Last week there was a flutter in media circles in India as one TV news channel telecast clips of a well-known actress while she was in her bathroom of the jail she was lodged in. The actress's counsel moved the court which then directed the TV channels not to telecast the clipping. (Source of the news item: click here.)
The issue here is whether a news TV channel can telecast such a picture which is embarrassing to the actress and which may be unsuitable for family viewing. Even if the intent of the channel was to give out the shocking news item that a woman's bathroom in a jail had a hidden camera, there was no need for it show the offensive clip. The TV channel was unethical and wrong in showing it. The peg of the news item should have how even jail authorities colluded in getting the camera fixed and not the visuals from the clipping.
The channel too should have been pulled up and even prosecuted for breaching rules and propriety. A news channel or news publication can't violate well-known and well-accepted limits of human decency. Journalism doesn't give anyone a licence to do anything and everything under the excuse of objectivity and showing reality.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Two sides of a coin
Even though I have done a number of reporting assignments, I have always been associated with the editorial department. This is a side of journalism not visible to the outside world. So much so that I have difficulty introducing myself. The first question people ask me is: what do you write on? What is your area of specialisation? Writing news items is not my job, but sitting on judgement on news items is.
The layperson knows only the reporter. The image the word journalism brings to an ordinary person is that of an reporter sticking out a mike or busy jotting down notes. But journalism is much beyond a reporter.
To make it very simple: a journalist is broadly either a reporter or a sub-editor. They are the two sides of the journalism coin. One difference is while a report is written by one person, the reporter; the report is processed not by one person, but by a group of persons who belong to the editorial desk.
After the reporter writes the report and gives it to the editorial desk -- commonly referred to as just desk -- the report passes through a number of stages before it finally appears in print. Some of the stages are:
* Its importance or newsworthiness is assessed
* It is edited for clarity, coherence, accuracy of facts, language, conformity to laws etc
* A headline is given
* It is slotted on a page
This blog will, in coming days, attempt to discuss various roles of both the reporter and editorial desk.
The layperson knows only the reporter. The image the word journalism brings to an ordinary person is that of an reporter sticking out a mike or busy jotting down notes. But journalism is much beyond a reporter.
To make it very simple: a journalist is broadly either a reporter or a sub-editor. They are the two sides of the journalism coin. One difference is while a report is written by one person, the reporter; the report is processed not by one person, but by a group of persons who belong to the editorial desk.
After the reporter writes the report and gives it to the editorial desk -- commonly referred to as just desk -- the report passes through a number of stages before it finally appears in print. Some of the stages are:
* Its importance or newsworthiness is assessed
* It is edited for clarity, coherence, accuracy of facts, language, conformity to laws etc
* A headline is given
* It is slotted on a page
This blog will, in coming days, attempt to discuss various roles of both the reporter and editorial desk.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Journalists, not prosecutors
During my tenure as a journalist, I have been asked any number of times: "Sir, why don't you do something about corruption. Only the media can do something..."
Undeniable in this request is the faith the commonpeople have in the media. Even though many may complain that media is sensational, puts out wrong news etc, news as it appears in the media has a huge amount of credibility riding on it, and people have a feeling that media is very powerful. Incidentlly, media is designated as the Fourth Estate after Legislature, Executive and the judiciary.
In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned a full meeting of the "Estates-General" to the palace of Versailles. The three estates gathered. The First Estate was 300 nobles, the Second 300 clergy and the Third, 600 commoners. Later, Edmund Burke, looking up at the press gallery of the House of Commons said: "Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all." (Source)
It's good to talk about the power of the media but at the end of it all the media is almost always a conduit for information. It's a messager of sorts. It's not a prosecutor. It can highlight problems of the society, suggest ways of reformation, set agenda for the rest to discuss and debate, itself articulate opinions and views, but it has no power vested on it to prosecute let alone punish wrongdoers in a society.
The real power of the media is in the message it carries, the ability of the message to move people into action.
Undeniable in this request is the faith the commonpeople have in the media. Even though many may complain that media is sensational, puts out wrong news etc, news as it appears in the media has a huge amount of credibility riding on it, and people have a feeling that media is very powerful. Incidentlly, media is designated as the Fourth Estate after Legislature, Executive and the judiciary.
In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned a full meeting of the "Estates-General" to the palace of Versailles. The three estates gathered. The First Estate was 300 nobles, the Second 300 clergy and the Third, 600 commoners. Later, Edmund Burke, looking up at the press gallery of the House of Commons said: "Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all." (Source)
It's good to talk about the power of the media but at the end of it all the media is almost always a conduit for information. It's a messager of sorts. It's not a prosecutor. It can highlight problems of the society, suggest ways of reformation, set agenda for the rest to discuss and debate, itself articulate opinions and views, but it has no power vested on it to prosecute let alone punish wrongdoers in a society.
The real power of the media is in the message it carries, the ability of the message to move people into action.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
India political crisis and media
I have a feeling that the current political crisis in India over the Indo-US nuclear agreement wouldn't have been this grave if there weren't these many mediapersons hounding political leaders. The struggle for information -- craving for it by the deprived and pressure to give away or not to give away by those who have info -- is unprecedented. This struggle is not helping anyone in anyway.
I was watching some of media conferences on TV. Gosh! what all questions the reporters had. One of them was asking Sitaram Yechuri, "Can you give an assurance that your party will not withdraw support to the government." He then said, "The issue is not the government but the nuclear deal."
Another one was heard asking on another occasion, "Will the government fall?" The answer, "Wait and see."
For each vague answer of one politician, the media rushed to the opposite camp to get a reaction. Again a vague answer. Again rush back to the other camp to ask what they have to say about the new vague statement!
While the questions have been clear, not one of the answer was. With so much vagueness all around as to what the Left is going to do, it was only natural that journalists were spinning all sorts of theories. Coming to think of it, I wouldn't blame journalists!!!
But, media editors could have done one thing: they could have applied their discretion a lot more and got these statements of all and sundry through a good filter and treated them on merit. Why give so much publicity to such vague statements.
I was watching some of media conferences on TV. Gosh! what all questions the reporters had. One of them was asking Sitaram Yechuri, "Can you give an assurance that your party will not withdraw support to the government." He then said, "The issue is not the government but the nuclear deal."
Another one was heard asking on another occasion, "Will the government fall?" The answer, "Wait and see."
For each vague answer of one politician, the media rushed to the opposite camp to get a reaction. Again a vague answer. Again rush back to the other camp to ask what they have to say about the new vague statement!
While the questions have been clear, not one of the answer was. With so much vagueness all around as to what the Left is going to do, it was only natural that journalists were spinning all sorts of theories. Coming to think of it, I wouldn't blame journalists!!!
But, media editors could have done one thing: they could have applied their discretion a lot more and got these statements of all and sundry through a good filter and treated them on merit. Why give so much publicity to such vague statements.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Welcome
I am a journalist, and the prime reason for me to launch this blog is to track the changes in the fast-evolving world of journalism.
The intended audience of this blog:
- students of journalism and mass communication
- professional journalists
- amateur journalists, that's the big community of bloggers
- and, anyone who is interested in journalism.
Thank you for the visit. Please come back to this page, as it uncovers and redefines JOURNALISM.
The intended audience of this blog:
- students of journalism and mass communication
- professional journalists
- amateur journalists, that's the big community of bloggers
- and, anyone who is interested in journalism.
Thank you for the visit. Please come back to this page, as it uncovers and redefines JOURNALISM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
