Does good journalism mean bad business?

Video

Click to play video

The Second Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards were presented in New Delhi on July 16.

At the event, a powerhouse of journalists and statesmen got together to discuss an issue that has been playing on the minds of those who make, report as well as those who consume news.

While the media tends to criticise everyone from politicians to the judiciary to legislators, it often forgets to turn the gaze inwards.

The discussion at the Ramnath Goenka Memorial debate – that followed the award ceremony – focused on whether excellence in journalism meant bad business.

That's the paradox the panel of experts, belonging to different schools of journalism, discussed and debated. The panel included Vice-Chairperson and Editorial Director of the Hindustan Times Shobhana Bhartia; Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu N Ram; Executive Director of Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. Ravi Dhariwal; senior editor of NDTV India Pankaj Pachauri and Editor-in-Chief of Indian Express Shekhar Gupta.

The debate was moderated by a unique combination of a current and a past winner of the awards - Editor-in-Chief of CNN-IBN Rajdeep Sardesai and Managing Editor of NDTV 24/7 Barkha Dutt.

What constitutes excellence in journalism?

Dutt began the debate by reminiscing how during her formative years there was a song by American singer Bruce Springsteen called 53 channels and nothing to watch.

Similarly, today also sometimes while surfing from channel to channel even the media people tend to think ‘are these the monsters that we created?’

So, it's time to acknowledge with some amount of honesty that while media has brought vigor and accountability to Indian democracy. But in this media explosion have we lost sight of quality somewhere? How do we define excellence in journalism and is there any difference in how the English and Hindi universe approaches news in India and is that difference desirable?

BLUR_B

Sardesai said that journalism is not like any other profession where one can score a 90 out of 100. “It's not like a science whose success is defined by the end product. So then how does a journalist define excellence?”

To which Bhartia said, “At the end of the day excellent journalism needs to be defined by the core value of integrity, truth and honesty. But I think the point that we miss when we talk about excellence is that excellence is needed but what is required is relevant journalism. Something that is excellent for you may not be excellent for somebody else.”

This is an argument that has bothered many journalists - do people care about what is being printed or shown on television? So, are news judgements determined by what readers care about or is it because as news people we believe that they out to care about it?

“This is the heart of all pursuits of excellence in any intellectual sphere,” Ram said philosophically but then added, “The question is how to combine the pursuit of quality and excellence. Relevance also is part of it.”

Relevance or popular journalism?

Popular journalism is not necessarily a bad thing, said Sardesai. Why should journalism remain in the static mode?

Directing a question towards Gupta with relevance to the Indian Express, Dutt asked, “There are papers that seek to be papers of influence and then there are papers that seek to be part of the mass market. Are they mutually exclusive?”

In good humour Gupta retorted, “I think first of all I would very happy if we were a paper of advertisements.”

He then added, “I think I like the day or time's definition of news. That is journalism, which is fit to be printed. Now what is fit to print is determined by many factors including the market space. So, don't write for your mom because she would always love what you write. Write for your landlord and I say it with a reason. My landlord once stopped reading the Express and when I questioned him he said, ‘when I read other papers it's like I getting an entire thali with all the dishes like dal, subzi, roti, achar and papad but when I read the Express it's like I have a lot of achar and masala.’ So, I think popular journalism is also excellent journalism.”

Now Shekhar Gupta has a problem with getting ads but Times of India has no problem in getting ads. Sardesai said that there were times when there were ads in the Times of India and then a few articles were thrown in the middle. But that has changed.

So, what drove the paper to make that change, was it business considerations, the market or does the Times of India believe in certain ethos of excellence in journalism from day I? Who runs the show - the marketing man or the editor?

Walking the tightrope Dhariwal said, “I should be very careful with what I say because I am surrounded by excellent wordsmiths and I am a management guy who has strayed into this business.”

Journalism and nation-building

Taking the opportunity of the debate, President APJ Abdul Kalam described the power of journalism to inspire the individual and move a nation.

"The media must play a nation-building role because excellence in journalism vitalises the nation".

He then added that media must not sensationalise even if sensationalism in journalism sells in the short run. Instead, journalists should be partners in national development and seek solutions.

The President believed that media can change minds of the young people. As an example he said that people should get an inspiring message as soon as they open a newspaper.

