Before the advent of the internet, every middle class home in Bombay would get the Times of India or to a lesser extent the Indian Express, on a daily basis. The Free Press Journal appealed more to the working class, one of the reasons being it was the least expensive.
The Times was a classic without being elitist. If you walked pass the cottage homes that abounded in Bandra, you would inevitably see a reclining chair on the front patio with the man of the house peering into the Times in the stretched cross legged position. Coverage was good and even though the international items were mostly canned stuff from Reuters, API and PTI, the paper had some brilliant opinion pieces from India's well known names whose writings were highly respected by decision makers as well as readers. They also had their own foreign correspondents in important world capitals. The standard of the Times was superb with the editorial desk manned by people who had either a British education or were alumni of India's top English schools, quite a few of whom were Goans, who reached the newspaper's very top. Language, grammar, expression and word flow were all top of the line and the paper had an international reputation, being held in high esteem by even the Times of London. Fast forward to the present time. Hardly anybody reads print newspapers anymore. The reasons are in part, going digital, too many ads, too many pages, proliferation of free information and people using their reading time for other seemingly to them, more important activities. It's a Catch 22 situation. Less resources poured into print means declining readership. Less readers lead to less revenue. By the way less readers also amount to less knowledgable people who are specialists only in their own narrow field. You just cannot read a digital article in the same manner as you peruse a print daily newspaper, unlike of course you are a cyber mole like Goanet's Frederick Noronha. If you want to see what I mean, talk to a college educated senior citizen whether from Bombay, Goa, London, Toronto or wherever and then compare his company to that of today's college grad. The negative difference stands out like a sore thumb, when due to the enormous progress we have achieved, the opposite should have been true. Those were generalists then, you will say. But they did much more justice to important functions, I will point out to you. What they built then, more than just bricks and mortar, lasted longer than what they "build" today. Perhaps another reason for the disparity is the increasing chasing of wealth rather than high ethics or morals. Money is the bottom line today, the Mover Almighty. Then, a lasting reputation was the be-all and end-all. Money was just incidental to the old folks. You never chased it, it just followed you. The Times today is a caricature of its former self. It bleeds in the things that earned its reputation. Most of all the grace and beauty of the English language suffers at its hands. I think The Hindu of Madras has more than replaced it. Goodbye the once sweet Old Lady of Boribunder. Your sari is in tatters. Roland. Toronto. Sent from my iPhone
