The common and oft repeated excuse for media when cornered or exposed is : Don’t shoot the messenger!
Is media a messenger or just a messenger? Or is it less or more of it? We need to find answers to define media in defence of the media. Either they are innocent honest messengers or clever carriers that convert facts into coloured opinions depending on their business agenda. It’s impossible to be both.
A messenger according to dictionary is one who is employed to carry messages or a document. This messenger transfers, conveys messages and documents as they were. This messenger has no right to tamper with or open the content but can only forward it as required. Yes the postman and the courier are messengers so are emails and applications that help us communicate directly.
Let’s ask whether any media organisation does an impartial , matter of fact, objective transfer of facts to the reader, the viewer or the listener as the case may be? Let’s assume the capital of India was shifted to Nagpur, as it was centrally located. The caption could be a simple “India’s New Capital is Nagpur” or could be “Government ditches New Delhi as Capital” too. Both appear factually correct but the latter caption hides plain facts for sensationalism so as to flame emotions. Because to hold on to the audience, some masala is peppered on and the article may carry contrary opinions to the decision and questioning or supporting of the reasons behind the decision depending on political leaning of the media organisation.
Opinions are tools to media business. Reactions to issues are paraded as some intellectual responses. Often monkey balancing to appear as fair is done by giving alternate reactions or rarely, multiple views. But watch closely. One point of view will be projected highly to match with the editorial interests on the issue. Why was this being done? Media takes sides on every issue and won’t let audience form opinions based on facts. The hard truth is that media an axe to grind on every event, every issue. This selective projection helps in turn in creating contacts who contribute to the revenue of the company as such opinions become indirect marketing strategy as well as image and brand building excercises.
Without hype no media can survive. Words such as Huge, big, massive, mega, and many adjectives help in describing a situation to evoke emotions. Negative words such betrayal, ditched are used too. Media gives the illusion that it stands for the society or the nation and sometimes the planet. In a diversified world no single opinion can be claimed to represent the whole. Every breaking story is a big story and repetitive known news become breaking news. It’s all about building drama built on some facts and involves some misinformation or half information.
As I reiterated in an article earlier, Media foremost is business. This business is partially funded by audience who purchase print publications or by pay tv viewership. Usually the print cost along with the distributorship cost a double or more times than the sold copy price. The media business sustains itself on advertisements and often it is these advts that being in moolahs to the coffer of a media company. It’s impossible for any media to survive without advertisements.
Corporate advts are not enough for any media company. So are the classified ads. The government is the #1 supporter for many media organisations in many developing nations including India. When you gain funding in the name of ads, the media company need to make frequent compromises in its reporting of events associated with a particular corporate or the government in place. This means the news content is compromised which means news is not just black and white but shaded into grey to please and richly coloured when taking positions against something, again to please the advertiser. Why colour if only dishing out plain facts?
Dishing out facts won’t take a page for any print edition nor will it invite passionate debate on events. We may remember that most front pages carried full page advts in the past and continue to carry them even now in prime pages pushing news to inner pages. So the print editions ballooned with opinions, letters, etc and facts were pushed into deep corners of pages and sometimes twisted to deliver the agenda sought by the advertiser, the government, the politicians, the right + left wing groups and even narrow fascism. The meaner you get the more you are supposed to be in the forefront of media business and you may be hailed as bravehearts in the world of media. There has not been a single media in India to claim the mantle of independent journalism based on standards of fairness or FairPlay.
Advertisement is also not about facts. It’s akin to journalism. Sideline the demerits of a product or a sales point and blow up the positives. Is there an ad without a business cause?
Interpretation of events is claimed as opinions. An opinion could be anything and has no standards. It’s just your opinion. Or my opinion. Common arguments. These opinions could create emotions. Equanimity does not attract audience nor sell. To report a leader or a government worked hard, if they ever did, crates ennui. Just as in personal life when values of hardwork, loyalty, family bonding, discipline, love, etc appear dry and boring compared to breaking law, bunking work, profligacy, partying, adultery, doping, etc that appear exciting . So opinions and interpretations are needed to create fear, insecurity, cynicism, hate, anger, etc to hold the audience to the media. So facts get molested according to the agenda, cleverness of the media before they are delivered to you. Result is to many newspaper reading or being glued to the tv are not mere habits...they are addictions.
