Indian Media : Comfortable in its Contradictions

[pup030]

Dear Friends,

Think of my words that follow as a juxtaposition exercise, contrasting what bothers journalists about the way they see journalism being practiced today with how they are trying to improve it coupled with the lament of the ordinary citizens and the impression about media in general.

What you will see, I think, is an entirely different vocabulary being developed in reporting, writing and purveying information -- entirely different from the labels that have been applied to these efforts. And all this has happened more so after the onslaught of newer news channels in India beaming into our homes.

Let us start with one of the most common complaints of people who can read between the lines and are consumers of print and electronic media and essentially their common complaint is the extreme position taken quoting a “reliable source” though the fabled reliable source which the media quotes never does exist and remains just that “a Ghost”.

Now let us start with one of the most common complaints of journalists: That our news coverage, in striving for that journalistic grail of "balance," has instead become "bi-polar."

Journalists have gotten into the habit of focusing on the extreme viewpoints on a subject, the warring interest groups, the challengers vs. the incumbents, the areas of disagreement rather than the areas of agreement, the areas of conflict rather than of consensus. Indeed, conflict is the way we define many news stories.

The media knows exactly who to call to get the quote or sound bite to "balance" the story -- to get the "other side” but that is hardly done instead if it is a women’s issue the breast beating brigade always gets more sound bite which at times is out of context and the other side is left somewhere lost.

But happens if there are more than two sides? What if neither side really represents the views of most citizens? What if many people find some merit in the arguments of both sides? How does the media report their voices in the stories? What if some people are still working out how they feel about an issue and an extreme position taken by the media traps and locks them in, midway through the process, with a snapshot quote when they are not yet finished working out their feelings?

In India the media seems to have forgotten that balance is achieved at the midpoint, not at the poles. I had a rough experience recently and that was the beginning of this write up.

I have joined jatland around 15 days back and feel the quality of debates getting a little hollow spare for the few on national defence etc and the relevant issues do not get the attention which they deserve.
Let me know what you feel.

Dhiren Singh
Advocate

[rkumar]

Dear Dhiren,

Your observations are fairly accurate. I have been following media from almost all over the world. I notice the same thing everywhere. Chinese have their way of reporting world events, which follows a set pattern. India media makes lots of noise till issue is there, but reports nothing how the issue has been settled and what all went into settling it. I have read many anti India articles where source of study are people like Subramanium Swami. It seems many of these reliable sources are nothing but the people who have vested interests in the way story is printed. It’s a big game. More you read, more you know its extent. I think till Second World War they used to call it Propaganda ministry and not the information and broadcasting ministry. Trust me, it all remains mostly propaganda.

Rajendra

[virmaramjyani]

I Do Agree With Both Of U.. Phougatji N Rk Ji.

[raj2rif]

The real problem with the media is that the journalists have forgotton their basic job. The basic job of the media is to report the event as it has happened and not their opinion. In most cases the media expresses the opinion and that is not a good reporting. Further, the media is also subservient of the investors who fund its daily functioning. We say the Press is free, but is it really free? Gone are the days when the media was a service, today it is a business. Look how the war goes on getting the broadcasting rights for a cricket series while there would be hardly any bidders to cover the news at the border or in difficult regions where the weather and terrain itself tests the human endurance.

What it all has led to? I would say the credibility of the media is becoming questionable. Media some times acts like a power broker. Many a time if a reporter is not given access to an event he/she reports it negatively. I remember there was a faishon of displaying "PRESS" sticker on the vehicle to get past most of the checking points. Media is also responsible for spread of terrorism. If media does not make the issue sensational the terrorists would not achieve their aim. The front page news in the media usually are how many killed and where killed with big photos. Another front page news would be either reporting a cricket event or a film event. That has been the trend and it is continueing as it sells.

Media is a very purposeful service for any nation. The freedom of press is very important. Unfortunately it is being used by the influential people to boost their personal interests and by media to generate big revenues. The national interests and nationalism has been lost some where in the crowd.

[ramksehrawat]

Most of them are loyal to one or the other political party and their reporting is accordingly influenced. In Mani Shankar Aiyer's words they are "failed civil servants", i.e. those who could not enter into civil services and hence a frustrated lot.