aditya kumar's weblog

Yesterday evening, at Reliance Timeout, for launch of Dilip D’souza’s book, “Roadrunner”, there was a very insightful conversation that happened. We had the author along with India’s best historian, Ramachandra Guha and Rahul Dravid talking about India, America, about few of the the many dots that connect the two democracies and how this particular book tries to find answers while attempting to understand America from an Indian’s eyes.

But while at it, I picked up P.Sainath’s, “Everybody Loves A Good Drought”. Sainath is probably the only journalist who has worked extensively in India’s most rural districts and has, time and again, attempted to bring out the causes of the poorest of India’s citizens. I first heard about Sainath when Vidarbha was at boil over farmer suicides (I have written about Vidarbha here). The land is still at a boil and with Telangana’s formation imminent now, they might be justified in asking for a separate state as people at helm of affairs in Maharashtra and people in media have conveniently ignored Vidarbha’s problems. But all this, despite being fodder for thought is another topic altogether.

So Sainath, in the introduction of the book, emphasizes that while India’s hunger “would not make for the dramatic television footage that a Somalia and Ethiopia would do”, that is precisely the challenge before a journalist because, I quote here, “while malnourished kids may look normal, yet lack of food can impair their mental and physical growth in such a way that they suffer its debilitating impact all their lives”.

And then there is the case of the “Number of poor”. Back in 1993, the Government of India set up an expert group to estimate the people living below the poverty line. The group, after arriving at a figure of 39% (people living below the poverty line) also recommended changes in the way the Government used to estimate poverty. In a later survey, discrediting the recommendations and the figure arrived at by the expert group, the Indian Administration came at a figure of 19%. But the story does not end here. In the time that was between these two figures, a few months, the Government of India cried out aloud in the World Summit for Social Development at Copenhagen — they presented a figure of 39.9% of people below poverty line. Why? More poor, more Donors, more money. No rocket science, this.

The year this happened was 1994 but aren’t we dealing with the same problems, 15 years on?

Coming back to the conversation between these three great intellectuals that I witnessed yesterday, there was one question from the audience, regarding India still being a developing nation and not a superpower. As a part of the response to the question, the author questioned back — Why do we need to be a superpower? Ramachandra Guha seemed to agree with it and while reading Sainath’s commentary in the introduction to his book last night, I found the answer in the question — Why can’t we be a better democracy first?

We may be the world’s largest democracy and be proud of it but we are far off from being a good democracy. I think its an obligation to each and every well-wisher who is a citizen of this nation, be it you, me, an ordinary citizen or a politician, to make the world’s largest democracy a better democracy. When that happens, maybe I’ll be much more content drawing parallels between the world’s oldest democracy and the largest one.

Times of India’s website, timesofindia.com carries a report on how the late Andhra CM, YSR Reddy met a sudden death on his Bell chopper. The report also carries a picture of the body of the CM, that was found by the search party after more than 24 hours of the chopper’s disappearance.

The picture is probably the most horrifying picture I have ever seen of the deceased, put on a leading newspaper’s website — charred remains of the body of a man beyond visual recognition. A link below the picture takes the reader to another two photos, one of them of the diseased pilot. Its gory enough to make the average human feel sick.

As I write this, the story has about 37 comments posted by people like you and me. Out of these 37, at least 26 people have condemned or requested (or both) the TOI editors to remove the picture of the corpse as it defies sensitivities and sensibilities. The comments section is moderated by someone at TOI, surely not someone like you and me — for moderation means that the comments are read. And since the picture is still there after about 48 hours of the story, it probably means that someone at TOI does not give a damn.

But yes, the story features in the “Most commented” section of the website.

I think responsible media organizations draw their own lines in reporting and journalism. Ideally, I think every single word and picture that goes into the website should pass through the same filtering that is applied to its counterpart in the print media. I raise up this point because the same article in print, in yesterday’s TOI’s copy does not carry this gory picture. Clearly, the filtering mechanism, if it ever existed for Times Of India’s website, failed here. And since the forum below the article at the website is moderated, it would be a safe assumption that the comments of the readers were read but those guys at the TOI chose to discard them. It is dangerous — a newspaper is supposed to be the people. Is this newspaper run by insensitive incompetents?

