Before moving to New York in August 2006, I met with fellow journalists and writers in New Delhi. The conversations always veered to an irritatingly familiar topic: Where is the space in Indian journalism for serious, detailed reportage? It is a bizarre conversation in light of the tremendous expansion of media in India. The economic liberalization in the early 1990s produced scores of nonstop television news operations and a number of new newspapers and magazines. Marie Claire now has an India edition; Time Out Mumbai and Time Out Delhi, even Scientific American India are all new additions to the country’s newsstands. In 2005, Random House launched its India operation. Foreign Affairs, Time, and The Economist have all recently published cover stories on the ”rise of India.”The opinion pages of leading Indian newspapers talk about the twenty-first century being the Indian century, about imminent superpower status.
But as in the U.S. and elsewhere, an expanding media market is no guarantee that it will be filled with the best journalism. Young television anchors and reporters breaking news to millions of Indian viewers in their faux American accents try hard to ape Fox News and cnn. Pamela Anderson’s silicone implants, Paris Hilton’s escapades, and sexiest-people lists are mainstays in the daily fashion and entertainment supplements of the leading English-language newspapers. Last year in a town near Delhi, a child fell into a well and soldiers from a nearby army base came to rescue him. TV news broadcast the drama live for two days, hyping what their marketing folks tagged the ”Prince of Life.”The story was on the front page of most newspapers.
Meanwhile, there is another side of the ”rise of India.”It is a darker side, brimming with complicated stories that demand detailed reporting and space–in print or on air–to be told...
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.
Mr Peer has rightly projected the current dismal condition of the Indian media but has not analysed the causes and reasons.
Fault lies with both the media managers and the messege receivers.
As James Fallow narrates his American experience of media in the preface to his book "Behind the News", the controls of the Indian media too are no more with the professionals or tecnocrats (in this case real professional journalists). They are with managers (finance and marketing people). In modern days (during the last few years) they call the shots and not journalists and editors as the entire profession (or mission) is turned into business of readership, market share and profit. One possible reason for this is that the Indian media barons are worried over the possible impact the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) will have on their investments and hence trying to make maximum money in minimum time of prior to the FDI comes. Despite their resistance for the last several years, they all know that FDI is inevitable. The question is of only how much time it can be prolonged. (Particla FDI has already allowed). This is the scene on the management side.
On the receivers' (readers and viewers) side, unfortunately number of readers and viewers interested in serioud issues is dwindling fast. In a choice of torture issue or farmers' suicide on one side and Aish Abhishek wedding on the other, audience is opting for the latter, which was obiously clear from the Television rating figures for the event. Collective TV rating for all news channels for Ash Abhishek weeding was the highest till now. We all from India media who are worried aboout the non serious attitude of the media should give a serious thought to this emerging phenomena. A news channel showing completnly unscintific programmes like ghosts, black magic etc. recently secured second position. How do we explain this and how we are ging to face this challenge which has been posed not by thw channel, I feel, but by the viewers, who are opting this type of unscintific content.
The TV journalism is facing one more problem. Sheerly by its age of around 10 years, it is not yet in its matuered age. Secondly, barring a few exceptions, in the initial phase of TV journalism, experienced and matuered print journalists never opted to go in news channels. As a result the vaccum of higher, decision making positions were filled by relatively junior new comers, who directly ventured in to TV journalism. Due to their only TV experience (of whatever years) and particularly non print experience their only focus appears to be on visuals rather than issues, subjects and debates. Mostly, they appear to be more from production line than journalism. (Even Ted Koppel of NBC feels that live telecast of visuals is no journalism. Journalism involves selection and priortising, which is not there in live telecast of mere visuals.)
All this put together Indian media is passing through a very bad and frustrating (for serious journalists) phase. Governmetn has already started talking about Code of Conduct. If media itself does not take corrective step, it will be harmful for it in the long run and it may have to give up its freedom with government imposing code of conduct.
Better they come out with their own code and adhere to it than handing over ther freedom to officials.
Milind Kokje,
Outreach and Networking Fellow,
Asia Media Forum
Posted by Milind Kokje![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Wed 13 Jun 2007 at 09:37 AM
Well argued piece and largely true. However by the author's own admission, a publication like Tehelka could not afford to send him for a serious assignment. Publications such as Tehelka, Indian Express and Frontline have done stellar work but its of little use if hardly anybody is watching. As Dow Jones is learning the hard way in the US, there's no faster way to compromise good journalism than to run out of money.
I found a number of inconsistencies in the author's world view. On one hand there is the subtle mocking of TV anchors apeing those on American Telly and on the other examples of NY publications being the only platform for long form stuff. American and British media outlets will continue to be benchmarks for other English media around the world..
