Media owners are bound
to device unorthodox options. But journalism is defined by the choices
journalists make.
While
it took the collapse of the Sharadha group to bring the plight of journalism
under focus, tainted money and dubious motive have been running scores of news
organisations. Such owners and investors make unethical demands of journalists and find enough takers
among the greedy, the gullible and the desperate in the profession. While this flourishing
trend is the latest blow to media’s credibility, her-master’s-voice brand of
journalism existed long before Ponzi scheme operators started eyeing the
industry.
Remember that New Yorker article on the business methods of The Times of India group that hit the
stands last October? In an industry where
everyone claims to be holier than the rest, it inspired snorts and whispers of
vindication: Didn’t we know!
Though
the so-called Times methods have already been tried by many other groups with
varying success, many love to believe that a single media management desecrated
the sanctity of the editorial by making it subservient to the marketing and
circulation before unabashedly redefining newspaper publishing as an
advertisement business. Of course, the
group’s business philosophy was unorthodox. But then the choices made by so
many in its acceptance were no less so.
When
we criticise doctors for prescribing needless and expensive drugs and tests, do
we give them the benefit of doubt that they might be under pressure from the
private hospitals they work for or are attached to? Do we exonerate lawyers
when they take clients for a ride, and target their firms instead? Is a corrupt
or disgraced politician forgiven because he could not step outside the party
line?
If
not, why should we sympathise with journalists as victims of big money that
makes corporate or political advertorial of news? Every journalist, from an
inconsequential trainee to a mighty editor, has the option to say NO when asked
to run marketing errands or to go soft on big advertisers or to toe a political
line. Some stay silent to hang on to their jobs. Others join the game to chase
ambitions that are not really journalistic.
In
most news organisations, extra-editorial control over content is commonplace.
Elsewhere, editors became de facto owners and their new identity subsumed much
of the old. While TOI, HT or Zee are examples of the first scenario, The Indian
Express, Hindu or NDTV represent the second lot. Understandably, the wall
between the editorial and the management is mostly of archaeological interest
today.
The
owners of the Times group is also blamed for introducing the concept of paid
news in India. But glitzy city supplements were up for sale long before
Medianet came into being. Each slot had fixed prices and everyone – from
department heads to page-makers – was entitled to his or her designated share
in the spoils. All the Times group has done is to deny its staff these illegal
perks and organise the trade to generate more revenue than the most
money-minded journalists could ever make.
Besides,
almost every bit of paid news that appears on the Times group’s
film-fashion-lifestyle sections is also carried by other newspapers on similar
pages. Unlike the Times group, others seldom, if ever, mark these pages as
advertorial. So is the Times group pulling off a marketing coup by charging
clients for items that others carry for bona fide news (or entertainment)
value? Or do other organisations or their staff also levy a fee, quietly, for
creating space for such items while cribbing about the Times group’s
brazenness?
The
truth, however, is that more than paid news, what fuels this pyre is the paid
silence. There is no worse misinformation than absence of information. It
breaks the fundamental promise of journalism. Yet, deeply entrenched corporate
interests and a desperate dependence on ad revenue frequently and easily gags
our media.
For
example, there is very little in the mainstream media on people’s protests
against land acquisition. Vedanta, for example, makes more headlines for
winning corporate awards than for breaking the laws of the land. No mainstream
media risks scrutinising the infrastructure giants such as the DLF or the JP
group. Even far lesser companies, who together form a formidable advertising
base, remain untouchable. And yet we flog the now-fallen Sharadha group for
pandering to the Trinamool Congress.
Much
of these compromises are perhaps inevitable. But does it make sense for, say,
the cream of our English press to be bullied into silence by, say, high-end
builders who must anyway advertise in those publications and channels to reach
potential buyers? With all its command over the grassroots that decide
elections, should the vernacular press be wary of political intimidation? The
megalith of business and politics cannot survive without an outreach system but
can it create a credible substitute overnight if the media puts its foot down?
No,
and yes. No, if the majority of media houses together defend a few core
positions. But since most of them have voluntarily conceded those grounds, a
huge media platform that does not fuss about meeting journalistic standards is
already in place. That makes the stands of less-compromising media outfits
important but almost inconsequential.
An
industry can make such broad shifts only when the majority of professionals
undergo a similar transformation individually. No media house could have slid
to a conveniently compromised position had the majority of its journalists
refused to play ball. Since most of them did not, the rest were easily done
away with. The result is an advertisement-driven media run by corporate and
political PROs posing as journalists.
No
doubt a lot of good journalism still happens in India -- both in the mainstream
media and in its margins. As the socio-economic churnings intensify across the
country, the tradition will only flourish. There is talent and it is easier
than ever to become a journalist (get a media job) in India. Unfortunately, it
is also getting easier by the day to cease to be a journalist while being on
the job. The real danger facing journalism is our readiness to appear more
loyal than the (pay)master.
No comments:
Post a Comment