Has the line blurred or disappeared altogether?

So, finally the can of worms has been 'Open'ed. And the worms came crawling out...slimmy, slippery and gooey; the worms are out there creating a storm of sorts...crowding over the people in the center, as they gasp for breath...to save face from beneath all the worms.... And there you are a silent spectator, watching as the worms slowly eat into everything that you perhaps believed in.

#barkhagate #radiagate... the tags, hashes, searches, the terms may be different..The slimy underlying truth remains the same. That journalistic 'integrity and ethics' are now just restricted to "Key Issue Lectures" in Journalism schools. The can that has been opened now, has brought out different worms-the integrity worm, the ethics worm, the honesty worm, the courier worm etc. These are issues that should have been in discussion long ago. These are issues that need to be talked about openly by editors to cub reporters...but then wait a minute...what does a cub reporter do if the editor is the one at fault here?

This is the land of media. The land of powerful men and women (And please Barkha Dutt cut the 'feminist sexist' crap please!) where the real stories remain hidden and the ones that you as a reader or viewer read or see are just shallow reports. There is an underground cellar here where the stories that need not be and should not be reported are pushed to. Where so-called cub or junior reporters are discouraged from 'investigation'.

This story is not just about one Barkha Dutt who according to her, was 'gullible and missed a story'. But also that of the changing editorial policies of media houses across the country. Where news channels are started with motives, where journalists are no longer the 'watch dogs' but are the 'power brokers'; 'the blackmailers'; This story is of the larger issue of changing media roles. Of a media that is toothless (and deliberately at that) but wealthy. This is the story of the 'fourth pillar' of democracy's changing role to that of 'courier' and 'wealth accumulator'.

It is also the story of the disappearing (or disappeared!) lines between a journalist and a PR person. Of the changing motives of both the sides. Of turning a blind eye to legitimate stories.Of hiding information from the public. This is the story about the fight for unfiltered information.

But, will the media gurus and so-called who's who take the responsibility of clearing the muck thats swallowed Indian media? Do they have the balls to take these issues head on?? Will this issue to be forgotten like the 'paid news' story?

I am a cynic. And i believe that would be the case. Endless blogposts like these would be written, columns published, debates held and a month later, the issue is forgotten. Will 'Padmashri' Barkha Dutt who attacked Manu Joseph on her show last night about his failure to 'follow up', follow up this story? Her own story? Will Vir Sanghvi do that?

And will we remain mute spectators to all the injustices and scams around us?

Tragic Voyerism

May 22 2010 will be remembered by families of over 158 people who died in the Air India accident...It will also remembered for the insensitive and disturbing reporting by almost every news channel in the country. While some channels did tone down their description of the fatal accident, little was done to control the desire to air 'exclusive images and footage' of charred bodies and grieving relatives or putting up 'body count'.

While it was necessary for the media to do their bit in showing the severity of the accident, i found myself asking as a viewer and as a journalist whether it was necessary to show the charred bodies lying amidst the debris. Was it necessary for news channels to air the horrific image of burnt child being carried away? What was the point of blurring the image minutes after airing it? (Many channels like NDTV and CNN IBN did this.)

Death and gore, whether we like it or not, feeds on some morbid fascination humans possess and accidents like this brings out that out among the opinion maker and seeker. Be it the Mumbai carnage, the Aarushi murder case or the Nithari serial killings, the media coverage was appalling and remains appalling. And with the pressure on to bring 'first live images' and 'exclusive images', editors and those in charge no longer seem to ask vital questions: is it necessary to show the whole body?

Or could the footage have been shown in a less traumatic way-for instance with emergency workers huddled around the charred bodies Many might argue that the footage was shown more to perhaps highlight the work being done by rescue workers. But does that truly justify showing it?

Was even the slightest thought given to how the family of the child would have felt or of viewers at large. In our attempt to 'highlight important issues' and to show 'things as they are' we are perhaps falling into the trap of 'desensitising' the larger public by sensitising events like this. How many of us truly cringed when we saw the disaster?

But then there might be instances when photographers might capture powerful and newsworthy images that might depict the anguish of events one covers-of loved ones waiting to hear tragic news or people rushing towards the spot of tragedy.. Though the emotions might be on public display, certain photographs may feel like an invasion of privacy to some readers and those photographed. And these are instances, when an editor has to take a call on how to handle these photos.

For instance, during the Gujarat riots, the image of a crying man with his hands folded touched a chord with almost every one who saw the image and the photograph managed to capture the full intensity of the carnage without actually showing the victims. However, was the photograph that was published in almost every leading newspaper today of the child necessary?Or could it have been avoided?

Then there is also the question of thinking about the family and their reactions to such disturbing photographs and footage. The mother of one of the air hostess who lost her life in the accident is yet to be informed of the tragedy. The father, for the sake of his wife's health was forced to disconnect the cable connection even as relatives tried to keep the over-zealous media out of the house. The need to get 'reaction' of family in their time of grief needs to be tamed and it depends on the self-control of the reporter in question.

Even under pressure situations, I think, one needs to place themselves in the shoes of the family before barging in on them with cameras and mikes to get that sound byte or quote. I remember an instance where i was asked to go the family of a MS student who was found murdered in the US. The family was in shock, the mother weeping uncontrollably. One Hindi channel reporter with little regard and respect to the family members thrust her mike in front of the weeping mother and asked her 'how she felt', even as the cameraman invaded the privacy of the household by getting footage of the house, of photos of the girl who lost her life etc. Where does a journalist and a cameraman or photographer draw the line?