It IS a young industry and is currently experiencing classic "bubble" symptoms - lots of action, money and hype with little substance. Things, I hope will stabilize and the good long form stuff could soon become a diffrentiator. There are too many people right now in the industry who don't see themselves as career journalists ( the previous comment was mentioning "production" types) and they probably won't hand around for a decade. Maybe once there's more gray hair around, the journalism will get better.
Posted by Abhi 2.0![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 26 Jun 2007 at 10:44 AM
I was most interested to read Basharat Peer's critique of the Indian media. But since I work in a business paper -- India's largest -- I'm always on the lookout for numbers, percentages, quantifiers. So, while I do admit that there is a lot of coverage of Paris Hilton and Bollywood stars, in percentage terms is it all that different from any of the SUCCESSFUL papers in the US? I was also intrigued by Mr Peer's focus on irradiated farmers and tortured Kashmiris. But he has not mentioned some of the other great stories glossed over by this Indian media -- and surprise, surprise, by the vigilant western ones as well. For instance, the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmir valley, with over 360,000 Hindus driven out of their ancestral homes and lands to become refugees in their own country... Or about the inequity of the Indian judicial system, which despite 60 years of democracy has NOT been able to push through Parliament a uniform civil code....
Or about the caste system, which far from being marginalised by modernity as a "Hindu malaise" is now being perpetuated in religions that claim equality before God -- all in the name of reservations in schools and jobs?
Yes, the Indian media has a lot to answer for -- but would the western media dare to remedy this?
Posted by Reshmi![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 26 Jun 2007 at 12:59 PM
The trivialisation of content on Indian news channels is a scary phenomenon. This is a debate that needs to be taken up very seriously and honestly by the Indian media . Its true television news is relatively young in the country, but its time to 'grow up' . The ratings game, market share and profits are what drive news channels, but serious journalism can still be practiced despite these constraints . Its a matter of having the courage to aggressively cover real issues like farmer suicides with the same hype, flair and gusto displayed in the coverage of a non event like the abhi - ash wedding . Viewers will respond and remain glued to an engagingly presented story that the channel believes in. Instead of blaming 'market forces' and filling air time with drivel like the a-a wedding (you could see the anchors looking disgusted with themselves), its time for news channels to invest in training television journalists .
Posted by atrandom![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 3 Jul 2007 at 12:15 AM
According to a letter that “National Knowledge Commission” wrote to the Prime Minister on 10/20/06, “no more than 1 per cent of [Indian] people use [English] as a second language, let alone a first language.” And yet, neither the author, Mr. Peer, nor any of the commentators, even acknowledge the existence of the vernacular press.
Gandhi's Hind Swaraj was written and published in Gujurati, and was banned by the British soon after it was published. Gandhi then published a translation in English, which was not banned for the simple reason that the British knew that they faced no threat from the anglicized Indians. The English press, and the opinions and concerns of the anglicized Indians are no more relevant to the rest of India than they were almost a century ago when Gandhi published Hind Swaraj.
If Mr. Peer were serious about the media in India, he would worry about the fact that the vernacular media is as impoverished as its readers. But then I doubt whether Mr. Peer reads any Indian vernacular, or would admit to reading one even if he did.
Comparisons with the Western media are ridiculous, because no Western society is characterized by a linguistic chasm between the ruling and the ruled. Even after nearly three decades of systematic efforts to destroy the New Deal, there is far more social and economic justice for the underclass in the US than there is in India, and Hispanic immigrants with no knowledge of English have more rights and are treated with greater dignity in the US than are Indians who do not know English in their own country.
Posted by Kanchhedia Chamaar![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Fri 23 Nov 2007 at 09:48 PM
This follows an economic principle called Engel's law, which states that the healthier a country's economy, the more food its population consumes. A rise in the demand for meat means an increase in meat prices and an increase in meat production. This also ups the demand for produce, which is used to feed farm animals.
------------
smithsan
Viral Marketing
Posted by smithsan on Mon 8 Sep 2008 at 02:21 AM
Excellent article on the real story of the Indian Media scene.
Mcluhan said, "Medium is the message".
In India, it translates into "medium is the irrelevence (of it all)."
The Sate of Citizen Journalism in India
http://mediavidea.blogspot.com/2008/02/state-of-citizen-journalism-in-india_9328.html
the Biggest moments in Indian Blogging history here.
http://mediavidea.blogspot.com/2008/12/simpleguide-to-biggest-moments-in.html
Posted by Pramit Singh on Mon 29 Dec 2008 at 09:43 AM