The Bengal Post / The Hoot, 25 November, 2010
Media is all about rights. So when it wrongly feels wronged, two wrongs give it the right to censor news. Pity, no one can blackout what is, literally, in the air. So a total ban in the mainstream media notwithstanding, many of you have read the transcripts and heard the tapes of the telephonic conversations of a professional lobbyist with a few renowned “journalists” on the internet.
Among the bigwigs heard are two almost iconic faces -- a columnist better known for his discerning palate and an anchor for her opulent screen energy. Soon after the tapes became public, both expressed shock at how some vested interests were trying to hear too much in what were routine, polite parleys with a news source.
Since none of them dismissed the tapes as fabricated, I thought it gave lesser mortals in the media fraternity an opportunity to learn the fine art of chatting up a source from their two very successful colleagues. So when a student of journalism asked me what to make out of the tapes and the subsequent clarifications, I told her she should not hesitate meeting the two media icons asking for a job once she got her degree. But she had an immediate concern. Working on a course essay on ethical reporting, she wanted to score a point by touching upon the tape issue. Shameless, I saw an opportunity.
If she was keen to scoop a government decision, say, on a few mining bids, I told her, she must do whatever it took to be in the loop. No matter if it required helping the mining lobby influence a few bureaucrats or a minister or taking an underhand offer from them to the industry, but she had to be always on top of the story.
But, the bright little thing asked, did it not make a bigger story that both sides were engaged in dubious bargaining on an issue that was supposed to be decided on objective merit? Hell, that was not her story, I told her, and that was not ethical either. She must stay with her story, whatever the temptation, and facilitate it along the way so that when a much-bargained decision was arrived at, she became the first person to scoop, well, only the decision. Was not that the story she had set out to do?
The expression on the young student’s face told me she was not convinced. I blamed my presumably limited communication skills. Why, the energetic anchor stated pretty much the same in her defense and I am sure she would not have done so unless she expected the world to understand and appreciate the point. Surely, allocation of cabinet portfolios was the news, not the dirty arm-twisting or compromises made behind it. She could not have been insulting her viewers’ intelligence; come on, not again.
A little disappointed with myself, I decided to have another go. If she ever gets important enough, I told the student, and gets to write columns to influence, I meant, guide her readers, she should learn to both retain and lose her humility.Noticing her quizzical expression, I quickly explained that she should always be open to education and should always hardsell the reach and impact of her columns so that people find her worth educating. Come on, game changers are expected only to write on everything, not know everything. Besides, from Confucius to Dalai Lama, all wise men seek a teacher in everyone they meet. So every source matters, however dubious. She should listen to each and, as part of her learning, take a few dictations every now and then.
Almost excited, she said she always thought it was a great idea to put all viewpoints in a piece. How she broke my heart. I sternly told her that she would never make the cut if she did not learn to master the authority to choose which viewpoint to present. It was all in public interest, I went on to explain, and it was her duty to tell readers or viewers what is right. One could not make it big by shunning big responsibilities, even if that meant scripting and rehearsing an interview to make it appear, what else, right.
Midway through this conversation, a baby-faced friend of hers had joined us. Watching her leaning against the table with a frozen smile, I really did not see it coming. The moment I paused, she let go.
Picking her words with care, she told me that she could shove those tips you-know-where and that she was in fact quietly listening so far just to figure out what an old you-know-what like me (that was alright since she could not have been more than 22) thought about those two. Before I could protest, she dismissed one of those two as India’s most self-important foodie who made little impact and less sense, and the other as the Tulsi of English news TV minus the jewellery.
As I stared bemused, she fired away. When did those two last do any reporting, the true test of a journalist? Not columns or reviews or chat shows or breast-beating at disaster zones but hard news reporting?
But then, I pointed out, that even abroad, most star reporters, Pulitzer and Emmy winners, usually got promoted to appear as presenters in big reporting shows (like 60 Minutes on CBS) that were in fact researched and scripted by their producers who were fine journalists themselves. She sized me up with a cold look. Could I please point out one 'Pulitzer-type' story done by either of those two?
I would have really broken in a sweat but she relented with a smile, offering to make my task easier. Could I think up any news worth its headline that those two ever unearthed (she chewed the word to emphasize), news that nobody knew till exposed?
Then, her smile broadening, she abruptly left with her slightly embarrassed friend, admonishing her within my earshot: “I know your media types. There was no point debating if those two flouted any journalistic ethics. Get a life!”
Oh, yes? I sat there, slowly finishing my coffee already gone cold. Maybe there was no point fretting over the stance of the mainstream media either.
Tell you, these kids are not funny.
Author is an independent journalist
No comments:
Post a Comment