But among all things, it baffles me what TOI has achieved by letting this picture be a part of their online article. Does a degree of real life horror and vulgarity help them getting more hits? And more comments? Even if the comments are nothing but a collective condemnation of the report?

PS: Some people say that this is what people want. This horror sells, just like sex. But I am not buying that. I do not think that this is permissible. I think what TOI did was an exploitation of lack of the laws which could have censored those pictures. That is exactly what I meant when I said that media has to draw its own lines. One cannot keep ignoring this because TOI has always done “things like this” before. Well, I don’t think so — I don’t this has ever happened before, I think this was a new low. Do you think there will be people who will suddenly switch to TOI, the newspaper, after they see this picture on their website? How will it help TOI, I wonder, apart from getting those few more clicks?

A story that I think is needed to be told is at Dilip’s blog. I won’t give a summary of what lies there but let me ask you this — In a religious place and one of the country’s most beautiful monuments and a tourist attraction — a place that is frequented by millions, why is it considered OK to call the assassins of the Country’s Prime Minister, martyrs? Published in The Hindustan Times, the story, from Dilip’s blog here.

There was a recent story on CNN-IBN about a murder in broad daylight in East Delhi. What was peculiar about it, from the journalism angle, is that they showed scenes of the dead body lying on the street. There was no panic situation (as there is, in times like a bomb blast) while the camera focussed on the dead body, as if it was a commodity to be screened long enough for prime time. As reported, the police had failed to turn up before the press found out about it and there was no one to take control of the happenings at that point of time.

I think this is where journalism crosses the line. It is this line that electronic journalism needs to honor but fails to do so. It’s disappointing and perhaps alarming that the news channels find it so difficult to respect the dead. In a bid to fill the prime time slots, these channels go overboard. There have been enough voices raised by bloggers and by a few journalists of the “old school” kinds but clearly no one is listening.

All this while, the print media is dipping to lows of a different kind. Print media houses are essentially organizations that intend to make profit and they need to target a particular audience if they are to be in the market. In a bid to capture this audience, newspapers tend to disassociate with values they earlier stood for. The writers and articles that once formed the elite of the newspaper are compressed and done with in two pages.

So what we have, in the end, is basically something like those 10 pages that come as a “supplement” to the main newspaper. The first and the last pages usually have photos of skimpily clad women and news of their (not so) private affairs. I was in Delhi and I think it was in the mid-90s, initiated by The Times of India, that the “supplement” started to come 7 days a week with the main newspaper. A few months later TOI had eaten into Hindustan Time’s share. HT couldn’t bear it for long and what soon followed was a total overhaul (thats what they call it) of the look and feel of Delhi’s most popular Newspaper. Changes didn’t restrict themselves to the supplement. The whole newspaper, soon, had hardly any relevant news.

I know some people who start their morning reading the supplement first. I know some who read just the supplement. Now, many would say that this is what the people want. People asked for it and thats what they are getting. I think that argument is crap. People never asked for it.

It is not the people who have been calling the shots. It is the publication itself. You take up an aggressive marketing stance. Then, you feed people with the most irrelevant news that you can find on the planet and you continue feeding them that. You go to schools and you distribute the newspapers with supplements, free, to kids in the name of education. The kids grow up and by that time they are so used to your newspaper that…well, they start reading only the supplement. Then you claim that this is what people want. And, this, is just one way of doing it.

Even then, my problem is not with how a newspaper looks. My problem is that the quality of writing that makes up the newspaper is not of the standard an editor can look up to. I don’t have any problem with the photos that take up most of the space but I am concerned with the quality of the text that lies in the space that remains.

Another point: Blogs are serious competition to newspapers. Blogs vis-a-vis Newspapers; Not as sources of authentic information but for something as basic as quality of prose. The difference between the reader that you were 10 years ago and the reader that you are now is that you have less time to read. And if you spend most of that time reading blogs, shouldn’t Mr. Newspaper editor be concerned?

The Sunday Times of India, page 14 “Spotlight | Instant IQ”, a feature called “Guru Gyaan” has the heading “About a Boy” and talks about one Kurt Cobain. Everything fine except for the fact that it has been copied, verbatim, from Wikipedia’s page about, no prizes for guessing, Kurt Cobain.

Wikipedia’s page on Kurt Cobain here.

