On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan <che...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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. > This biology lecture would be unnecessary if you care to check what I write about, where, and what tone I adopt. > I would consider the circular logic of "we only serve what the paying > customer wants" grievously mistaken on many counts. > That's an explanation of the profession, as well as recognition of the reality, that you can't write in isolation, without someone covering the costs of reporting and analysis. > Other major users of this fig leaf are the massively profitable and > demonstrably evil tobacco companies and fast food restaurant chains of > the world. > Zzzz. > This attitude is clearly harmful to society. According to you, yes. Otherwise, informed consumers can make informed choices; it is not for you or me to tell them what they should read - or not. Particularly if they're adults. > Who tells the people what > they want? People do not form their opinions out of the ether. > People do decide, once they're adults, on various important issues. They can marry, drive, stand for elections, etc. By the same token, they should be able to exercise their choice about what to read - or not. > 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? > The day journalists are made conscience-keepers of any society, that society is doomed. Journalists are curious people, who want to find out what happened and tell a story. They are not particularly endowed with superior ethical or any other values. > If your principal defense is that journalism is a carrion trade no > better than big tobacco, I wouldn't call that practice journalism. > And that's your comparison, not mine. > 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. > Once again you bring Mr Godwin's Law to life. Thanks. > 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”. > Mahratta and Kesari were campaigning newspapers, meant to fight the colonial rule and ills within the society - like Gandhi's Indian Opinion or Navjivan. Similar examples would be Bhumiputra or Opinion and Mainstream during the Emergency. Those have place on a news-stand, in a society. But you can't narrowly define that as the sole form of journalism. > 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. > You don't have such laws now, so such ferocious responses are not necessary. > 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. > But India is not under colonial rule requiring such "seditious" writing. To some, Arundhati Roy does write "seditious" stuff. And the last time I checked, she has no problem getting published in India. 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? There have been many stories about Irom Sharmila. But yes, more Indians have heard of Sharmila Tagore than of Irom Sharmila. Too many people have heard of Kisan Hazare, not enough have heard of Vijay Hazare. > People like P. Sainath are a rare > breed, almost from another planet. > Something I wrote three years ago. http://www.livemint.com/2008/04/30225139/Media-and-moral-outrage.html. > 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. > Who are you talking about? If it is me, have you bothered to explore what I write about? > 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. > > Fine, will you subsidise fine journalism, then? > Cheeni > > Salil > > 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 > >
