Suresh, no offense, but the smell of the kool aid is rather strong here. I'd rather spend my time usefully elsewhere. I've made the points I have to make - all of you are intelligent people and you will believe what you have to believe. Thanks to those of you who wrote on list and in private in agreement. Have a good day y' all!
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email protected]> wrote: > Srini, there's absolutely no contradiction here. > > If you're a journalist for, say, The New Yorker, you're going to get paid > rather more for your talents than if you were a stringer for the ToI. > > Customers want street food just as much as others want fine dining. > Forcing them all to stick to fine dining isn't going to work. > > As for the "crusading" part - it takes place, with various political slants > these days rather than when there was, so to speak, a "common enemy" like > the british to campaign against. > > I fully agree with the rest of Salil's points. > > If Samanth is still on silk - dude, now's the time to chime in. > > Srini RamaKrishnan [13/12/11 02:50 +0100]: > >> I'd rather make a general case than argue with your semantics, but I >> am unable because I am confused by your mutually contradictory >> positions. >> >> If you entirely believe in what you say about informed consumers and >> consumer choice, then providing what the consumer wants according to >> you is fine journalism. Yet you conclude by saying that if someone >> paid others to write, then that would produce fine journalism. >> >> A free market is not to be confused with a perfect market where >> individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition. >> In today's world there is no such thing as a perfectly informed >> consumer, most consumers are rather imperfectly informed as it >> happens. In Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, a few hundred pages in the >> case is rather eloquently made for avoiding capitalism as practiced >> today as it would be only beneficial for society under perfect market >> conditions. Do give the book a read, he's a fine writer, and a great >> enlightenment figure - who would be shocked and terrified at what >> passes for capitalism today. As an aside, his book is also scathingly >> critical of British imperialism in India. That man wasn't a >> journalist, but he had a concern for the well being of society. >> >> Good journalism has always been in short supply. Despite the fantastic >> courage of Indian journalists of the 19th century, as I previously >> documented, there are very few records of the atrocities of 1857 and >> subsequent years on account of the gagging act which went into force >> in the same year - the chilling effect of censorship all but destroyed >> the creation of any detailed records of the event. >> >> I like the John Dewey quote that goes: "As long as politics is the >> shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow >> will not change the substance." >> >> I haven't read much of your writing, nor did I think it was necessary >> - though since you provided the link I read through your piece >> criticizing Sainath, I thought it was hand wavy and cast aspersions >> without offering much in the way of evidence or even argument. Sorry, >> but you asked. >> >> I'd also recommend you read up on Godwin's law. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Salil Tripathi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Journalists are the physicians of the nervous system of society - it's >>>> not enough that they medicate the symptoms, but it's imperative that >>>> they cure the disease and guide the patient on the path of good >>>> health. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This biology lecture would be unnecessary if you care to check what I >>> write >>> about, where, and what tone I adopt. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I would consider the circular logic of "we only serve what the paying >>>> customer wants" grievously mistaken on many counts. >>> >>> >>> >>> That's an explanation of the profession, as well as recognition of the >>> reality, that you can't write in isolation, without someone covering the >>> costs of reporting and analysis. >>> >>>> >>>> Other major users of this fig leaf are the massively profitable and >>>> demonstrably evil tobacco companies and fast food restaurant chains of >>>> the world. >>> >>> >>> >>> Zzzz. >>> >>>> >>>> This attitude is clearly harmful to society. >>> >>> >>> >>> According to you, yes. Otherwise, informed consumers can make informed >>> choices; it is not for you or me to tell them what they should read - or >>> not. Particularly if they're adults. >>> >>>> >>>> Who tells the people what >>>> they want? People do not form their opinions out of the ether. >>> >>> >>> >>> People do decide, once they're adults, on various important issues. They >>> can >>> marry, drive, stand for elections, etc. By the same token, they should be >>> able to exercise their choice about what to read - or not. >>> >>>> >>>> In an increasingly informed secular and scientific age, a single >>>> prime-time news reporter or journal forms more public opinions than >>>> any pastor ever did preaching from the pulpit. How then can one >>>> gainsay the responsibility of journalism for public morality and >>>> conscience? >>> >>> >>> >>> The day journalists are made conscience-keepers of any society, that >>> society >>> is doomed. Journalists are curious people, who want to find out what >>> happened and tell a story. They are not particularly endowed with >>> superior >>> ethical or any other values. >>> >>>> >>>> If your principal defense is that journalism is a carrion trade no >>>> better than big tobacco, I wouldn't call that practice journalism. >>> >>> >>> >>> And that's your comparison, not mine. >>> >>>> >>>> I associate journalism with a fine tradition, of the likes of White >>>> Rose, with the motto "We will not be silent" whose authors were >>>> executed by the Gestapo after only their sixth publication. >>> >>> >>> >>> Once again you bring Mr Godwin's Law to life. Thanks. >>> >>>> >>>> I think it's fitting to quote these words from the first edition of >>>> White Rose:"If everyone waits until the other man makes a start, the >>>> messengers of avenging Nemesis will come steadily closer." >>>> Though I prefer to associate Indian journalism with finer examples >>>> like "swadeshi mithran", "Kesari", "Induprakash" and the "Mahratta", >>>> even the first newspaper to be published in India, the "Bengal >>>> Gazette", formed in 1880 with the rather ordinary objective of selling >>>> advertisements felt the need to lay claim to journalistic impartiality >>>> with this founding statement - “a weekly political and commercial >>>> paper open to all parties but influenced by none”. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mahratta and Kesari were campaigning newspapers, meant to fight the >>> colonial >>> rule and ills within the society - like Gandhi's Indian Opinion or >>> Navjivan. >>> Similar examples would be Bhumiputra or Opinion and Mainstream during the >>> Emergency. Those have place on a news-stand, in a society. But you can't >>> narrowly define that as the sole form of journalism. >>> >>>> >>>> Indian journalism of that age operated under draconian laws such as >>>> the Gagging act and then the even more powerful Vernacular Press Act, >>>> and yet the publications remained fearless and spoke the cause of >>>> truth. >>> >>> >>> >>> You don't have such laws now, so such ferocious responses are not >>> necessary. >>> >>>> >>>> But for fearless journalism by more than one dozen Indian publications >>>> despite the real threat of jailtime and execution, the Company >>>> practice of misappropriating princely states through minority >>>> administration would never have come to light. Tilak went to jail for >>>> writing the truth. >>> >>> >>> >>> But India is not under colonial rule requiring such "seditious" writing. >>> To >>> some, Arundhati Roy does write "seditious" stuff. And the last time I >>> checked, she has no problem getting published in India. >>> >>>> If the newspapers and media organizations of today had done their job >>>> then as many people would have heard of Irom Sharmila as they have of >>>> Anna Hazare, but is that the case? >>> >>> >>> >>> There have been many stories about Irom Sharmila. But yes, more Indians >>> have >>> heard of Sharmila Tagore than of Irom Sharmila. Too many people have >>> heard >>> of Kisan Hazare, not enough have heard of Vijay Hazare. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> People like P. Sainath are a rare >>>> breed, almost from another planet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Something I wrote three years >>> >>> ago. http://www.livemint.com/2008/04/30225139/Media-and-moral-outrage.html. >>> >>>> >>>> In an information age only second to the age of Gutenberg in >>>> significance, merely publishing the odd story or two of consequence >>>> while remaining safe from physical or financial harm is hardly >>>> praiseworthy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Who are you talking about? If it is me, have you bothered to explore what >>> I >>> write about? >>> >>>> >>>> Journalism today is the inheritor of hard won freedoms that people >>>> have given up their lives to protect. To run it like it was a business >>>> of selling french fries is just not on. >>>> >>> >>> Fine, will you subsidise fine journalism, then? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Cheeni >>>> >>> >>> Salil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Salil Tripathi <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > 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 >>>> >>> >> >
