Thursday, November 25, 2010

INTROSPECT, INSPECT, QUESTION, DON'T FOLLOW

I had to come back, to sit with you and discuss an issue quite close to my heart. Consider this a heart to heart between us - my title might suggest that I'm being preachy. Trust me I am not. Once again, I'm trying to be the insider, introspecting with the perspective of an outsider and wondering where the Change can begin from. 
 
I began my career as a broadcast journalist in January 2001. It was the golden age for broadcast journalism. The power of television was what lured me to journalism - not the lure of journalism to television. While many of my peers and friends to date, consider it an inferior medium populated by rhetorical preachers or dumb bimbettes, I still believe Television as a medium is a strong vehicle for views and ideas. 

History apart, the reason why 2001 is important is because over the next 4 years, there was some competitive journalism that followed. Good stories, strong reportage and the coming of age of a number of regional faces - till then only Prannoy Roy and his first bunch of followers had any television recall. News breaks and notching up an exclusive - be it with a visiting cricket captain or even with a film star was counted as a feather in the reporters cap. Those little thrills of climbing up the reporting ladder seem almost like a farce in today's times when Sonia Gandhi's hospitalisation due to a mild fever is breaking news, Hrithik Roshan offering a rose to someone waiting outside his house as a publicity gimmick for his new film is broadcast live!I think primarily it is the lack of strong, gutsy editors with the vision and the courage to make the economics work according to their plans and not vice versa is the biggest bane of television. Individual benchmarks of reporters are like drops in the ocean, you either fit in or ship out. What is needed is a broader editorial culture that does not require a reporter to compromise theirs or their channel's stature by stooping to any lows for the sake of a sound bite, an exclusive story or even some kickbacks in cash or kind from acting as conduits between the deal makers and their signatories.


I strongly believe the Audience cannot sit in judgement of shoddy television and tsk tsk about the state of affairs. If there is a drop in intelligent programming, the viewers have to share blame for laziness creeping into working styles. Viewers of prime time news love rabble rousing, opinionated partisan debates. I have often pondered why when it is merely high on rhetoric and very very low on information and measured analysis. The aam aadmi gets a high out of being part of the crowd that punches down the weak link in the debate,of being one of those in a faceless mob that chanted 'Yes Yes Yes' when a big bully with the power of majority opinion on his side bloodied up a weaker opponent.

News shows and debates are now performances, with journalists exiting out of studios with smirks on their faces and asking a fawning set of fans " Sahi tha na?" Fans and their adoring opinions are cultivated and once a comfort zone is reached - journalists would rather not explore out of their comfort zone. If an Editor A has worked his way to earning the reputation of being a 'nationalistic' then you can be sure that 3 days out of 5 of the week there will be a topic that assures you a jingoistic crusade in the name of nationalism. The 'discerning' junta claim they are aware of the trap he lays by giving a nationalistic twist to every event that is remotely applicable, but come prime time, the remotes automatically tune in to that. My question is Why? 

Excellent programming on Indian television have had to wrap up because the TRPs ( Television Rating Points) weren't high enough. At most editorial meetings in most channels across the country today, stories that do not address 'the target audience' directly are not even touched with a barge pole, irrespective of whether it is a story that the nation needs to know. When the audience has so much power in its hands, is it right to put the blame on the nonsense flooding your tv screens merely on the manufacturers? Customisation has become the buzzword of every commercial venture - marketing decides the editorial thrust thanks to the lack of enough media ventures that don't rate its success or reputation on the basis of advertising money it pulls in. 

Journalists with the fattest paycheques in the industry today are not the best ones - they are the ones you - the audience made into brands by word of mouth and endorsement. They emerged as phenomenons because of you - the audience. So introspect, inspect and question if your choices didn't ultimately create the monsters that you are now so keen to disown. 

It is not enough to say I have never watched any of these shows or that I have total contempt for the people who I'm now glad have been proven to have clay feet. You cannot conveniently link and de-link yourself to the faceless mass called Indian audience. When it comes to sharing responsibility, there is no absolution. 

We are responsible for the rot in journalism, the rot in our entertainment where saas-bahus-and traditions that are not only obsolete but despicable are given a free rein at prime time and looking at the bigger picture - the rampant corruption in every sphere of our society!

The funny thing about India is everyone lives in a glasshouse, so now we have begun throwing pebbles at each others' homes so that the protest is recorded - but no one wants these bastions broken or have to take the pain of rebuilding it. 

Introspect, Inspect, Question..and Please don't just follow.



13 comments:

  1. I think the need to introspect, inspect and question arises, when you see news providers and journalists as the fourth estate, people who were instrumental in spreading awareness and motivating the masses in the pre-independence era. Or If you think of journalists who were ready to go behind bars and yet speak their voices during the undemocratic Indian emergency.
    But today we live in very different times, today news is just another commodity, trying to sell itself for a price.
    Having been a journalist myself, I can sense the feeling of disillusion in your writing, having been part of that early television journalism phase, where story and the facts were all that mattered it hurts to see the way this medium has evolved from being a sharer of information to one giving opinionated gyan.
    I agree when you say that the viewer should take equal responsibility for sitting and watching the high decibel lop-sided views being aired on air, but then aren't we a part of the quick fix generation now? who has the time to read zillions of views, retrospect and come up with a notion of their own which might be influenced by the different voices but is still intrinsic to the holder?
    Unfortunately today morality and truth is not so much about the facts, it is about who is louder and more audible, and who can line up more faces to share their thoughts.
    News today is another Saas-bahu saga complete with the drone, the accusations, the tears and the drama. I think its best to enjoy it as another source of entertainment, some input to share on your multiple social avatars with your millions of followers.

