The phrase 'meaningful journalism' sounds quite fascinating. It invokes professionalism, as well as some kind of moral/social responsibility. I think I heard the phrase some four years back and of course heard it again in Page 3. I think, to the journalists it means that they can take pride in their work; to an average citizen, the phrase symbolizes hope. It assures them that they will not be duped consistently. They will know the news as it is.
But news is seldom meaningful when it is reported just as it is. Every event has contexts, purposes, hidden motives, agendas, characters, and all these and more, come in together to make it imperative for the journalist to go beyond just reporting the event. It requires analysis and exploration. Analysis comes with a baggage, personal viewpoint.
Having said that, I would like to point out how 'personal viewpoint' especially in the journalistic profession is very important. The words penned down by journalists are read by many impressionable minds and hence the wrong words can send out a wrong message. What scares me more than insincere journalism, is journalists whose viewpoints show lack of awareness and narrowness of mind.
But news is seldom meaningful when it is reported just as it is. Every event has contexts, purposes, hidden motives, agendas, characters, and all these and more, come in together to make it imperative for the journalist to go beyond just reporting the event. It requires analysis and exploration. Analysis comes with a baggage, personal viewpoint.
Having said that, I would like to point out how 'personal viewpoint' especially in the journalistic profession is very important. The words penned down by journalists are read by many impressionable minds and hence the wrong words can send out a wrong message. What scares me more than insincere journalism, is journalists whose viewpoints show lack of awareness and narrowness of mind.
I cite two examples of such 'personal spaces,' where I feel like questioning the journalists awareness and their broadmindedness (based on specific blogs they wrote), definitely not their professional acumen or solidarity or ethics.
Paras Tomar's blog . Excerpt from 'Of Guns and Houseboats.' Referring to a women's team playing volleyball : "Funny how this team made a statement by just playing the game. And yet somehow.. what they wore while playing it.. went against everything they were trying to prove to begin with! The Games, the outdoor activity, the travelling for tournaments all went in sync with the average kashmiri girl wanting to break out of the stereotype. And yet, the fact that they were ONLY allowed to play that game in their school uniform.- a full white salwar kameez with their heads still firmly covered- reeked of the fact that the institution was making sure they didn't go too far with their "winds of change" ideology."
1. When I read this, my first thought was how Tomar must be defining 'winds of change?' is change a totally external phenomenon ?
2. I was also forced remind myself of the burqa-clad Muslim women who went on a tirade against the western world trying to justify their right to wear burqas.
3. I failed to understand how wearing a salwar kameez spoiled everything else that they sought to accomplish by participating in a volleyball game, a male sport.
4. Are women dressed in burqas not modern ? Or, are they not educated and progressive?
5. Also, what is not clear from the blog is whether the girls would have worn shorts (maybe) had the institution allowed it. Maybe not !!
6. I felt from reading this blog that a change in mindset is very much required at least as far as these assumptions of modernity are concerned. Modernity lies, also in the mind and 'winds of change' would remain a flimsy concept if it were to only remain limited to a change in fashion with changing times.
1. When I read this, my first thought was how Tomar must be defining 'winds of change?' is change a totally external phenomenon ?
2. I was also forced remind myself of the burqa-clad Muslim women who went on a tirade against the western world trying to justify their right to wear burqas.
3. I failed to understand how wearing a salwar kameez spoiled everything else that they sought to accomplish by participating in a volleyball game, a male sport.
4. Are women dressed in burqas not modern ? Or, are they not educated and progressive?
5. Also, what is not clear from the blog is whether the girls would have worn shorts (maybe) had the institution allowed it. Maybe not !!
6. I felt from reading this blog that a change in mindset is very much required at least as far as these assumptions of modernity are concerned. Modernity lies, also in the mind and 'winds of change' would remain a flimsy concept if it were to only remain limited to a change in fashion with changing times.
Hindol Sengupta's blog. Excerpt from "Why I Am Afraid of Mayawati?" (After Rajdeep Sardesai's blog appreciating Mayawati's political strategies I admire the fact that this blog was posted. It shows diversity of view within the same organization which to me appears as very healthy.) "Mayawati's historic victory has left me speechless. And scared. Her victory tells me once again how I, and people like me, have no voice in Indian politics anymore. We, the middle-class, educated, metro-bred, Christian-education raised, young. We, the backbone of the knowledge, entreneurial (spelled incorrectly/typo) economy. We, who have no representation. We have no voice. We have no one who speaks our language, our idiom."
1. If Sengupta appreciates democracy in India then these lines are difficult to interpret.
2. Democracy speaks the voice of the majority and the sooner the 'middle class' accepts it, the better.
3. I am not yet a supporter of Mayawati but I have faith in the masses of India. 'Representation' does not mean, has never meant, that individual opinion wins.
4. Just curious, if not Maywati, who ?
5. Sengupta expresses his faith in Manmohan Singh and also the Gandhis. Have the Gandhis always ruled well ?
6. It is Sengupta's disillusionment that surprised me. In India, where most people cannot afford a metro-bred lifestyle, neither have access to education - should the right to vote be taken away from them ? Cause, to allay Sengupta's fears that seems to be the only solution. Mayawatis will always come back till all Indians do not become middle-class. AND frankly, whom are we kidding ? Mayawati has middle class backing too.
