Journalism: Visual And Printed

But I accept that the title of the column "" 'Views & Points' "" is boastful, also somewhat overstated. The underlying assumption that there exist views and points, to be shared is rather a questionable belief: It suggests that all columnists ought to, or do actually have ideas. This is a suspect supposition, nevertheless it lingers. How much more eloquently, and subtly, of course, John Updike makes the same point: Everything is infinitely fine, and any opinion is somehow coarser than the texture of the real thing. I find it hard to have opinions..."

Equipped with these misgivings, surrounded by parliamentary turmoil, I then sought moments of lucid tranquility, so that I could, perhaps, in those harbours find a subject, topical but not violently contentious. In choosing journalism have I acted right? That, I will not know until I write about both the visual and the print media. Is there even a relationship between the two? What then is the nature of that relationship? And are those that work in this field conscious of it, or has the nature of journalism, as such, been so profoundly altered by the immediacy of the visual media that the concept, particularly of news, has undergone such a fundamental change that we simply do not know what to do about it. Hence, we seek comfort in the familiar and pretend that nothing has changed.

 

Recently, I read reviews of three books, each dealing in one form or another, with the subject of journalism. The first, curiously enough, was by Jeffrey Archer, entitled 'The Fourth Estate'. A most improbable choice of subject, considering the eccentricities of the author; but then he is recognised, amongst many other attributes, also for his near unbelievable cheek. The second is a much weightier work (I do not mean page-count) called 'Tickle and Public: One Hundred Years of the Popular Press' by Mathew Engel. The third, 'Newspaper Power' by Jeremy Turnstall.

If our world is the post modern state of hyper reality", where actuality and invention have become almost entirely undistinguishable; also if journalism, at least a major part of it is concerned with reporting facts, then somewhere with the ascendancy of visual media, this communication of facts, as they actually occur; graphically, visually, directly, and almost instantaneously, from anywhere in the globe to anywhere else, has become the preserve of TV news alone. Thus, in consequence the print media has been relegated to a post-facto reporter; reduced not so much to being a communicator of news, but more to being a reporter of views about the news.

And there we face yet another conundrum: we live in a world where the relationship between fact and fiction has also fundamentally altered. That is why, I presume, journalists so easily mistake one for the other. I now think that our traditional concerns about media manipulation of public events is hopelessly outdated. You simply cannot manipulate facts on TV, you can, as of old continue to do so in print. In the visual media, the only manipulation available is to just not broadcast; to convert an event into a non-event. And that is the hallmark of journalism today, both visual and print: An event cannot really happen until it is mediated by TV or by newspapers.

But in this race, as far as 'real news' go, the visual media is far ahead, in time, as also in spread (instant distribution) and, of course, in vividity, too. What do newspapers then become? Reflections of what the visual media has already reported, or reproducers of events earlier covered, elsewhere, or simply sheets of paralysingly provincial 'title-tattle'.

Take parliamentary reportage then. I was astounded at the figures that Mathew Engel provides about the staggering scale of parliamentary coverage in earlier newspapers. He informs that on a single day in 1855, the Times of London carried 61,500 words of parliamentary debate verbatim". No, I am not suggesting what you might think I am, because I am extremely conscious of the counter: 'These days, in our Parliament, there is hardly any debate'. But that in itself begs the question, because if reportage was extensive, then headlines would not be confined to the 'Uproar in Parliament' variety. I think our people do want to know, they thirst for a more extensive reportage, and even the tedious, serves a purpose. I do know, for example, that the recent debates on the confidence votes on both the BJP government as also of the United Front, had a vast audience which, I am informed, was fascinated by the sheer drama and thrill, and the actual workings of our democracy in Parliament (for which we all, in theory at least, vote) that there occurred mass absenteeism from offices, and silence descended even on our roads. That, to me says at least two things: that people do want to know, and that they, given the choice, prefer experiencing directly, living through the event, as it were. In this respect the directness of the visual media can simply not be matched by the written. Therefore, in these times of instant everything, are newspapers losing out? Not, if the circulation figures tell us anything.

And what do these figures tell us? That people like to watch events for themselves e.g football, cricket, accidents et al. Having witnessed them, they then wish to be told what actually it was that they saw. This visual thus carries the news, the written interprets it. Therefore, for so long as this relationship lasts, for that long your columnist hopes to continue to have a job.