The supposed blame for the problem here cannot and should not be squarely put on the media.
Reason 1: HOW IS THE SHOW RUN?
We need to understand that news channels and publishing houses no longer run on the patronage of good minded philanthropists as they used to during the coinage of the term 'fourth estate'. Today it's a business and money needs to be minted in order to survive and to pay the journalists their exorbitant six figured salaries. And lets face it 300 crore for a 3 column article is at par with a half page page-1 ad.
Secondly: WHO ALL RUN THE SHOW?
Now that it's been established the money rules the roost we need to look at the journalist institutions differently: to begin with remove the halo. During the non-election times they go around bashing politicians left right and center over developmental issues, environmental concerns, security issues et al but do we ever stop to think "Where the hell are the pvt players?" "Why is Buddhadeb being bashed and Ratan Tata not?" "Why is Ms Meena being slit to pieces and not the owners of POSCO?" The reason is simple. During the non election season its the corporates who are clandestinely funding different media concerns (many partly owning them too). Now the media concerns are mere pressure groups who like any other in a pluralist capitalist economy are pushing their vested interests. Like any other pressure group they have to take sides. They need to keep the funding magnates as well the policy makers in good humour. If we need to haul up the politicos we need to haul up the bigwigs of the corporate world too. Can we do that?
Reason 3: CAN THE BAD BOYS BE DONE AWAY WITH?
No we can't. The possibility of bashing the richies and the neta sounds good; a bit too good, tethering on being romantically utopic. If we try to amputate all the so called corrupt-ors the snow ball would turn in to an avalanche. Let me explain how. The average technical maintenance of a news channel is anything between 10 crores to 100 crores per month. Without the flow of dough the technology would necessarily have to be scaled down thereby say hello once again to bad reception, glaring backgrounds and hello ugly old haggards who should be sitting at home and not anchoring prime time news and good bye to on spot reportage and covergae of the back of the beyond zones. Next the rise in salaries has given a competitive edge to the quality of entrants. Earlier in the day (say about a decade or two ago), for the majority (I am not denying the presence of the Barkha Dutts and the Rajdeeps but they are not running the show alone) journalism was for people who could not crack the civil services. It was a second hand profession. "I could not do anything in life. No problem I will become a journalist." Therefore remove the dough and hardworking set of intelligent buggers shall stop taking journalism as their first career option. Are you or I willing to make that compromise in quality. I am not.
Reason 4: THERE ISN'T A SINGLE PRISTINE PAPER/CHANNEL!
The absence of even a single neutral channel or newspaper is phenomenon the cause of which is not just the absence of ethics/values. Let's see which organisations can we term the most ethical (chuck neutrality). I'd say The Hindu and Tehelka. Mr Ram's political allegiances our more than evident and his take on neutrality went down the drain when not even one anti CPM article was published during the famous Nandigram/Singur days. Tehelka; lets put it this way Mr Tejpal was drowning and his life support tubes had been mangled by the BJP. Instead of fading away, the website went on to become a national magazine. Reason! The Congress bailed him out and since then he has survived on the pleasure of the INC. Technically with the low circulation as is of the Magazine, Tehelka should have ceased to exist long ago. Hence proved that 100pc ethics and neutrality is utopian and is not practically possible. Why? Because no money, no honey!
Reason 5: ARE ADVERTORIALS FACTUALLY INCORRECT?
Coming now to the issue of printing advertorials during elections. I have read many such advertorials and I am sure even you have. There is indeed a free flow of adjectives but tell me how many of them are factually incorrect (the point in consideration here is veracity not partial or incomplete truths). None! So journalistically speaking what's wrong. You might pick up my last ending parenthesis and say half truth is a lie too but in defense of the journalists I'd say that the topic of coverage for the party or neta is chosen wisely enough to ensure that there's nothing but positive but of course we know that there is a second side too. Well coming to that, articles like this very topic which we are discussing can have many opinions so why cant a journalist have his or her own opinion driving a story?
Reason 6: JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE JOURNALISTS DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE ETHICS OVER SURVIVAL!
The same way a Doctor is meant to be selfless and treat all patients alike but does not in the same way there is a gap between the expected and the practicable in the field of the journalism too. I remember; one of my closest friends who used to cover Business in the same organization where I worked, came up with an earth shattering news against Mukesh Ambani. The management clearly told him: Sorry we cant carry this story because they (RIL and co.) are our investors (euphemism for masters).
Therefore giving teeth to paper tigers like the Press Council of India or amending People's Representation Act is not going to help. There's no panacea for this. Like everything else it's a matter of compromise. This is bad (ethically speaking) but for God's sake this is survival and its the fittest who shall survive. As long as the media continues to raise issues of day to day concerns, as long as the Barkhas and the Goswamis bash our politicians for their ill doings, as long as we are informed, as long as the Parthsarthys tell us about the woes of rural India, I see no harm in making this compromise.
P.S. Not to forget there's one channel which has no advertorials/paid news whatsoever - DD NEWS - Is it your favorite channel or option for news? Is it the best media group according to you?
-----------------------------------------
Pritish Mukherjee believes he has poetic abilities. However, presently, he is more inclined to be a "Bengali Babu"; i.e. a Civil Servant. We have stolen this analysis from his blog
No comments:
Post a Comment