1. If Sengupta appreciates democracy in India then these lines are difficult to interpret.
2. Democracy speaks the voice of the majority and the sooner the 'middle class' accepts it, the better.
3. I am not yet a supporter of Mayawati but I have faith in the masses of India. 'Representation' does not mean, has never meant, that individual opinion wins.
4. Just curious, if not Maywati, who ?
5. Sengupta expresses his faith in Manmohan Singh and also the Gandhis. Have the Gandhis always ruled well ?
6. It is Sengupta's disillusionment that surprised me. In India, where most people cannot afford a metro-bred lifestyle, neither have access to education - should the right to vote be taken away from them ? Cause, to allay Sengupta's fears that seems to be the only solution. Mayawatis will always come back till all Indians do not become middle-class. AND frankly, whom are we kidding ? Mayawati has middle class backing too.
These were responses to blogs. When I reflected on these blogs I felt quite depressed because I assign some level of understanding to journalists. I found their blogs (or the pieces that I quoted here) to be very simplistic and naive. I believe the journalists hold important positions. Just like Prannoy Roy, Rajdeep Sardesai, Karan Thapar have often enlightened/inspired me and others with their words, and changed the face of journalism in India, I wish these new kids on the block, are able to do the same, for the sake of the generation that is slowly getting associated with news channels and news websites.
9 comments:
I agree with you that there is need for more professionalism in journalism in India. What bothers is that highly sought after jobs in journalism whether in newspapers or TV channels now require highly sought after degrees in journalism, and despite that, professionalism is still a rarity.
On a different note, you might like to check out this site: http://www.amightyheartmovie.com/
I am too lazy to read the original blogs, so take your summaries in face value and comment on that.
Veil clad women and all that - Recently I had a long conversation with a British girl of Pakistani origin about these. The point we agreed upon was that any individual is free to choose what she wears based upon her faith and comfort factor in her personal life, in public sphere sometimes its kind of tricky. For example in British schools there has been this ongoing debate about Muslim teachers covering their faces or in India about the refusal to wear Helmets by Sikhs. While a Volleyball game is effectively a non issue, the bigger perspective is undeniably important.
Democracy and majority - I disagree with you on this in principle. In India, especially in Hindi heartland, elections are rarely fought on issues and idea logy - if that was the case I would have completely respected "majority" decisions. However, when its based more on caste and religious equations, and the "majority" of the electorate is uneducated, I'm not sure if the majority is always right.
However, that being said - I have to concur that the other choices were equally bad. At least an one party government would be hopefully be more stable and focus slightly more on development than just survival.
Durba
Thanks for the link. I think journalism in India is making its presence felt everywhere but it appears to be less focussed on quality..
Dipak
I guess we have to agree to disagree. But if you look at my point three (Sengupta's blog) then you will perhaps see what I really found disturbing. I think we ought to respect 'representation.' Or else we will always complain about the eneducated majority, an impossible reality in our country.
Sure...thats is the starting point for any discussion.
And although it doesnt mean anything really, I prefer "Deepak"...
When i was 16, my uncle said to me, and he said it with a certain amount of excitement, i suppose.
he said "there is no such thing as free press" -- even though, since then ive come to realise that, its not an unpopular quote.
I tend to think, i can change all that. Maybe im wrong, or maybe ill just have to wait another two years.
Rahul..
Well I am sure there are no absolutes like that...But YES FREE PRESS...I dont think we can boast of that as yet.
Thanks for the comment. Keep visting.
Deepak. :)
Indian Journalism has changed from seeking to establish a tradition of credibility among readers (and not segmented customers) and being the contrarian in a particular region (The Statesman, The Hindu, Deccan Herald) or nationally (namely the erstwhile Indian Express) to a circulation hungry and ad revenue turnover worshipping enterprise.
The greater the ‘circulation’ – more the ad revenue.
News in India today is a sold to people in places where they buy it. You cannot sell tandoori chicken to most South Indian Brahmins because they won’t buy it. Although, to extend the metaphor, unpalatable as it may be tandoori chicken is what is in the news today.
News is reported with the perspective bias in the channel or paper’s from the reporter to the owner. But the death of news is the result of the drastic localised sensationalism of newspapers.
What is news worthy today is defined by the need to appear culturally and socially relevant to appease your perceived customer. In other words – it is a form of advertising – a traditional idiomatic gimmick used to plug products. The BBC is less euro-centric than Indian English news channels are metro-centric.
The burgeoning news enterprise – absorbs and needs naïve unquestioning modernists who believe in free press and truth…
Hi Lincoln,
Thanks for posting. I am idealistic to some extent but also practical. I do not see anything wrong with realizing commercial goals if one has to run a business.
News channels and newspapers should have a commitment to its people but that does not necessarily bar them from being foolish businessmen.
But yes, I see your concernand I do agree with you. I could not agree more about the 'bias' bit of your comment. The scray thing is. the bias of the journalists are so well camouflaged in their language that the common man is not always able to see through it.
Post a Comment