It’s copied as is. TOI has not even attempted to get away with it. Over the years, this newspaper has been caught plagiarizing so many times and yet it does not change anything at the editorial desks of the daily. This surprises me. Whats even more appalling is that this is happening at the national level, not in city supplements. At least the Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad and the Mumbai editions carry it.

Another thing: The article has a line saying, “Cobain struggled with drug addiction and the media pressures surrounding him and his wife Courtney Love”.

This, under the heading, “What makes him cool?”. Wow, now this is something so “cool”.

Most news channels yesterday night, beamed “Breaking News”. What could it be, I wondered? Another bomb blast? Some Natural calamity? Turned out, Aishwarya Rai had agreed to marry Abhishek Bachchan. And what breaking news it turned out to be. Heartbreaking News rather, for all those Aish fans.

My life has changed since then. It will never be the same again. Afterall, the giggle goddess has finally zeroed in on one man and it has turned out to be a matter of national importance. What a drastic turn of events. Aby’s baby has finally found his baby. Oh, I am so sorry dear Salman and Vivek..oops, Viveik..err.. Viviek.

Live feed of the marriage could be hitting your TV screens soon. Tell you what, can’t wait for that one too.

Karan Thapar is one of the toughest journalists to be a part of the Indian Media. I know people who hate Karan Thapar for what he is, for he is a wee bit too assertive on his candidates, he is even harsh at times. But that’s alright, ask any journalist and he will tell you, one can never make everyone happy. It’s the call of this profession, you make enemies as much as you make friends — in fact, maybe more.

Karan Thapar is not always an overly aggressive interviewer. There are times when he needs to be harsh but then it’s the case of fighting iron with iron.

For example, the interview on CNN-IBN tonight, in which he had a tête-à-tête with The Supreme Court’s Senior Lawyer Ram Jethmalani. Now, Jethmalani, as I know, likes to come on TV, loves to grab attention and has been involved in “startling revelations”, but lately this seems to be coming at the cost of his morality, ethics and what not.

That is the point of the whole interview. That is the nucleus.

Little doubt in my mind that this was one of the most explosive interviews taken by Karan Thapar. Some Excerpts:

Karan Thapar: You have been there several times as a customer.

Ram Jethmalani: I have seen Tamarind Court once.

Karan Thapar: Several times you have been to Tamarind Court. Several times you have been to Tamarind Court. You have been seen by people in Tamarind Court and you have been to Tamarind Court to even ask for drinks when drinks weren’t available.

Ram Jethmalani: No. No. No.

Karan Thapar: Yes. Yes. Yes.

More…

Karan Thapar: Do you regret the collapse in your standard?

Ram Jethmalani: I am sorry. I regret the collapse of the character of people like you that you try to please some people and you are here to please them and not conduct a legitimate gentlemanly interview.

Karan Thapar: If I am asking questions that are so preposterous, why are you losing your temper?

Ram Jethmalani: I must lose my temper. I am entitled to lose my temper.

And then the big one:

Karan Thapar: But the point I am making is a simple one. There may be many things in papers that you have alleged have been published. You are using them as your defence, but do you have to fall so low to use every dirty trick. That’s the point I am making. Are there no principles that you uphold? The morality you observe.

Ram Jethmalani: I am sorry, Karan. You are taking advantage of my hospitality. You are in my house that’s why I don’t want to tell you that. You are falling to low of every kind of standard of morals of an anchor and a television interviewer. You are taking advantage of the fact that you are in my house and that you are my guest. Otherwise, I would throw out somebody here.

Though words shall not recreate and do justice to the intensity of the interview, I still urge you not to miss the full text version of the interview here.

Thapar treads dangerous paths, igniting the minds of the people he interviews in their own homes, provoking them to an extent as witnessed here. But, there is an element of confidence that never eludes him. I understand the tremendous amount of research he must be conducting before any interview. But this is not about the basics of journalism, we are way past that. This is something else and I think his experience serves him well.

I saw Karan Thapar once, I think it was back in 1997, while we waited outside Delhi’s only multiplex for a movie to start. He seemed to have no company, just like me. During those twenty minutes of waiting, a nervous I, toyed with the idea of talking to him but ultimately decided against it. I think the only thing that prevented me from talking to him was his on-screen persona. For twenty minutes, a black suited Thapar and I wasted time, together.

God, what would I not give today, to have a five minute talk with him.