There is also the question of how one plays the photo. Newspapers have stopped considering carefully how to play a photo once a decision is made to publish a disturbing photograph. Take for instance, today's New Indian Express and Eenadu which published gruesome photos of the tragedy on page one. Were there no less-sensationalising photos available? Was it necessary for these papers to publish these images? Was little thought given to how the families and readers would react to the photos and the rights of the victims. A better way of handling the dilemma would have been to publish a less disturbing photo in the front page with a disclaimer warning of the content of a photo in the inside pages.

We are living in a world where there seems to some sort of vulgar display of suffering, almost like a pornography of suffering. And it is at times like this one needs to exercise self-censorship. But then with TRP's ruling the roost, i really wonder if we as journalists and viewers will ever see such a day of restrained reporting.

Reality Check

When i started this blog in January 2008, it was started with a purpose. To enable people to read my articles and reports on my experiences following the covering deprivation trip to Vidarbha.Soon, i added a couple other reports and at some point it also turned into a personal diary with lot of my random thoughts becoming a part of it.

But this is not a random blog post. Nor is it a fun one. It is a serious one. Perhaps it might be at some level be rhetorical. But it certainly is a post which aims to do what this blog was meant to do-a reality check of our times.

And this time its a reality check of media houses. If you are tired of reading criticism about Indian media you are most welcome to close the window and walk away. If you are wondering where this leads to..read on. Ps: This is purely my perspective gained out of my experience in the media industry.So, If anyone gets offended reading this, you are welcome to ignore it.

It's been almost two years since i have joined one of India's leading English dailies and been a part of the media industry. I had never imagined media to be clean industry and had heard tales of corporatisation of media, of manufactured consent and what not. But to face it in reality far from the lectures and seminars was something that i was perhaps not fully prepared for.

For all our rhetoric about freedom of speech and expression, the fact remains that media industry is perhaps one of the many industries where freedom of expression and speech are hardly exercised. There is no scope for wider discussions and debates among reporters, more so if there is a hierarchy at place. As a journalist you have the right to question everything and anything, except your own editor or your paper's editorial policy. You have no freedom to challenge a viewpoint or present your perspective. And if you do chose to exercise this constitutional right, then you will be bringing upon yourself wrath. So, at the end of the day..all this hype about "getting truth to people" falls flat because you are not allowed to write truth-not the plain truth at least.

Most papers hide under the garb of being just, neutral, objective, apolitical and what not. But most media houses are quite opposite to that and that includes even self-proclaimed objective papers which believe in 'plain reporting'. The agenda, is often hidden under all this self-righteousness and rhetoric. And those who do 'real reporting' are shown the middle finger. Most media houses are corrupt and stink of nepotism and egoism at its worst can be experienced here. And journalists are as good as stenographers or glorified Public Relations Officers selling their souls by typing out reports and press notes.

And the power of 'Power Seat' corrupts them all.The media which goes on and on about corrupt politicians, society and questions and analyses how 'Power of Kursi' corrupts people should do a reality check and have some internal analysis. And no this doesn't mean having a seminar where the so-called and self-proclaimed journalists sit on a dias along with other 'intellegentia' to discuss this.

Like old politicians (not wise-old), the senior journos too are not open to perspectives from 'juniors' or 'youngsters'. And these youngsters who i think should ideally be used to the fullest extent are relegated to frustrating menial jobs..and so you are caught in a vicious circle of frustrations..anger etc.

News sense: This is another aspect that really worries me. We are living in a world where romps by Swamiji and greying Governors are aired prime time and published as front page news. Where 'issues' are relegated to third, fourth and sometimes district editions. Where real news is used as fillers and meaningless reports and press conferences cram your daily newspaper and news channels. As an opinion maker, media has forgotten its role of analysing the news and simply dump its viewers and readers with 'infotainment'. Every rule in journalism is broken every single day by countless papers and channels and no one questions or critiques them. Sensationalism has reached a nauseating level and we will do anything for TRPs even expose rape victims or publish photos of rape victims in our so-called attempt to get the truth out.

Objective news analysis are far and few in between and opeds by so-called Magasaysay winners fail to address the issue internally, in their own organisations. Journalists and media houses don't waste a minute in criticizing and at the same time are highly intolerant to criticism of any sort. Honest straightforward opinions are not welcome in this industry. Real stories are squashed because your boss's friend may be in the thick of it all; And meaningless reports are given space because it concerns your boss's friend. Some reports are killed because you don't want legal complications (read you may lose ads!) and a couple others because you don't want to offend the sentiments of the readers. Question all this and you are in a soup. And you are cooked in the soup in a slow,painless manner!!

Of course the 'higher-ups' remain oblivious to all this. While some papers do all this by wearing multiple masks, others do it shamelessly and blatantly. There is absolutely no intelligent reporting and majority of news that you read or watch is absolute nonsense. Reams of paper and hours of prime time is wasted on talking about inane issues which are not issues in the first place.

Price rise is discussed but the real story behind price rise is hardly told by anyone. Why doesn't anyone report on the food-stock that is wasted every year? Or talk about the tons of pulses that are exported as cattle-feed? Why doesn't anyone tell you that USA has access to our traditional seeds through a brilliant -'Knowledge Exchange' programme? Why doesn't anyone tell you that hundreds of children are employed in cotton farms by Monsanto, Bayer etc? And why doesn't anyone report fearlessly on how shamelessly soft drink companies are allowed to exploit ground water resources in this country just to 'quench the thirst' of those who can afford them?

Till two decades ago, journalists were a feared lot. Journalism was a honourable profession. 2010 A.D journalists are 'people who can be brought' and are not feared. Journalists are people who throw tantrums if they are not given 'complimentary' gifts, passes and tickets. Journalists are people who will threaten you with an 'expose' for personal gains.

Of course, what do i know about journalism? Am after all a 'junior'.