editor with Marie Claire International