Sorry to everyone who has been checking this website and not finding any new posting. It was a grave slip that I didn't put up a notice informing visitors when I'd be back here again. Lesson learnt: whenever I've to be away, I shall keep you posted.
I have been facing many questions regarding journalism. Most of them indicate how the layperson, even a journalism student, is quite ignorant about what journalism is all about. Let me tell you, journalism is just like any other profession. It has many good and bad people in it like any other profession. It's very important for journalism students to get this point correct so that they enter the career with the correct idea in mind.
I have seen many youth come to media with the hope that they can wield the power of the pen -- or the power of information -- and change the world. It'sn't so easy, more accurately that'sn't the way journalism works anywhere. A journalist's power is nothing more or less than the power of a teacher to change a student.
A journalist is reporter, is an interpreter, is a facilitator.
One reason for this hyped up glamorous image is because the reporter is seen entering places where the ordinary mortal does usually get to go, or is seen rubbing shoulders with the powers that be. Remember, this in itself does not give him or her any great power. So, you should not have a wrong impression that a journalist is "very powerful"; though I'd agree that she does get some privileges by virtue of her job on hand.
We shall discuss this as we go ahead. Meanwhile, keep your questions coming in. I'd love to clear all your doubts.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Introduction to journalism
Today I had an occasion to talk to journalism students of a college. It was an introductory lecture of one hour. I focused on how journalism has been changing over the years, mainly because of the technology. I shall devote one post one of these days on that topic of "Changing face of journalism".
I also told the students how a typical day in the life of a journalist goes. How a newspaper, that falls on the doorstep every morning, is put together.
One student asked me what is the difference between a journalist and a reporter. This is a very common doubt many have, because a reporter is only the visible side of journalism. So, many think there's no one other than a reporter in journalism.
A journalist is either a reporter or a copy editor (subeditor). A reporter collects information and write a news item. The editorial desk processes the news item, assigns a level of importance to it and publishes, broadcasts or telecasts it.
Another student asked me if journalism is a dangerous job. My answer was: is it dangerous to walk alone in a lonely area in the night? Some assignments will have inherent elements of danger in them. It's how the journalist approaches it, takes adequate steps to pre-empt any possibilities of danger befalling her.
If you have some questions on journalism, please do ask me...
I also told the students how a typical day in the life of a journalist goes. How a newspaper, that falls on the doorstep every morning, is put together.
One student asked me what is the difference between a journalist and a reporter. This is a very common doubt many have, because a reporter is only the visible side of journalism. So, many think there's no one other than a reporter in journalism.
A journalist is either a reporter or a copy editor (subeditor). A reporter collects information and write a news item. The editorial desk processes the news item, assigns a level of importance to it and publishes, broadcasts or telecasts it.
Another student asked me if journalism is a dangerous job. My answer was: is it dangerous to walk alone in a lonely area in the night? Some assignments will have inherent elements of danger in them. It's how the journalist approaches it, takes adequate steps to pre-empt any possibilities of danger befalling her.
If you have some questions on journalism, please do ask me...
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Who is a journalist?
Does anyone who writes for or works in a journal automatically become a journalist? Do writers also qualify to be journalists? What's difference?
A tough line to draw, the separation is difficult. But some broad differentiation can be made.
Before that, what is journalism?
It's a social science, which chronicles and discusses issues that affect the social, economic and political aspects of a society. It's also a conduit for information concerning these three to flow.
A journalist is one who works on the above process.
Journalists have a huge responsibility, since they track the flow of information, determines "What is News" and gives a sense of importance to different events that take place. They are, to a large extent, the ones who determine what people should read the next day or watch on TV. They sort of set the agenda for the society. They are gatekeepers to information.
As we said above, anyone who writes or controls in some way the transfer of information to the audience, is in a sense a journalist. That's why bloggers are also being identified as journalists.
A journalist is someone who conforms to a number journalistic rules and parameters. What are they?
- Journalist has to be obsessed with facts, and language. She can't go wrong in these.
- Journalist has to make right attribution to facts. Information should be credibly sourced and acknowledged.
