Journalists are the physicians of the nervous system of society - it's not enough that they medicate the symptoms, but it's imperative that they cure the disease and guide the patient on the path of good health. I would consider the circular logic of "we only serve what the paying customer wants" grievously mistaken on many counts. Other major users of this fig leaf are the massively profitable and demonstrably evil tobacco companies and fast food restaurant chains of the world. This attitude is clearly harmful to society. Who tells the people what they want? People do not form their opinions out of the ether. In an increasingly informed secular and scientific age, a single prime-time news reporter or journal forms more public opinions than any pastor ever did preaching from the pulpit. How then can one gainsay the responsibility of journalism for public morality and conscience? If your principal defense is that journalism is a carrion trade no better than big tobacco, I wouldn't call that practice journalism. I associate journalism with a fine tradition, of the likes of White Rose, with the motto "We will not be silent" whose authors were executed by the Gestapo after only their sixth publication. I think it's fitting to quote these words from the first edition of White Rose:"If everyone waits until the other man makes a start, the messengers of avenging Nemesis will come steadily closer." Though I prefer to associate Indian journalism with finer examples like "swadeshi mithran", "Kesari", "Induprakash" and the "Mahratta", even the first newspaper to be published in India, the "Bengal Gazette", formed in 1880 with the rather ordinary objective of selling advertisements felt the need to lay claim to journalistic impartiality with this founding statement - “a weekly political and commercial paper open to all parties but influenced by none”. Indian journalism of that age operated under draconian laws such as the Gagging act and then the even more powerful Vernacular Press Act, and yet the publications remained fearless and spoke the cause of truth. But for fearless journalism by more than one dozen Indian publications despite the real threat of jailtime and execution, the Company practice of misappropriating princely states through minority administration would never have come to light. Tilak went to jail for writing the truth. If the newspapers and media organizations of today had done their job then as many people would have heard of Irom Sharmila as they have of Anna Hazare, but is that the case? People like P. Sainath are a rare breed, almost from another planet. In an information age only second to the age of Gutenberg in significance, merely publishing the odd story or two of consequence while remaining safe from physical or financial harm is hardly praiseworthy. Journalism today is the inheritor of hard won freedoms that people have given up their lives to protect. To run it like it was a business of selling french fries is just not on.
Cheeni On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Salil Tripathi <sali...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some responses, interspersed. > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan <che...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I'm not an expert in anything, and therefore I suspect I am eligible to >> hold opinions on everything. >> >> If the newspapers and media organizations of today believe in the "pen is >> mightier than the sword" rah rah rah, and, I know most of them claim to; >> but, if, _if_ they are really interested in leading social change as the >> fifth column and all that, then it's really simple, they must do their job. >> > > Leading social change is not the responsibility of the media. If they can > report social change properly, that's good enough. > > >> >> When newspapers promote salacious content over news, they become tabloids. >> When the writer would rather entertain the reader, he becomes an >> entertainer. If it isn't intellectual dishonesty that the newspapers of the >> world are guilty of, then it is dereliction of duty. >> > > They promote salacious content because readers want them. Entertaining a > reader is not a bad function. I don't think it is dereliction of duty > either. Most stories that people say "matter" more, are being written. If > people at large don't want to read them, or do something about what they've > read, how is it the media's fault? > >> >> Newspapers have the moral authority to raise their voice when things go >> wrong, or as is more often the case when things don't go right, they must >> act with emotion and passion, and show the cause has reason, and most >> importantly they must tell a story. >> > > Newspapers have the responsibility to report as objectively and humanly as > possible what's going on. Their editors may wish to express their opinion > one way or the other. There is no reason they should back causes that are > described as moral. As we now see with the Hazare movement, it was never > nonpartisan, but a calculated, cynical anti-UPA movement. (Nothing wrong > with that motive either). > > >> >> The art of storytelling is at the heart of the business of journalism. To >> trigger an emotional response in the reader, based on facts, to cause >> action. >> >> The journalism trade has sadly become the 'house negro' of its economic >> masters. >> > > ?? Its economic masters are advertisers and in turn readers. If that's what > privately-owned media is responding to, that's fine. You'd be surprised at > the number of newspapers which write stories that are technically against > their owners' interests. > > >> >> I adore the BBC for the independence of voice it's often been afforded - >> there isn't a comparable voice of reason in India. > > > The BBC's biases are quite well-known; it isn't bad, but it has an > undeserved reputation as the neutral voice. There are many good media > outlets in India. I do write for Mint and Caravan, but both have high > ethical standards and are not sensationalist; I like a lot of what I see in > some other outlets in India, and if I had more time in the day, I'd probably > want to write for some of them. > > >> >> I'd love to see a website or a radio station that rallied for the cause of >> truth become a part of the news landscape in India. > > > What's the "cause of truth"? Which newspaper has not covered the corruption > scams, the tragedy of Kashmir? How do you know about Irom Sharmila? > >> >> This is all the more important in India, a fascist state where a truly >> independent voice would feel the jackboot. >> > > Yes, as troubles Tehelka faced shows, there are many ways in which the > Government can harass the media. But how many people signing up for Hazare's > campaign are going to start buying newspapers so that they can be more > independent of "corporate" support? > >> Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom as the saying goes. >> >> If you feel strongly about being an honest journalist, then write. No one >> will give you permission to begin. >> > > Write what? Many of us continue to write about many of these issues. > >> >> Write about anything you feel strongly about. The deplorable lack of free >> press is a fine starting point. >> > > Thanks. > > Salil
