Sunday, September 25, 2011

TRP is a 3 letter word




Once – little before he left the country, over idlis and coffee at the Saravana Bhavan on Janpath - Raju Narisetti, the founding editor of MINT (now Managing Ed at Washington Post), had jokingly talked about “the farm house index of Indian editors”. He had surprised me by rattling out names of senior editors who owned multi-crores worth farm-houses around Delhi, villas and holiday homes in the hills and by the sea.

His more than worthy successor, R Sukumar, has written a very thought provoking edit last week on media ethics titled “The real-issue-with-journalism” (click link here). Suku starts his piece – talking about his own company leased accommodation and hits the nail straight on its head. Historically, a newspaper journalist was hugely underpaid. Even after “corporatisation” of print-media today, most of the editors of leading newspapers earn only a fraction of what is paid to the head honcho of the same media house (Only 3 or 4 Indian Editors – on last count - are known to be earning Corporate Salaries with Employee Stock Options et al. Please don't ask me for names !!)

If I were to use my favourite analogy (click here to read) of a restaurant with newspapers, and if I liken the Editor to a celebrity Chef, there are many instances of Michelin Chefs paid higher than the General Managers of a hotel. Thankfully things are changing. But, still on average a journalists remuneration in not comparable to those of their marketing and commercial colleagues, who reside on the other side of the LoC as it were (to use another of my pet phrase when talking about newspapers click here) in the Church vs State divide between editorial and marketing believed to exist in the media world.

not of manor born

Only – perhaps – The Statesman, in its good old days, provided fancy accommodation to its editors (at the haloed Minto Park Complex – the premier residential address of Calcutta’s top box-wallah company executives - on D L Khan Road near the Calcutta Zoo) and, probably, also the Bennett Coleman Group (Times of India), with its large cache of prime properties in Mumbai. Others pretty much had to fend for themselves and have to do so even now.

The point I am trying to make isn’t that – inequalities in remuneration alone justify journalists taking undue favours from state, corporations, businessmen, politicians or individuals. But, the roots of such ethically ambivalent behavior probably lie there.

The desire to acquire wealth – of which land and property is a prime denomination – is a basic and universal human need that exist from time immemorial. But, in a feudal society like ours – where traditionally exceptional fortune could only be earned through the benevolence and favours granted by the rulers (read, those in power) or deprivation of the weaker sections of society, greed for “land” and “residential” property is a national affliction . So, we have Army Generals, Judges, bureaucrats and politicians all running after 'special quotas' and out of turn allocations of prime property.

It has always been considered fair-game to get land allotted from government at concessional rates for constructing “patrakar colonies”, “press enclaves” or “media centres” – treating it almost on the same footing as cheap booze at the Press Club, like a standard journalistic perk.

I remember a friend and a colleague fighting a legal battle with the Government of Maharashtra for converting the tenancy rights of an apartment on Pedder Road in Mumbai, where his late father – an eminent vernacular editor – had been granted permanent lifetime residence by a former Chief Minister of the state.

Lodi, Lutyens or Aurangzeb

Private corporations were quick to latch on to the trick. Many firms dabbling in real estate on the side offer priority allotment to journalists even before the bookings are opened to the public (like in the olden days of ‘public issues’ – promoters granted cheap shares to their friends in the media out of their quota reserved for business associates) others offer free or low rent residence to journalists – out of their pool of company flats or properties indirectly owned by them. One mega-corporation (no prizes for guessing) is particularly known for such generosity. I know of some journalists enjoying their hospitality long past their retirement at a prime address on Aurangzeb Road.

But, the question is to what extent does this compromise a journalist’s independence?

Gucci, Prada or Birkin

Without equivocating – I am not sure if I would put the above at par with free-loading Food and Lifestyle journalists. How many of our Food Critics pay for their restaurant bills? The girl-friend of a well-known glamour boy of Indian media (herself a ‘lifestyle’ journalist of some repute) is known to flaunt a collection of designer hand-bags – that’s the envy of many high society ladies - received as gifts on junkets of international fashion houses, on which she accompanied her partner.

Here again the truth is – many junior journalists wouldn’t be able to afford 5 star meals on a regular basis paying out of their own pocket and till quite recently not too many media houses would reimburse their bills either, assuming as a matter of course, that it was a free dinner in any case.

One clever media baron caught on to this rather early and decided - instead of his journalists receiving free meal tickets or other favours for positive plugs in their columns – to publish a ‘rate card’ for “paid Content” – cutting off the middle-man as it were and brilliantly monetizing a business opportunity.

Mr Pony-tail and Queen Bee

This has led to increased porosity in the once water-tight Chinese walls between advertising and editorial – with increasing instances of advertisers influencing content. It is no longer limited to a few usual suspects – known for having a slew of journalists and editors on their payroll. Why waste efforts at cultivating individual journos – when you can strike deals with the owners or the management themselves ? Therefore, it’s also not surprising that, perhaps - the most infamous among them have dismantled their in-house media-fixing department and outsourced it to the queen bee of the PR industry. One of the most “respected” business house – during a long stand-off with a top media conglomerate – shifted patronage to their rival group, not just in terms of advertising support but also sponsorship of mega events – in lieu of positive editorial coverage. Much has been written and talked about – with little result – about the media clout of a walking sartorial disaster doubling as an academic imposter ( the ‘Baba Ramdev’ of the Education Business). And, the recent family spat in a southern media empire – reveals a lot about how vulnerable the most self-righteous editors can be to external pressure.

But, pay-offs needn’t always be in cash or favours. As we have seen during the recent “R-gate” controversy – power can be a big “turn-on” as well. Many years back – a late editorial doyen, had pointed out to me some members of his ilk at a popular watering hole in Delhi – saying they are a breed of “fixers who masquerade as editors”. You have to only visit the same venue on any evening on Max Mueller Marg in New Delhi – if you wish to spot some these species.

on a different track

There are other ways of dishing out favours too. Suku in his article has talked of journalists lobbying for the “Padma Awards”. Junkets are the simplest and an age-old lolly-pop which still hasn’t lost its charm for many. Now, I am told, the in-thing is to provide "scholarships" to the kids of journalists through family or corporate trusts.

In an era when the country seems almost besieged by insurgent movements in different corners and neighbourly disquiet – many a journalist, due to their proximity to certain groups, become self-proclaimed “interlocutors” (be it of the Nagas, GNLF, ULFA or Kashmir for many years) and get inducted into “Track 2” diplomacy – for which they are rewarded in invisible ways by the government either through one of the ministries or Intel agencies like the RAW. Many of them are in the 'pay' (I am advisedly not using the term 'take' ) of the government for services they may well consider "patriotic" and, perhaps, a ticket for a "Padma".

There are many instances like the one of a senior editor setting up his own TV Content production company which was commissioned to do special programming on Kashmir. In some of our neighbouring countries - Indian journalists turned media-entrepreneurs have launched publications - which locals are convince have been funded indirectly by the Indian establishment.


These are by no means new tricks. We all remember how in the cold war era journalists were actively wooed by both the blocks and thinly veiled accusations often surfaced about someone being an agent of CIA or KGB depending on their Left or Right leanings.

The idea of this long narrative was not to chronicle what’s wrong with the journalistic world and how rot has set in to media. I genuinely believe that, our media is no less or more corrupt (for that matter ethical and principled) than any other section of our society or professions. So, it brings me back to the earlier question – as to what extent does such gratifications compromise a journalist's integrity.



hooch, hooch, hooray

I am inclined to take a somewhat amoral position on this. To me – if the media gave so much coverage to Anna Hazare, the 2G Scam or Adarsh is not because they had a sudden churn of conscience but they had simply no option. They could have done otherwise only at the risk of losing viewership or readership. The key, therefore, to making all our institutions behave responsibly and ethically lies in the arousal of public consciousness about issues that affect us. And, it is here that – crusaders like Anna Hazare, civil society activists, RTI champions and – most importantly – a fiercely independent judiciary plays the catalyst role. The triangular diagram above - perhaps - best depicts the construct that will balance the dynamics at play.

Once the mood of the people changes – everyone will slowly fall in line and change their tune (if not their hue). My friends in the media will probably kill me for this comparison – it will then be much like the voters of Tamil Nadu – who after accepting all the gifts of TVs, Washing Machines and drowned in hooch – still go and vote for exactly the party and candidate they want. Past favours and gratifications received will not really matter any more.

So, TRP, isn’t such a bad word after all.

(Note & Disclaimer: The above account is based on impressions gathered through many years of fraternising with the journalist and media community. None of the examples cited relate or pertain in anyway to my experiences in the media houses I have worked in during the course of my professional career).

My other blog-posts on Media:

Light and Sound on TV

3 Wise Men

Deceptively Simple

11 comments:

  1. I read it in logical sequence - first Sukumar's from houses to paid content and how journalists are responsible (he doesnt explain how), it flitted too suddenly.

    Yours offered a more grounded, palatable view. Though I am not sure that amoral practices are the outcome of bad pay and can be condoned. The celebrity columnist who is rumoured to have been on the rolls of one corporate after another (starting with Manu chabbria) is after all fairly well heeled. And incidentally, your take at the end is again reminiscent of his position - that even though he took the goodies - he still wrote an unbiased copy.

    Of course, I too have accepted Diwali gifts appeasing conscience with same line... and re junkets, in most cases the reasoning is that since journalists are under-paid, this could be one way of incentivising them. But, what happens to the poor reader paying for the paper then - who has to read some utter rubbish from a fam trip passed off as news?

    In all this, nobody is thinking of the poor reader.

    I feel that ultimately the solution lies with managements - they have to spell out the ground rules in black and white, instead of leaving it in nebulous grey and open to malpractices.

    Mint to an extent has done it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My own take, and I must confess, I haven't had as much of an experience of being editor as some of the others mentioned in the blog by name or otherwise, is this. The profession hasn't devoted as much time to defining what is news, as it might have in going after whatever it has chosen to label as news. The New York Times' boast about 'All news fit to print' is at one level a manifestation of its hubris and yet is also at another level an admission of the fact that it doesn't have a clear template of what it considers as news.

    It is in its fuzziness, or may I say,,adamant refusal to even reflect on what it considers as news, journalism has exposed itself to all that you lament as the media's shortcomings. As a corollary the journalists have provided a thin end of the wedge that commercial function heads in media companies and media owners themselves have exploited to create an opening as large as the barn door for all manner of questionable practices to be rammed through.

    ReplyDelete
  3. all your points are valid. i am personally convinced media as business can never be real media. and once we accept that this form of media is actually infotainment, that's a model much closer to reality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brilliant. wish u wd go public with this one: in a regular publication n with more direct references...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Read, enjoyed. As a hack who still doesn't have a house to call his own after 16 years of good growth, it also hit home.

    Also loved the amoral stand part. You are Ghose spot on. Corruption, in any walk of life, can be tackled only by changing the public mood.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to say I am a lot more confused about this issue. The instances you've mentioned are really a case of guilty by association, and so easy to pin down. There must be those who display none of these vices but more covertly push some agenda. How do you identify them? And in turn I am not sure accepting subsidised housing or an award or two always compromises a journo. I know a couple of senior editors who did get subsidized housing in media centre in Gurgaon: but they are first rate journalists with unimpeachable credentials.
    I believe it is finally about how well you do your job, which is to bring unbiased news to the reader. One of my favourite journalists is Robert Fisk who was the last western writer to have met Bin Laden before 9/11. He enjoyed a particularly warm relationship with Osama, a fact he states quite openly. That hasn't stopped him from writing some of the most incisive commentary on the Taliban.
    As you can see I am a bit ambivalent on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The real trouble is there are very few organisations and editors which walk the talk on ethics. The underpaid argument is largely irrelevant now. Yes, journos are underpaid, but few bring 'marketable' qualifications to the table. They are not underpaid in relation to their academic expertise or training, certainly.
    The guidance has to come from top. Editors have to demonstrate that they are serious about ethical journalism. The rest follows. Media organisations themselves are the first culprits in this. From selecting 'malleable' or 'market friendly' journalists for the top job to simply hiring some for their phone book. When your employer asks you to fix a few problems using your contacts, how can they then stop you from fixing others' problems - for a fee?
    Most media houses today are ethically amoral -- not downright immoral, just amoral. I feel there are no greys in ethical choices. It's always a yes or no choice. The trouble starts when it becomes yes in some cases and no in others -- for whatever reason. Then the rot spreads.

    ReplyDelete
  8. KB, London (via Twitter)27 September 2011 at 21:50

    read yr media ethics - my vu Jrnos wield 2 much power. can make or break. no regultn on story sors personal vendetta etc. lame leadng blind

    ReplyDelete
  9. I enjoyed your post Mr Ghose as usual.
    The issue that you discuss that Journos need to be like Cease’s wife because we become the keeper’s of truth is true but we must also remember that it is because of the honest journalists that we are able to evaluate what is the truth at all. It is because there are some of us who evaluate, examine and reflect on our actions constantly.
    Favors, junkets, lobbying and taking corporate goodies are an individual decision. Greed defines some people and those are individual choices. What I find troubling is the cynicism which is afflicting us. I find, we, our generation is accepting or indifferent to honesty. To me that is most dangerous.
    As for journalist who deludes themselves by thinking that their voice that matters should wake up and smell the coffee. If Mr Sanghvi and Ms Dutt thought that they are the defining voices enlightening India, they really live in a different world. I choose who and what I read. It is mostly the voice of reason and truth unfettered by ego those appeals to me. And that is what the information revolution is giving us. I may be a small number but I believe I am significant as modern history is showing with Libya and Syria.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Many things are wrong with the media, but even as a practising cynic, I believe there exists much good journalism and story-telling in the world. Intelligent readers will find it. And I also believe that much of the reading public is intelligent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Journalists are pretty grounded about what they want for themselves :
    1) Power
    2) Brand image(look at all the columnists who now have their photos alongside their columns-I mean, if TV journos can be recognised, why not us?)
    Material benefits flow from the above.
    Its all very well, but if you make greenbacks, can there PLEASE be some quality reporting as a side effect?
    Typos, poor grammar, leaving readers with unanswered questions , in-the-box, cliched arguments, crocodile tears for "victims", shouting down interviewees. COME ON ! Where is our Huffington Post/ Larry King/ David Frost?

    ReplyDelete