- Journalist should be subject to correction. If a mistake is pointed out, it must be verified and a correction put out. This is just to illustrate that a journalist always makes an attempt to check the accuracy of facts.
- Journalist has to have a sense of social responsibility. Well, that is a bit vague. But generally what is implied is: she should be committed to a healthy, peaceful, orderly society and be committed to its development and progress. If a journalist writes about fashion or live-in relationship or same-sex union, well she can't be accused of being socially irresponsible. Because she is discussing a social subject. How she discusses that could well make a difference, and determine if she has breached the restrictive line.
- Journalist has to be fair. Complete objectivity is a myth, since a certain amount of subjectivity does come in. But what we are talking of is balanced coverage. If an accusation is being levelled against an individual, that individual should be given the right to have his or her say in the matter. Reportage should not be one-sided, but should be well-rounded covering many angles of the issue.
- Journalist has be a good communicator. His writing has to be clear, compact and coherent.
These are some of the guiding principles. These are the parameters that make a journalistic writing different from any other. A writer can afford to a bit vague, can take liberties with language, articulation of opinions etc. But journalist can't deviate too much.
So, we can have a few categories to make things clear:
1. Professional journalist: who works for a publication as a full-time or part-time or as a freelancer. She could also be a blogger who conforms to the above parameters.
2. Amateur journalist: who isn't so serious about the above norms. She does more of first-impression reportage, not-so-well rounded analysis of issues. Hers is more of off-the-cuff opinions and viewpoints, often personal.
3. Writers: who write. They could be good, bad.
So, I guess the definition of a journalist is more or less clear here.
Please feel free to interact; ask doubts or post your comments.
A tough line to draw, the separation is difficult. But some broad differentiation can be made.
Before that, what is journalism?
It's a social science, which chronicles and discusses issues that affect the social, economic and political aspects of a society. It's also a conduit for information concerning these three to flow.
A journalist is one who works on the above process.
Journalists have a huge responsibility, since they track the flow of information, determines "What is News" and gives a sense of importance to different events that take place. They are, to a large extent, the ones who determine what people should read the next day or watch on TV. They sort of set the agenda for the society. They are gatekeepers to information.
As we said above, anyone who writes or controls in some way the transfer of information to the audience, is in a sense a journalist. That's why bloggers are also being identified as journalists.
A journalist is someone who conforms to a number journalistic rules and parameters. What are they?
- Journalist has to be obsessed with facts, and language. She can't go wrong in these.
- Journalist has to make right attribution to facts. Information should be credibly sourced and acknowledged.
- Journalist should be subject to correction. If a mistake is pointed out, it must be verified and a correction put out. This is just to illustrate that a journalist always makes an attempt to check the accuracy of facts.
- Journalist has to have a sense of social responsibility. Well, that is a bit vague. But generally what is implied is: she should be committed to a healthy, peaceful, orderly society and be committed to its development and progress. If a journalist writes about fashion or live-in relationship or same-sex union, well she can't be accused of being socially irresponsible. Because she is discussing a social subject. How she discusses that could well make a difference, and determine if she has breached the restrictive line.
- Journalist has to be fair. Complete objectivity is a myth, since a certain amount of subjectivity does come in. But what we are talking of is balanced coverage. If an accusation is being levelled against an individual, that individual should be given the right to have his or her say in the matter. Reportage should not be one-sided, but should be well-rounded covering many angles of the issue.
- Journalist has be a good communicator. His writing has to be clear, compact and coherent.
These are some of the guiding principles. These are the parameters that make a journalistic writing different from any other. A writer can afford to a bit vague, can take liberties with language, articulation of opinions etc. But journalist can't deviate too much.
So, we can have a few categories to make things clear:
1. Professional journalist: who works for a publication as a full-time or part-time or as a freelancer. She could also be a blogger who conforms to the above parameters.
2. Amateur journalist: who isn't so serious about the above norms. She does more of first-impression reportage, not-so-well rounded analysis of issues. Hers is more of off-the-cuff opinions and viewpoints, often personal.
3. Writers: who write. They could be good, bad.
So, I guess the definition of a journalist is more or less clear here.
Please feel free to interact; ask doubts or post your comments.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Bathroom scenes on news TV channel
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
