Editorial:-
The debate over what constitutes ‘proper’ journalism has always been frenetic, growing even more so in the present times of a multitude of 24-hour news channels from diverse backgrounds addressing diverse audiences with their own spin on reportage. Be it Opinion Polls or Exit Polls on national news channels or raising of issues and coverage of public meetings in local newspapers, grand debates have been held over which media provided balanced reports and which has been too sensational or which news report subverted 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. The sheer scale of information available is so huge that it becomes difficult to fault one when they start ‘editing’ for space or time constraints. Priorities, after all, differ from person to person and different people will receive the same news differently. Matters get complicated when journalism puts a spin on information and manipulates, in Bollywood fashion, the audience. Come on, news now comes with background music on television for instance, hence all debates on journalism are valid and even necessary. It is important for the audience to evaluate the media, critique its role and even, from time to time, weigh its significance. This will keep us sharp and accountable, because admittedly, sensationalism is stealing space from significance too often in newsrooms and copy. Take for instance the Republic Day address of the President and how most news channels had reduced its essence to a comment on “populist anarchy”, completely ignoring other references which will affect people more significantly since the comments covered the socialist underpinning of governance. The President remarked that the “State is not a charity shop”, “the illegitimacy of questioning the sanctity of defence forces”, “opportunistic coalitions eroding the trust in governments and resource loot” etc [read accompanying essay on this page for details]. No channel focused on these comments, so yes, please discus us more often.
Journalism is essentially about reportage, and not so much about the greater disputes of rights and wrongs. And not because journalism has no responsibility towards propriety and other social virtues, but because it is not advisable to have the messenger also play the role of the judge because doing so will encourage distillation of information to suit individual biases. Rights and wrongs and resolutions are challenges which require application of serious and deep thought, and a reporter, by virtue of her/ his job-description is not expected to be the expert with all the solutions. 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, however, resolve conflicts by suggesting remedies. They do so by providing information since in most cases, conflict exists in the absence of information and abundance of misinformation. Once all sides have access to complete information, they become equipped to work out solutions. 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 are known to release selective information causing many journalists to stumble [in the long run]. 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 journo? Information, at the end of the day should serve the needs of the people and not individuals. And there are still those who think journalism is easy and simple?
The debate over what constitutes ‘proper’ journalism has always been frenetic, growing even more so in the present times of a multitude of 24-hour news channels from diverse backgrounds addressing diverse audiences with their own spin on reportage. Be it Opinion Polls or Exit Polls on national news channels or raising of issues and coverage of public meetings in local newspapers, grand debates have been held over which media provided balanced reports and which has been too sensational or which news report subverted 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. The sheer scale of information available is so huge that it becomes difficult to fault one when they start ‘editing’ for space or time constraints. Priorities, after all, differ from person to person and different people will receive the same news differently. Matters get complicated when journalism puts a spin on information and manipulates, in Bollywood fashion, the audience. Come on, news now comes with background music on television for instance, hence all debates on journalism are valid and even necessary. It is important for the audience to evaluate the media, critique its role and even, from time to time, weigh its significance. This will keep us sharp and accountable, because admittedly, sensationalism is stealing space from significance too often in newsrooms and copy. Take for instance the Republic Day address of the President and how most news channels had reduced its essence to a comment on “populist anarchy”, completely ignoring other references which will affect people more significantly since the comments covered the socialist underpinning of governance. The President remarked that the “State is not a charity shop”, “the illegitimacy of questioning the sanctity of defence forces”, “opportunistic coalitions eroding the trust in governments and resource loot” etc [read accompanying essay on this page for details]. No channel focused on these comments, so yes, please discus us more often.
Journalism is essentially about reportage, and not so much about the greater disputes of rights and wrongs. And not because journalism has no responsibility towards propriety and other social virtues, but because it is not advisable to have the messenger also play the role of the judge because doing so will encourage distillation of information to suit individual biases. Rights and wrongs and resolutions are challenges which require application of serious and deep thought, and a reporter, by virtue of her/ his job-description is not expected to be the expert with all the solutions. 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, however, resolve conflicts by suggesting remedies. They do so by providing information since in most cases, conflict exists in the absence of information and abundance of misinformation. Once all sides have access to complete information, they become equipped to work out solutions. 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 are known to release selective information causing many journalists to stumble [in the long run]. 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 journo? Information, at the end of the day should serve the needs of the people and not individuals. And there are still those who think journalism is easy and simple?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are invited to comment on, criticise, run down, even appreciate if they like something in this blog. Comments carrying abusive/ indecorous language and personal attacks, except when against the people working on this blog, will be deleted. It will be exciting for all to enjoy some earnest debates on this blog...