    For the followers of real news, I believe they know where the truth stops and where the storytelling begins.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the need to introspect, inspect and question arises, when you see news providers and journalists as the fourth estate, people who were instrumental in spreading awareness and motivating the masses in the pre-independence era. Or If you think of journalists who were ready to go behind bars and yet speak their voices during the undemocratic Indian emergency.
    But today we live in very different times, today news is just another commodity, trying to sell itself for a price.
    Having been a journalist myself, I can sense the feeling of disillusion in your writing, having been part of that early television journalism phase, where story and the facts were all that mattered it hurts to see the way this medium has evolved from being a sharer of information to one giving opinionated gyan.
    I agree when you say that the viewer should take equal responsibility for sitting and watching the high decibel lop-sided views being aired on air, but then aren't we a part of the quick fix generation now? who has the time to read zillions of views, retrospect and come up with a notion of their own which might be influenced by the different voices but is still intrinsic to the holder?
    Unfortunately today morality and truth is not so much about the facts, it is about who is louder and more audible, and who can line up more faces to share their thoughts.
    News today is another Saas-bahu saga complete with the drone, the accusations, the tears and the drama. I think its best to enjoy it as another source of entertainment, some input to share on your multiple social avatars with your millions of followers.

    For the followers of real news, I believe they know where the truth stops and where the storytelling begins.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I so so agree with u here. it was the 'marketing decides editorial thrust' that u mention here that came as the final blow to my disillusionment in my chosen career...
    But why blame just the electronic media? even newspapers and magazines are doing the same thing. Far from giving news and info that the world needs to know, the media today aims at providing utter rubbish.
    But what can be done to salvage the situation?? treat it as just another form of entertainment? no thanks, it makes me wanna throw up...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Its not news anymore.. its business and entertainment just like any other reality show (which are clearly far from real) and saas bahus (all they have done is create distrust and discord in indian families) ..
    news today has to be quick.. being 24 hours and all takes its toll. and i think the journalists now are not journalists anymore.. they are producers, and they take shortcuts .. but to be fair to the journalists dont we all.. its the way all professions are approached these days. be it a doctor, engineer, mnc professional, journalist, politician, pr person,film makers, sportsperson, or whoever else... this is not just about journalism, its the committment to money and getting the job over with quickly and getting pat on the backs and fan following instead of inner satisfaction and professional excellence tht matters ..but there is always a mix and shall be .. as per my humble opinion, news channels and editors cant afford to ignore their bottomlines and popular demand and shortcuts to journalism, but they should offer a mix .. have a time slot and a small team dedicated to serious journalism minus sensationalism ...
    nids
    www.wizardofthought.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Merlin: true very true. I think we all work on the premise that we are part of a noble enterprise, atleast I never thought I was doing it for the 'power' or even the 'recognition' it got me to enter other fields. Every day that I walked around with the boom, it was done with sincerity. I felt it dissolving when I moved to the desk myself and began working on agendas - however innocently where marketing and TRPs weighed heavier over reportage.

    Rohini: A lot many of our generation were I think caught in the flux - of rapid changes that left us disoreined first and disillusioned soon after. But that has also made us armchair critics with the attitude that 'kuch nahin badlega' so we criticise without thinking whats the way forward.

    Nids: Journalism minus sensationalism needs some gutsy set of journalists supported by some deeply lined pockets - fearless journalism cant be practised with the mythical Democles' sword hanging over your head, threatening to rob you off your livelihood.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is yellow journalism out there, if you ask me. I have stopped watching the news channels since they are airing views and those too half baked and sensationalist. If I feel the need, I prefer the DD these days.

    The glamour quotient of the journalists is too high and that is the cause for the state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Couldn't agree more. It's unfortunate that it's a catch 22 situation where even journalists with a conscience are forced to inundate viewers with banal pabulum just because a section of the audience or economics demands it. At some point someone would have to put a foot down.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I can relate to what you have talked about, considering all the journo scams that have suddenly burst open in the Indian media too. As someone here mentioned, it is now become a catch 22 situation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Zephyr: Would you believe that by the time Headlines Today was launched, the only criteria to become a newsreader was that you had to look pretty, because the news editors were in charge of not only writing your anchor links but also the questions that need to be posed...:) so yes, i must agree the glamour quotient is often a dumbing factor..but that again apparently stems from the audience wanting to see pretty faces read news for them..

    Ashish..Catch 22 for sure, but there must be a crack code somewhere to get us out of this mess - if the junta is the king, then i feel the answer lies with the junta too, doesnt it?

    Sanand: Thanks for taking the time out to read and comment, the introspection on what to do to stem the rot has to continue..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Very nice flow.Good article

    ReplyDelete
  11. Excellent article, agree on the view that we the people are partly responsible for the rot in the standards of media. Some news channels still broadcast most news headline as breaking news without any concern about the information the supposed "breaking news" contains.
    Check this out http://xkcd.com/756/ ... something though comical somehow partly depicts the media these days

    ReplyDelete