To which Gupta said, “It’s a thought that nobody can disagree but the media also has limitations because we have also been given a definition of news by journalism schools which is five ‘Ws’ and one ‘H’ - what, where, who, why, when and how. So, somehow we get caught up in that.”

As the argument gathered steam, Sardesai asked Dhariwal if it is about nation-building or making profits at the Times of India?

“I can say about my company’s philosophy that we operate in a category which is all about marg darshan (guidance to the right path). It is all about making the person believe that he can aspire to do better. Now this is not just limited to a nation, this is about the humanity as a whole,” Dhariwal said.

Adding to the argument, Ram agreed that there must be a “constructive role for the press. But lets take a concrete example. You (Kalam) have supported nuclear weapons but I am dead opposed to India’s nuclear weaponisation. Mr LK Advani considers building a Ram temple as a national project but I don’t think so. So, it depends on what your perception and standpoint is. Somebody would say that the manner in which Bush and Blair have gone about building democracy in Iraq is good for the world but we are opposed to it. So, one can’t be critical of these things.”

Taking Ram’s argument in good spirit, Kalam said, “I don’t want to speak on any of your agendas. What I suggest is that you have the power to calibrate national development. 220 million people are below the poverty line. So, how do you bring them up and that is the agenda. How do you lift them up and what contribution do you make to this effort.”

To which Pachauri argued, “But sir they don’t read the newspaper and they don’t even watch TV.”

Clearing the air Dutt explained, “The problem is that there is no one definition of what nation-building should be.”

“Yes, economic development of the nation is not the end of it. I have defined that. National prosperity equals to A + B + C. A equals to GDP, B is 220 million people and C is the value system. How many houses nowadays have joint families? So, the press should promote such things,” Kalam said.

Value systems in the media

The successful media products are those who capture aspiration. Does this argument hold true asked Sardesai. With reference to the President’s argument about the values, what is the value system that one expects a newspaper or a television channel to inculcate in people? Is it aspirational, the belief that one must have all the benefits of a material new India?

“I do believe that for our target audience, a newspaper does remain quite aspirational. And this comes out of doing enough surveys and finding out what people want to read. Nobody wants a bleak page one which just has grim news. We have a demographic dividend where over 70 per cent of the readers are young. You have got to capture their vision of tomorrow,” Bhartia said.

She also explained, “I don’t think we can dictate any longer what we believe a newspaper should comprise of. There were days in the 80s when we could decide how to package a newspaper and what it should contain. There are multiple options for a reader today to get what they want.”

Will technology play a part in deciding news?

Turning the scrutiny back on the media, Dutt asked Gupta what was that one moment when he felt journalism had changed forever. Which was the one story, photograph or show that made him see journalism plummet to a depth that he didn’t want to have anything to do with but he did because he is part of the profession.

“Well I don’t necessarily have to underline a point like that but there have been many turning points in the last couple of years, which have convinced me that this business has been redefined. One of these most certainly was the war in Kargil. We in print realised that a journalist sitting in the warfront and sending dispatches is now gone or not enough,” Gupta said.

He explained how television had taken some of the ‘Ws’ away from print.

“So we were left with why, how and a new ‘W’ - what next. Papers around the world that have survived are the ones, which have taken this route. But now television is in trouble because we have news coming via SMS and podcast. So technology is changing our business. But what worries me is what I see in some of the Hindi channels. There is demand for certain things which is not news,” Gupta added.

Staying with the point of changing technologies, Sardesai asked, “Are we saying that few years down the line, we will get information via SMS. It will more be fast food information. It is not then not about the 1500-word investigation or the series of exposes or even television channels doing one-hour docudramas but about quick fast food news given to you through the web. Or possibilities of a citizen journalist sending something through the MMS and sending it to a channel. Is that the future?

Answering the question Dhariwal said, “The fact is that people still want an editor who understands what news is and packages it in a manner which is relevant to you. It is also about bringing news in a convenient manner as a newspaper or channel does. That can never go away. There will be blogs, SMS and Internet but the demand for a good editor will remain.”

Taking the discussion forward Bhartia explained that no medium worked in isolation.

“There is no reason why multimedia houses will not first break the news on SMS. Follow it up on the Internet and then broadcast it also. A newspaper will then digest, analyse and give it to you with value additions the next day. So, it is not one at the cost of the other,” she said.

However, Gupta believed that today’s journalism is such that unless you have domain knowledge nobody will take you seriously.

“So, wisdom now is becoming very important. The whole Thomas Friedman phenomenon - in a world where there is so much information how does a man acquire so much weight because he is trusted, he is known to do his research, known to go to places and he has opinions. You can agree or disagree with him. So, when audiences have more and more information they will have a greater need for intelligent and excellent journalism. But one has to get it right,” he said.

TV channels driven by TRPs?

“How long will the TRP drive you? And how long should it be allowed to drive you? The problem is the business of TRPs is not very transparent,” asked BJP Spokesperson and General Secretary Ravi Shankar Prasad.

Sardesai said it is a serious concern, and why should journalism be defined in a country of a billion people by 5,000 television boxes. But who is going to bell the cat?

When Rajya Sabha MP and Vice-President BCCI, Rajeev Shukla, who is going to start a television channel, was asked if he would start that, he said, “TRP system should be banned for news channels. It should only be applicable to entertainment channels.”

But Managing Editor CNBC-TV18, Senthil Chengalvarayan countered Shukla and said, “TRPs will drive us as long as the votes drive politicians.”

Barkha Dutt didn’t quite agree with Chengalvarayan and said some of them might think there is a middle ground between TRPs and journalism.

How much influence does television wield over print?

“If this debate was entirely on TV, it would have been more appropriate in setting the tone. But The Indian Express is a newspaper and I believe that print journalism in India is reasonably good. But it is the impact of TV on print journalists that is somewhat responsible for the dilemmas that have been voiced today,” said Leader of the Opposition, L K Advani.

But would he concede that while TV may have done many things wrong, has also brought vigour and energy to journalism including the print media? And would that mean that TV has not done anything right?

“Just as tabloids in the print medium also brought some kind of liveliness, some interest to the print world. That doesn’t justify having only tabloids in the country. The anchor on some TV show seems to have been chosen because he looks like a criminal himself,” Advani said.

When asked what worries Advani most as a former journalist, he said, “I am worried about the impact of TV on print journalism thereby making it sensational.”

But Sardesai differed with what Advani had to say. “I think what is happening is that television is influencing other television media. I am not quite so sure that television is influencing print,” he said.

N Ram however agreed with Advani completely. “We are not taking a moralistic position here. It is a fact. I see it everyday in our newsroom that television has this so we say – learn good things from television. You don’t have to wait for what the Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger calls – the tablet of stone era of journalism. That’s gone. Television is important. It reaches to a lot more people,” he said.

Does television set the agenda for print?

Sometimes television becomes a convenient bag to bash. Just like there are tabloids in print and there are good newspapers, there is good television and bad television. And if print remains the domain of gravitas and serious reporting which so many people appreciate, why is print then affected by television? Why doesn’t it remain what it was?

“Print doesn’t operate in isolation. You have got to understand that before people get their newspapers in the morning, news about whatever the issue is has already been broken. You have primed the audiences for that news being the high point. The print then actually cannot afford to ignore that,” said Shobhana Bhartiya.

Bhartiya added that the coverage of the five-year-old, Prince who fell into a pit in Haryana and its coverage by television was like a soap opera. The event, she accepted, was of concern, but the news didn’t deserve half a page in the newspaper. But most newspapers the next day gave it half-a-page display because television had primed the audiences by dramatising the event.

Do trivia and titillation outweigh news

“There can’t be anything that is value neutral. So lets not try and chase an illusion. The point is that dissemination of knowledge and getting people’s agenda back onto the front pages of newspapers and TV channels would be the yardstick of excellence,” remarked CPI-M member, Sitatam Yechury.

He pointed out that when former US President Bill Clinton came to India, all the news that the front pages of all the newspapers carried was – whether or not he was carrying his dog with him, his menu, how is Maurya Sheraton being renovated and what his security will be like. But the same day in Bangalore, five Dalits were burnt alive, and the news was published on page nine.

“I would say the Dalits killings should come on page one and the news about Bill Clinton’s dog on page nine. But it happened the other way round,” said Yechury.

The point that is often made is that page three, which is print creation, has come on page one.

When asked what happens with trivia and titillation in news Ravi Dhariwal said, “Trivia and titillation can work only for a day or two not for years and decades. Newspapers and broadcast are a business of years and decades. You can add a little titillation to spice it up. But newspaper is about building a long-term relationship, and you don’t build it on trivia and titillation.”

