Some responses, interspersed. On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan <[email protected]>wrote:
> I'm not an expert in anything, and therefore I suspect I am eligible to > hold opinions on everything. > > If the newspapers and media organizations of today believe in the "pen is > mightier than the sword" rah rah rah, and, I know most of them claim to; > but, if, _if_ they are really interested in leading social change as the > fifth column and all that, then it's really simple, they must do their job. > > Leading social change is not the responsibility of the media. If they can report social change properly, that's good enough. > When newspapers promote salacious content over news, they become tabloids. > When the writer would rather entertain the reader, he becomes an > entertainer. If it isn't intellectual dishonesty that the newspapers of the > world are guilty of, then it is dereliction of duty. > > They promote salacious content because readers want them. Entertaining a reader is not a bad function. I don't think it is dereliction of duty either. Most stories that people say "matter" more, are being written. If people at large don't want to read them, or do something about what they've read, how is it the media's fault? > Newspapers have the moral authority to raise their voice when things go > wrong, or as is more often the case when things don't go right, they must > act with emotion and passion, and show the cause has reason, and most > importantly they must tell a story. > > Newspapers have the responsibility to report as objectively and humanly as possible what's going on. Their editors may wish to express their opinion one way or the other. There is no reason they should back causes that are described as moral. As we now see with the Hazare movement, it was never nonpartisan, but a calculated, cynical anti-UPA movement. (Nothing wrong with that motive either). > The art of storytelling is at the heart of the business of journalism. To > trigger an emotional response in the reader, based on facts, to cause > action. > > The journalism trade has sadly become the 'house negro' of its economic > masters. > > ?? Its economic masters are advertisers and in turn readers. If that's what privately-owned media is responding to, that's fine. You'd be surprised at the number of newspapers which write stories that are technically against their owners' interests. > I adore the BBC for the independence of voice it's often been afforded - > there isn't a comparable voice of reason in India. > The BBC's biases are quite well-known; it isn't bad, but it has an undeserved reputation as the neutral voice. There are many good media outlets in India. I do write for Mint and Caravan, but both have high ethical standards and are not sensationalist; I like a lot of what I see in some other outlets in India, and if I had more time in the day, I'd probably want to write for some of them. > I'd love to see a website or a radio station that rallied for the cause of > truth become a part of the news landscape in India. > What's the "cause of truth"? Which newspaper has not covered the corruption scams, the tragedy of Kashmir? How do you know about Irom Sharmila? > This is all the more important in India, a fascist state where a truly > independent voice would feel the jackboot. > > Yes, as troubles Tehelka faced shows, there are many ways in which the Government can harass the media. But how many people signing up for Hazare's campaign are going to start buying newspapers so that they can be more independent of "corporate" support? Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom as the saying goes. > > If you feel strongly about being an honest journalist, then write. No one > will give you permission to begin. > > Write what? Many of us continue to write about many of these issues. > Write about anything you feel strongly about. The deplorable lack of free > press is a fine starting point. > > Thanks. Salil
