Whither responsible journalism?

The Indian TV screen appears to have taken away the image of the crusading journalist who fearlessly campaigned for a cause and investigated leads to come up with disclosures, which satisfied (i) the journalistic urge of the writer, and (ii) made for good and informed discussion among the readers/viewers of today.

What has emerged instead is eager newbies focused on getting ahead in life (definitely nothing wrong there), happy to rub shoulders with both the ‘important’ and ‘damned’ of the moment. Volume and sensationalism have eclipsed understanding of issues and therefore real content. It follows therefore that anchors often end up missing the substance of any issue, which requires extensive research to be well understood, and in turn often misinforming the public. The discussion is sometimes limited to asking the various participants (with opposing views) to simply respond to statement of other members of the panel, with almost no contribution/insight/direction from the anchor.

Probably somewhere in the process of riding the media explosion, our brand of journalism has forgotten the research support that needs time, commonsense, and a thorough understanding. The objective appears to be conflict rather than informed debate, with a copious helping of sensationalism. A thick skin definitely helps!

While the entire pattern of dissemination of news on round-the-clock channels has necessitated sensationalism to an extent, competition and greed have ensured half-baked and me first news. The latter is particularly visible in anchor-driven shows where spokespersons of political parties—mercifully not all—bare their political biases and their desire for power even if at the expense of misinformed propaganda.

As if some of these politically motivated individuals were not enough, the modern news anchors have jumped into the ‘Great Indian Misinformation’ race, albeit with the least monetary benefits compensated in part by public recognition, which provides them the opportunity to rub shoulders with the influential and the ‘connected’ (the not-so-common man).

Journalism and news gathering at one time had similar noble credentials in society as those ascribed to doctors and the like. However, what we have today is not paper journalism but the instant and masala 24/7 TV journalism. The instant nature of the news—and the mandatory sensationalism to sell it—requires the ‘blink’ as opposed to the ‘think’ type of coverage. While the misinformation may not be deliberate per se, it does arise out of a known incompleteness of knowledge (and possibly understanding), which the concerned journalist could/should do well to acknowledge via a disclaimer. In the process, the journalists lend themselves to becoming agents of misinformation, agents of interested parties, and agents of their own biases. The last aspect would not necessarily be a major issue, but the quality of today’s anchors leaves much to be desired, apart from their ability to sensationalize the most mundane news.

The above may appear to be too harsh and generalized a commentary on the ‘aam’ journalist. However, it is not necessarily directed towards the eager, zealous, and aspiring young journalist trying to make a mark. It is directed at those who have already arrived and present themselves as the fountainheads of knowledge and the saviors and keepers of India’s moral ethics.

It is pathetic to see news anchors of two major channels display their poor and completely inadequate knowledge of the subject under debate. This aspect is brought out best when the ‘guest’ happens to be well clued in to the subject, and reaches all-time highs when the ‘guest’ is a suave and veteran lawyer politician. The senior of the two journalists (recently in news for innovative journalistic techniques) managed to handle the debate marginally better because of brashness and a thick skin, more than anything else. Case in point is the recent telecom scandal, which in many ways triggered this article as well. Kapil Sibal did an outstanding job—rather belatedly—of bringing out the complexity of the issue and providing a firm context to all the allegations. But how many of the viewing public will appreciate and remember the real issues at stake? Not many, given the barrage of conflicting and half-researched information already served to a less-than-discerning public.

So whither responsible journalism? How is a journalist any better than a politician who routinely misinforms the public at large and in particular the population, which forms the pillar of parties other than his own. As said earlier, the little and incomplete information the journalist has is packaged as a complete, well-researched piece that can awe the average guest on the show and an audience with short memories. It requires the occasional politician/thinker with facts and figures at his fingertips, which can upset this ‘packaged’ applecart.

I do not quite know how to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to anchors and talk shows, but there must be a methodology of rating anchors factoring in various aspects of an anchor’s abilities that include knowledge, experience, and unbiasedness particularly in the case of sensitive matters. Similar considerations are due for guests on these shows – it seems rather surprising that some familiar faces tend to pop up more often than others. Finally, a good cross-section of opinion can be made possible by also taking into account certain details of viewers who can vote on their evaluations of these shows. To start with, the studio audience cannot, and should not, remain just a passive consumer of what plays out.

And finally, coming to the rather obvious question, why does all this upset me so much? I find it criminal to see such blatant misinformation spread through TV to large audiences who have no other source of knowing the truth.

Wake Up India !!

——————————————————————————————————-

A guest post by Ajit Grewal, who keenly follows broad political issues as portrayed on TV and is keen on impartial and accurate portrayal of issues aimed at informing, and not just attracting, an audience. more about Ajit

Posted in motley fuel, two cents | 3 Comments

Welcome Ajit, our first guest blogger

At the risk of sounding unduly formal, I take immense pleasure and pride in welcoming Mr.Ajit Grewal as the first contributor to this blog/site. He brings with him multiple decades of global experience in banking and credit risk management. In recent years, he worked with a microfinance firm in his effort to be part of a socially conscious and noble initiative, much before the industry entered its latest bout of troubles.

I came in touch with him during my few years at a research firm I was engaged with until recently. He made me truly appreciate the irreplaceable value of experience and an approach to management that rests on commonsense and careful thought.

I welcome him to the site and am sure you will find his articles thought-provoking, to say the least. His frank unbiasedness, grounded in years of observation, will strengthen the core of this site, which aims to break the mold and look beyond the obvious.

If you are interested in contributing to the site, please click here.

Posted in motley fuel | Leave a comment

Clients don’t like surprises

Over the past years, I have worked with a variety of small and large institutional clients both as part of delivery and sales teams. In both capacities, the one thing I have realized—and sometimes rather painfully—is the value of keeping client stakeholders in the know. Most often, providers find it counter-intuitive to share the bad stuff with clients, assuming it would cast their abilities in negative light. Sometimes, secrecy may well be required depending on the implications to the client’s business. However, that should only be the exception and not the norm – something that most providers don’t tend to appreciate. In my experience, this is even more visible in outsourcing relationships, particularly the offshore kind. Clients naturally harbor certain apprehensions about offshore providers, especially if the relationship is not sufficiently mature. To top that, providers withhold what could otherwise build a different level of trust and understanding between the stakeholders.

The other school of thought, which I subscribe to, is about transparently sharing the good and the bad in realistic proportions. Clients don’t like surprises; in fact, no one does. If something has gone wrong, go ahead and accept it; take the extra effort to have that difficult discussion instead of avoiding it. If not immediately, clients will appreciate it in due course and possibly empathize with your constraints. Even better, if the discussion leads both parties to collectively resolve a matter that could otherwise end up in an nonviable or strenuous solution, which—in no way—helps either. Don’t forget that even B2B relationships are all about people at the end of the day, and people like to be kept informed. Also, do remember that in the prevailing internet age, the repercussions could be far too embarrassing and irreversible if the client gets to hear of the issue from other sources. That—for most practical purposes—could be the virtual end of any trust that you may have built until then.

Posted in commonsense mgmt, two cents | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments