by Kuldip Nayar
The author, a veteran Indian journalist who
has been an editor of a National daily, frankly and thoroughly analyses the
Indian media and throws light on their current/prevailing culture.
Since the relationship between business and
editorial has become blurred, free expression has got restricted and day-to-day
interference has increased. That many
media owners are sitting members of the Rajya Sabha is not as important as is
the fact, that they cultivate political parties for seeking favours
What the New Yorker, an American fortnightly, has said about the
Jain brothers, Samir and Vineet, presiding over the Times of India group, has
been known to most. The contribution by the New Yorker is that it has nailed
the doubts and confirmed that the biggest media moguls of the country
believe that there is nothing sacrosanct about news columns and these can be
sold for a price because a newspaper for them is a commodity, like talcum
powder or tooth paste.
A reader may be shocked to
know that the news he avidly reads is paid for. His frustration and
helplessness is heightened because he does not realise which part of the story is
news and which part is fake. This violation of editorial standards does not
bother the Jain brothers because they treat the profession as a money-making
enterprise. They feel
proud that they have torn ethics into tatters and yet the newspaper they helm have
remained the No. 1 daily in India. Not only that, they make more money than
probably any other newspaper in the world. The great Rupert Murdoch’s empire is
20 times bigger than the Times of India. Yet he earns less profit.
In a nine-page article, the fortnightly narrates how the Jains treat journalism merely “as a necessary nuisance and celebrates the advertiser as the
real customer.” Not surprisingly, the Times of India does not carry the
name of its editor in its print line because
the paper does not have any.
Someone, not they, had said long ago that writing in a newspaper
was writing on the back of advertisements. The Jain brothers practice this both
in letter and spirit. “We knew we were in the business of aggregating a quality
audience. Before that, we just sold advertising space.” The New Yorker article
carries no direct quotes of the Jain brothers. They probably refused to be
interviewed.
However, their lackeys, thankfully none from the editorial side,
have given a peep into their mind. One lackey says: “Editors tend to be pompous
thundering from the pulpit, speaking in 80-word sentences.” Mr Vineet Jain
himself is clear that to succeed in newspaper business, one must not think like
editors. “If you are editorially minded, you will make all the wrong
decisions.” True, the
Jains have made newspapers into a ‘news’ paper business. But that is because
they have perfected the art of packaging their newspaper, cheapening it and
bringing it down to the level of yellow journalism. Yet
they do not mind this because they have the distinction of converting the
profession into an industry. Editors for them are cheaper by the dozen.
I recall Girilal Jain, the then editor of the Times of India,
ringing me up one day to ask whether I could speak to Ashok Jain, the owner
whom I knew well, to get his son Samir Jain off his back. Giri said that Ashok
Jain, whatever his preferences treated him well but Samir’s attitude was
humiliating. Ashok Jain said in reply that he could buy many Girilal Jains but
he could not find one Samir who had increased his revenue eight times. Inder
Malhotra once recounted to me how senior journalists were made by Samir to sit
on the floor in his room to write out the names of invitees on cards sent by
the organisation.
What the Jain brothers have done in their venture to make money
is to reduce newspapers to a title-tattle. Journalism is just a facilitator in their business. To
ensure this, the newspaper, according to the New Yorker, tries to maintain “a
robust degree of optimism even in the news space ~ despite murders and rapes
and accidents and tsunamis ~ and prefers to talk to the inspirational young.
Poverty stories are given a low billing.”
Business or management departments have come to
have more say over the years. I think the tame role of the Press during the
Emergency is one of the reasons why commercial interests have come to take
precedence. When it was seen the pressmen had caved in without a fight, the
management began to push them from the pre-eminent position they once occupied.
They are at the beck and call of the business side. We used to throw the Press
note with BM (business must) inscribed on it into the dust bin.
Since the relationship between business and editorial has become
blurred, free expression has got restricted and day-to-day interference has
increased. It is an open secret that the management or the business side
dictates a particular line dependent on their economic and political
interests. That many owners are sitting members of the Rajya Sabha is
not as important as is the fact that they cultivate political parties for
seeking favours.
And their
indebtedness or proximity to the party or the benefactor is reflected in the
columns of newspapers. This relationship is what has got translated itself into
“paid news”. Stories are sought to be written in a manner where a particular
person or a point of view is projected in news columns. Readers seldom detect
when information is laced with propaganda or when advertisement is woven into
the text of news columns.
However, the time has come when a media commission should be
appointed to look into all aspects of newspapers, television and radio. When the
last Press commission was appointed in 1977, we did not have private television
because it did not exist in India at that time. The whole gamut of media needs
to be looked into to determine, among other things, the relationship between
owner and editor, journalist and owner, who has circumvented the Working
Journalists Act to introduce a contract system, and linkage between TV and the
print medium. Today, a newspaper can own a television channel or radio. There
is no bar on cross-media ownership. This is leading to cartels which ultimately
affect the freedom of the press.
For reasons
best known to the ruling party, it does not want to appoint a media commission.
Could it be because of the influence of the Jain brothers who have a lot to
answer for? The Jain brothers must understand that the right to freedom of
expression was given to a scribe so that he or she could say anything without
fear or favour. If the piper is to call the tune it will only raise serious
questions about the freedom of expression. In democracy, where free information
stirs free response, the Press cannot be at the whim of a few. A restricted
Press may well violate the Constitutional guarantee for the freedom of
expression.
The views expressed and Information provided
by the author are his own and left to public to judge and rationalise for
themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment