By Kumar Shankar Roy
There's an old saying: Raise no more devils than you can lay down. Indian media has raised one too many.
67-year old Congress leader Digvijaya Singh's candid pictures with TV anchor Amrita Rai have given the 'news-hungry' sections of some media persons a sitting duck, as they say. It could never have been so easier. Rabid readers and the oh-so sacrosanct 'reader interest' has trumped decency and common sense once again. If it sells, it must be news. Its a sorry state of affairs that am afraid we have created.
Lies, Deceit, Propaganda...then comes sex. Lok Sabha elections, which saw the seventh phase completing today, has now come the full circle. 'Diggy-gate' was the proverbial cherry on the top for media wanting to break news (never mind if some hearts are also broken). The elections started on a sombre note with development being the plank but now, just like always, has been reduced to a circus -- thanks to media.
People who support this type of journalism where the privacy of individuals, one being in full glare of public life and the other who brings others into public life, stands violated by all counts, have given me many what-they-say are "solid" reasons. My advice to them -- Get a life!
Digvijaya Singh, who has earlier been ridiculed for gaffes and no stranger to controversies, hasn't done any crime this time round to my mind. As he admitted on Twitter, he possibly loves this woman and wants to have a stable relationship. The only possible discomfort could be his that the 'news' of his relationship comes within months after his wife, suffering from cancer, passed away. But still, its his life and he has the right to live it in a way that is not deemed illegal.
The lady in question, along with her husband, has apparently filed for a mutual consent divorce.
The problem is righteous people and those priding themselves on high moral grounds think they are superior. They will tell you how this relationship is possibly illegal as the lady is not divorced.
I want all of you who are reading this blog to step back from all these things. Let me tell you why I feel this entire episode reeks of failure of our media to dissect news from cheap sensationalism -- yellow journalism as they call it.
As journalists, We are taught and eventually trained to separate the wheat from the chaff. Its what we aspire to do everyday. In this case, however, that has not happened.
I will not go into the details of the publication which gave great prominence to this purported pictures that were floating around social media apparently on Tuesday. The publication, which is trying to become a mainline and aspires to champion real causes, is unimportant.
1. The 'scoop': When a paper, which wants to be taken seriously, publishes private photos of a politician, its the lowest level a paper can stoop to. What if next some people publish private pictures of the editor or circulate audio tapes of private conversations he/she had with someone they are attracted or in a relationship to?
The time has come to define news in the 21st century.
The old and stupid way of saying "when a dog bites a man that's not news and when a man bites a dog that's news" is outdated as a dinosaur. Media has to respect people and the lives they lead. When social media is abuzz with private pictures of any person, be it a politician, film-star or even a porn star, it is a "right" to exercise control/ignore moronic urge to publish them.
The media enjoys this right because those who have bestowed them to the media feel we are worth of it. If not exercised properly, the day may not be far that the "right" could be under scanner and eventually taken away.
2. The follow-up: If a paper has violated the privacy of an individual, its competitors cannot simply claim to be "just doing follow-ups" and print everything a day later with greater dose of 'masala'. A specific instance of failure then becomes collective failure.
When an editor is hauled up by police authorities and faces the risk of being jailed by corporate interests, the flag-bearers of journalism issue statements. However, they are conspicuous by their silence on matters such as this. Not even a word. Its as if that when politicians are targets of low-level journalism (read sensationalism), "we" are okay with it.
A video, sets of private pictures or libelous allegations -- if the target is a politician, especially someone who has a history of being lambasted by all and the sundry -- we are okay. This simply cannot go on. There has to be a stop and the time is now.
3. Phantom reader: Lastly, journalists cannot claim to dish out crap and invade people's lives by simply saying its "reader interest". As a newspaper reader or a TV viewer, have you ever come across a reader/viewer survey asking you/us about what we really want to see? My guess is as good as yours. Never.
Powerful journalists (read racketeers) choose what "they" want to carry and their ultimate defense is "reader interest". The social media is full of sane readers/viewers who have taken and will continue to take strong objection to vile methods practiced by some media outlets. Those real views, however, never get due coverage. Only those, preferably jokes and 'smart' one-liners, are cramped together and again "sold" as news.
All this begets a simple question, the answer for which is probably known. Traditional media has failed itself. In its urge to revitalize itself with new-found zealousness/reader interest, it is publishing crap, shit and poop day after day.
The reader is not your wife. Respect and you will get respect.
All readers of this post are free to criticize my views, as always. I will publish them all. Do drop a line and share this post on your networks if there is even an iota of something you like. Conversely, share even if you don't like so that I get a barrage of notifications to correct myself :)
Adios. Till the next time.
Image courtesy: 1. http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002787187/1923255931_privacy_xlarge.jpeg
2. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg1FHwfVuTzj3t9sHTXKRelWlJlmHA9620JJ7NSlSyS5DWbQbp8hEiNCFXvtdTYi_CJod20shvPBg01Wa4lWLTAcSBNQIQbulJWtXu3pLl5j2AeTIQnXChyphenhyphenX9wMAKWH-M-X4pp7a_9G60F/s1600/a+media+fail.png
3. https://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/files/original/PressHat3_2.jpg
4. http://cbpr.me/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pitching-to-Journalists.jpg
5. http://cdn2.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/social-media.jpg
6. http://media.king5.com/images/CRIME_DIME_Logo470.jpg
There's an old saying: Raise no more devils than you can lay down. Indian media has raised one too many.
