Editorial: News is Information

Never has the debate over what constitutes proper journalism been as frenetic as it is nowadays with the multitude of 24-hour news channels addressing diverse audiences with their own spin on reportage. Of late, starting from the Anna phenomenon to the recent Centre-Army situation, this debate has become even more frenzied. Grand debates have been held over which channel [newspapers not so much] provided balanced reports and which has been too sensational or which news broadcast exposed a lack of journalistic ethics. The debates will never resolve because journalistic ethics are not codified enough to throw absolute answers on what is right and what wrong. In fact, journalism is, at its core, essentially concerned with reportage and not with the greater disputes of rights and wrongs. These are concerns which require application of serious thought and journalists, by virtue of their job-description, not expected to be experts with all the solutions, but expected to be equipped with the right tools to convey the story. That does not go to say that reporters cannot help in resolving issues. In fact, this is what a good journalist should be committed to. They do not resolve conflicts by suggesting remedies, they do so by providing information since conflict is born from communication gaps. Once all sides have access to information, they are also equipped to work out solutions.
This is also where journalists differ from politicians. Politicians, given the paranoia that comes with the post, hold their cards very close to their chests. They also thrive on misinformation and this is where a committed journalist could play a constructive role - by disbursing authentic information. To disburse information, however, a journalist is required to procure it first and on this path are the most pitfalls. Since information has to be sourced, there is always the danger of a plant. People with personal vendettas on their agenda are known to dish out selective information and many journalists stumble. While the general argument goes to say that information is information irrespective of where it came from, a journalist is expected to glean through it carefully. If at all someone needs to let off a shot, why should it be from the shoulders of a reporter straight into public domain. Whenever journalists speak of “self-censorship,” this is what they mean. Information, at the end of the day should serve the needs of the public and not individuals. The self-censorship mentioned here deals only with deciding on what needs to be thrown in the public domain and not whether it is palatable or not. Any news, good or bad, which needs to be broken, should be. As for the audience, they should understand that news is about information first and not all information can be sensational. Information is supposed to tease the senses into engaging...