Sardesai asked if it then becomes a thali model where you have rice, dal, and achar (pickle). But the problem with certain TV channels and a few tabloids is that the achar has become a main course, and the rice has become a desert.

“You need wholesome food. It should be a long lasting, nutritional thing that a reader wants. I refuse to believe that today is a day of titillation and trivia. People want serious issues and they read serious issues,” said Dhariwal.

But British economist, writer and Labour Party politican, Lord Meghnath Desai felt the role of the media is to make the politicians life miserable.

“Unless media can actually hound, criticise and drive politicians out of public life, they are not doing their job,” Desai said.

N Ram remarked that there were several case of aggressive investigative reporting and we could claim as much investigative capability as much as the British media.

Does serious journalism not get enough importance on Hindi channels?

The winner of this year’s RNG Excellence in Journalism Regional Award for Hindi (Print), Bhasha Singh asked, “Who gets to decide who the actual readers/viewers are? And why the TRPs on bhoot (superstitions) are playing indefinitely?

Ravish Kumar, winner of this year’s RNG Excellence in Journalism Regional Award for Hindi (Braodcast) pointed out that Hindi journalists had worked very hard to create a market for Hindi journalism. But the same people who worked hard to create that have succumbed to sensationalism. And channels who are not running after bhoot pret (superstitions) are on the decline.

“In my channel (NDTV India) bhoot pret doesn’t work. But my heart pains to see only three to four TRPs on reports that are I work hard on and are serious. And if there is a report on Vaastu on India TV, the TRPs touch 45 and 46,” said Kumar.

The Indian Express everyday by and large breaks some story or the other. The fact though is that they still struggle with circulation. And other papers, which don’t break as many stories find their circulation rising. This is the dilemma with Hindi news channels as well. One may do a fantastic investigative report, but still not get TRPs. But if there’s a story on bhoot pret or Rakhi Sawant and the channel does rather well.

When Shekhar Gupta was asked how does a day-today journalist resolve this dilemma, he said, “It’s not humans vs barbarians as it’s not print vs TV. I think audience tastes keep changing. There was a phase of dumbing down in India, and a lot of media had succumbed to it. But the phase is changing now.”

One of the audience members asked why doesn’t CNN-IBN go behind the spirits unlike IBN 7 which goes behind bhoots?

“IBN 7 is the fastest growing Hindi channel today. My answer is very simple - I will not be a sophisticated Doordarshan. One thing that television has done, and you can criticise Hindi TV for it is that it has brought a certain energy and robustness of civil society. So the same channel that you will accuse of bhoot and pret, is our channel which exposed the campaign through CDs in Uttar Pradesh because there is energy. Now part of that energy may be directed to, like you are saying, to catching bhoot and pret. But the difference is when we do those stories, we say this is superstition and don’t believe in it,” Sardesai said.

He added that one may argue that he is turning around the idiom to suit the position. But his channel doesn’t function in a vacuum and needs viewers because it functions in a business environment.

“My channel also breaks stories. My channel also does a few things which we have questions over. But if you turn around and take the moral high ground, I am going to tell you that I break more stories than any other Hindi news channel, and I take enormous credit for that. They are frightened of me. I know that. And I want them to be frightened of me,” Sardesai said.

Is Indian media independent enough?

The panel was asked for their for their final comments on what integrity and independence means to the media.

N Ram said, “Independence is what it’s all about. And you have to have integrity in every profession. There is plenty of it in journalism.”

Dhariwal added, “Generally speaking excellence will lead to popularity. Our President (Abdul Kalam) is a classic example of that. And I think a little bit of marketing always helps.”

Pankaj Pachauri pointed out that Ravish Kumar may not be awarded in TRPs, but integrity and excellence means that Kumar’s work gets recognised and he is rewarded with the RNG award, which money and TRPs cannot buy.

“If any journalist says he struggles to keep his/her integrity in the Indian environment, I think that journalist is dishonest,” Shekhar Gupta said.

Sardesai wrapped up the discussion when he said the reason “why are we now becoming successful businessmen is because if we can’t compete, we collaborate. We have large advertisements in both The Hindustan Times and The Times of India about this great, new newspaper that they are bringing out together. And if you can have NDTV and CNN-IBN, both seeing the value and doing out a joint production, then all of us are releasing that the best step forward is to actually come together.”