67-year old Congress leader Digvijaya Singh's candid pictures with TV anchor Amrita Rai have given the 'news-hungry' sections of some media persons a sitting duck, as they say. It could never have been so easier. Rabid readers and the oh-so sacrosanct 'reader interest' has trumped decency and common sense once again. If it sells, it must be news. Its a sorry state of affairs that am afraid we have created.
Lies, Deceit, Propaganda...then comes sex. Lok Sabha elections, which saw the seventh phase completing today, has now come the full circle. 'Diggy-gate' was the proverbial cherry on the top for media wanting to break news (never mind if some hearts are also broken). The elections started on a sombre note with development being the plank but now, just like always, has been reduced to a circus -- thanks to media.
People who support this type of journalism where the privacy of individuals, one being in full glare of public life and the other who brings others into public life, stands violated by all counts, have given me many what-they-say are "solid" reasons. My advice to them -- Get a life!
Digvijaya Singh, who has earlier been ridiculed for gaffes and no stranger to controversies, hasn't done any crime this time round to my mind. As he admitted on Twitter, he possibly loves this woman and wants to have a stable relationship. The only possible discomfort could be his that the 'news' of his relationship comes within months after his wife, suffering from cancer, passed away. But still, its his life and he has the right to live it in a way that is not deemed illegal.
The lady in question, along with her husband, has apparently filed for a mutual consent divorce.
The problem is righteous people and those priding themselves on high moral grounds think they are superior. They will tell you how this relationship is possibly illegal as the lady is not divorced.
I want all of you who are reading this blog to step back from all these things. Let me tell you why I feel this entire episode reeks of failure of our media to dissect news from cheap sensationalism -- yellow journalism as they call it.
As journalists, We are taught and eventually trained to separate the wheat from the chaff. Its what we aspire to do everyday. In this case, however, that has not happened.
I will not go into the details of the publication which gave great prominence to this purported pictures that were floating around social media apparently on Tuesday. The publication, which is trying to become a mainline and aspires to champion real causes, is unimportant.
1. The 'scoop': When a paper, which wants to be taken seriously, publishes private photos of a politician, its the lowest level a paper can stoop to. What if next some people publish private pictures of the editor or circulate audio tapes of private conversations he/she had with someone they are attracted or in a relationship to?
The time has come to define news in the 21st century.
The old and stupid way of saying "when a dog bites a man that's not news and when a man bites a dog that's news" is outdated as a dinosaur. Media has to respect people and the lives they lead. When social media is abuzz with private pictures of any person, be it a politician, film-star or even a porn star, it is a "right" to exercise control/ignore moronic urge to publish them.
The media enjoys this right because those who have bestowed them to the media feel we are worth of it. If not exercised properly, the day may not be far that the "right" could be under scanner and eventually taken away.
2. The follow-up: If a paper has violated the privacy of an individual, its competitors cannot simply claim to be "just doing follow-ups" and print everything a day later with greater dose of 'masala'. A specific instance of failure then becomes collective failure.
When an editor is hauled up by police authorities and faces the risk of being jailed by corporate interests, the flag-bearers of journalism issue statements. However, they are conspicuous by their silence on matters such as this. Not even a word. Its as if that when politicians are targets of low-level journalism (read sensationalism), "we" are okay with it.
A video, sets of private pictures or libelous allegations -- if the target is a politician, especially someone who has a history of being lambasted by all and the sundry -- we are okay. This simply cannot go on. There has to be a stop and the time is now.
3. Phantom reader: Lastly, journalists cannot claim to dish out crap and invade people's lives by simply saying its "reader interest". As a newspaper reader or a TV viewer, have you ever come across a reader/viewer survey asking you/us about what we really want to see? My guess is as good as yours. Never.
Powerful journalists (read racketeers) choose what "they" want to carry and their ultimate defense is "reader interest". The social media is full of sane readers/viewers who have taken and will continue to take strong objection to vile methods practiced by some media outlets. Those real views, however, never get due coverage. Only those, preferably jokes and 'smart' one-liners, are cramped together and again "sold" as news.
All this begets a simple question, the answer for which is probably known. Traditional media has failed itself. In its urge to revitalize itself with new-found zealousness/reader interest, it is publishing crap, shit and poop day after day.
The reader is not your wife. Respect and you will get respect.
All readers of this post are free to criticize my views, as always. I will publish them all. Do drop a line and share this post on your networks if there is even an iota of something you like. Conversely, share even if you don't like so that I get a barrage of notifications to correct myself :)
Adios. Till the next time.
Image courtesy: 1. http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002787187/1923255931_privacy_xlarge.jpeg
2. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg1FHwfVuTzj3t9sHTXKRelWlJlmHA9620JJ7NSlSyS5DWbQbp8hEiNCFXvtdTYi_CJod20shvPBg01Wa4lWLTAcSBNQIQbulJWtXu3pLl5j2AeTIQnXChyphenhyphenX9wMAKWH-M-X4pp7a_9G60F/s1600/a+media+fail.png
3. https://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/files/original/PressHat3_2.jpg
4. http://cbpr.me/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pitching-to-Journalists.jpg
5. http://cdn2.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/social-media.jpg
6. http://media.king5.com/images/CRIME_DIME_Logo470.jpg
