The news, with warts

FREEZE FRAME

The power of the medium is rarely accompanied by adequate responsibility.

Some recent events and their media coverage in India and elsewhere have raised several issues that need to be examined comprehensively.

In a world where we are literally bombarded with images and sounds, words and visuals, it is important to look again at the new contours of a networked society.

I have often said that we are living in the 'attention age" where everyone and everything vies for attention. This includes the media. The fact that news is big business makes it all the more complex.

Moreover, in an increasingly digital world the ability to transcend the dividing line between privacy and the public good is not only getting diffused but is throwing up new conundrums of media ethics.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in news reportage, both in the print and the electronic media. Legendary newspaper editor Harold Evans puts it very succinctly: "The problem many organisations face is not to stay in business, but to stay in journalism."

The Indian media, especially TV, has been remarkable for its teenybopper mediocrity. The sheer reach and power of the medium makes it the prime source of news and information for millions of India.

Unfortunately this might is rarely accompanied by adequate responsibility. Let's look at some instances "� the tsunami disaster, the 'teenage oral sex MMS,' the Ambani saga, to name just a few. The need to be first with the most sensational seems paramount.

Everything else be damned. A TV image may be transient but is igniting. The dividing line between entertainment and news has become fragile. The tsunami disaster had millions riveted to their TV sets with a voyeuristic distress.

This is raising new social and moral questions. Within seconds a news bulletin or television picture can be flashed around the globe. News anchors are the new interlocutors of public perception.

Sadly, we have not seen a whole generation of bright newscasters assuming a role which they are neither intellectually nor resource- wise equipped for.

This often leads to the vigilante journalism so much admired by the dyed-in-the-wool liberals but something that's hardly commendable. Trial by the media has never been a solution.

The media, especially when they have the reach and immediacy of television (and the internet), should provoke and inform, rather than be alarmist or judgmental.

Save for a few, most news channels don't even have adequate editorial resources and rely on souped wire stories to fill their bulletins. At others channels, news presenters read someone else's lines with a moronic smile.

In the name of objectivity we are bombarded by the opinions of self-styled experts. Yet the fact is that objectivity "� this notion that they simply report what is going on around us "� has made journalists easily manipulable.

We live in an era of permanent campaigning, with spin-doctors galore, and media plugs and pseudo-events overtaking the news. Incumbency is more powerful than ever.

The executive branch overwhelms other sectors of the government. And those in power control the news. So you have media barons talking of the public good whenever individuals raise hackles about intrusions into privacy.

There is also the entire question of financial interests versus ethics. And finally there's the simple aesthetics of not showing a half-rotting corpse repeatedly. The tendency to break news first is often the cause of inappropriate reportage.

One is not for a moment suggesting that the media be obsequious. The issue is responsibility and restraint and not just bluster. It is about appropriate attire and demeanor.

It is about compassion and commitment. All budding journalists quote P Sainath's"Everybody Loves a Good Drought" and end doing just the opposite of what the book condemns.

Take the story of Chuck Lewis who left "60 Minutes," the respected CBS news show, because he was "tired of shooting people tight, waiting for them to cry."

He founded the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit institution that does terrific watchdog reporting. I am not saying that all good anchors should head for the nearest village to create a "Swades" but there is a need for some introspection and relearning.

More and more research is being done to show the links between good journalism and good business. And more and many media critics are calling for responsible corporate governance among media companies.

Among the steps being urged on owners and CEOs: Consider having on your boards of directors members with experience in the editorial side of a news organisation. Designate a director "� or directors "� to have special responsibility to monitor the company's editorial performance.

And tie incentive compensation for corporate officers in a significant part to achieving journalistic quality goals. Of course, having an ombudsman should be mandatory for all news organisations.

Yet as we move towards the next wave of technology (ubiquitous and cheap availability of high bandwidth devices), a more democratic, informed and pluralistic dissemination of news will evolve. The mainstream media are beginning to notice these feisty newcomers.

As the CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman said: "I'm intrigued at the way that bloggers and blogs have forced their way into the political process on their own; that's why I want to incorporate the blogs into our coverage".

Well, I think he and others of his ilk will have little choice in the years to come. Meanwhile, we can only aspire for some rethinking by the entire community of news professionals. l

(Amit Khanna is chairman of Reliance Entertainment. The views expressed here are his own)