An opinion is an outcome of one's experiences, family background, cultural roots, boss’ direction, company policy, political pampering, pleasing powers, personal hates, addictions, prejudices and the need for survival. Everyone from a rickshawalla to a vegetable vendor to the professor of an university have opinions. An opinion often is indistinguishable and exposes the ego of the giver. It has no depth and so ever changing. But the opinions in media has an agenda, a motive. So the business of media in the name of democratisation of views, parades opinions that sensationalise an issue than ever providing a solution. It’s incompetant to give a solution with the level of thinking it possesses. It can rant, rail, wail, blame, and at best exposes some scams and at worst tries to cover some. Opinion is not an intellect thing but despite some sparks of cleverness, always emotion related.
Look out for the placement of news in a print edition or the breaking news on television. The priority in placement of news often exposes the interests of the media. During the rule of Indira Ghandy, The Hindu daily always carried her news on front page with journalist GK Reddy’s direct access to the PMO. This continued even during emergency. The idea was to be loyal to the dynasty. To claim that the owners of the newspaper gained no monetary benefit by such an editorship stance would be too naive and gullible. The same can not be claimed during the reign of non dynastic PMs in India. Media’s messages alters with time and to the needs of business. Has any media ever refused advts from any government especially from governments they admire? Or has not toned down opinion on govts before or after receiving ads despite an open editorial policy that media treats reporting and editing as an independent excercise?
Today these messengers claim to be masters of all they see. They comment on science, arts, sports and question technology on rocket launching, astrophysics, nuclear energy, environment chemistry, parliamentary procedures...almost in all areas of human excellence. Some claim they endeavour a rigorous search for truth, mirror the society to the people and provide deep facts behind incidents. The messengers are philosophers, scientists, statesmen, sportsmen, performing artistes, Lawyers, surgeons, educationists, etc..all rolled in one. Master of everything they survey. Facts beyond facts. They sense their power to influence. They lobby with governments. With mediocre academics such excellence vaults them to status of celebrities and they earn wealth unlike their mates at universities. Yet there has not been a single journalist who has contributed to the altering of human minds in a positive way during the few hundred years of existence of the fifth estate. Of course it would hurt them to see the truth here. Can never look within which is hallmark for excellence in an area of human endeavour.
Yet, media repeatedly pretends naive and innocence as if they are just messengers. That they have no axe to grind with political parties, governments, businesses , organised religion and sometimes with NGOs. They claim that they are a pillar in a democracy that’s imperfect. Media companies have the fallibility and weaknesses of an ordinary business organisation and doesn’t require extraordinary skills in writing. TS Eliot referred to “grand nothing” and media is one.
Media is run not by detached Saints but by cunning businessmen whose goal is money making. Whatever fact that go in and through it comes out coloured. This may be considered value addition in business parlance. Media is a world where information, misinformation, whims, fancies, reactions are created based on some apparent clouded facts to evoke emotions.
Look at the syllabus of any journalism school. Like medical schools that never focus on nutrition, no journalism school teaches impartiality, honesty in work or standing against popular flow with facts. Rather it advises to cater to the needs of audience. Character building is absent and imbibing of values are found unnecessary for a journalist. There in lies it’s Achilles heel.
There have been some great journalists but not a single great media. Those rare breed of media persons never wallow in self importance, never were after fame nor were after indirect power. Nor were they loud mouth but honest, humble and strong. They even often mock themselves. They took solace in just being themselves. Like the poets of past. Such breed like Cho Ramasamy were rare. I wish I was wrong in my study here. But, media was and is not a messenger of facts. Let’s not give credit when not due. We need to shut up media when in the name of freedom, it becomes a threat to it. Do you know a honest media organisation in India now or atleast a profound contemporary journalist? We deserve a few.
Comments
Post a Comment