In order to make good money and be famous(via kargil war and gujarat riots) they have taken the ethics of journalism to a new low…..

These people should be tried under law for spreading false rumours and lies…..during gujarat riots…

There was a time a few years ago, when I used the net solely to scour out news. I was a news-junkie, then. Not anymore.

From what I had noticed is that in the past couple of years, we the people, have been flooded with news whether it is the papers or the televison channels. What has put me off the news drug in the past couple of years is that over-coverage of events. I know that running any business is not a charity affair. But the level of news I feel has reached rock bottom and digging further deeper day by day.

If you take a look at any newspaper/news channel, you find that there is no ‘journalism’ involved. I feel that old-fashioned investigative reporting has been interred. Where are the people stories? Where are the stories that affect normal people? It has been taken over by sensationalism. But in the end, a fair part of the blame would also fall on us. We demand ‘breaking news’ and we get it. The question, is at what price?

Pradeep, good to get an insider’s viewpoint. But you cannot argue that people at the level of Sardesai are very attuned to what sells on their TV channels. Fine, the reporters on the ground may get carried away, but as to what comes out of anchors’ mouths (not the slip ups, not the mistakes, but the content of their broadcasts) is discussed and decided upon prior to the shows – not every specific thing, but all anchors have a general idea of what to say. And talking about “exclusiveness” of the news, or about how their channel is beaming video worldwide is one of those things that is discussed, I’m sure. If TV channels don’t harp on the exclusivity of their news or about how good and widely seen they are, why will viewers tune in and why will advertisers advertise?

Two reasons for the points you have raised. One, the event: the blasts which were unprecedented in scale and execution. Two, the TV: an instant and live medium.

There is no entertainment aspect to the reportage at all… please… nor there is a commercial angle to it. It’s just a wrong perception. When we journalists are out there at the spot, “selling”… whatever that means… is the last thing on the mind. …On the contrary, it’s such a tough job out there… struggling to get information against all odds and to put them across to viewers or readers, who are so much more demanding now compared to earlier days.

It’s said, “Media is in the business of generating revenue.” No. I don’t think we need to take so much of trouble… like going without food, swallowing insults, suffering ridicule… to generate revenue. But do accept the fact that revenue is important. Running a media organistation is a very expensive proposition.

I do agree that like in every profession, journalism too has bad apples. Just as there are bad doctors, teachers, engineers, advocates, there are bad journalists too.

I only wish non-journalists had at some point a good exposure to the working of the media personnel especially in such situations.

One reason for the wrong perception is, I feel, the journalist is there right at the spot, in the thick of events… while the viewer or reader is in the comforts of the home. It’s only natural viewers react the way they do. But it will be good, if they understand that facts are different.

There is one point few people realise: The very things that make people view a programme are precisely the things that they don’t like. It’s ironic, but true. Take the punch or the most captivating aspect out of the programme or article, you won’t watch it or read it. Then, no criticism, no applause.

After more than 15 years in journalism – during which media in India underwent a dramatic opening up — I find the chicken-and-egg phenomenon very interesting and sometimes amusing.

I never understood why people kept watching or reading something they hated so much… or conversely, why they are so critical or abusive of things that they like… A paradox which needs some research, perhaps.

If things were so disgusting, no one would have watched (TV) or read (newspapers)… and gradually TV stations and newspapers would have closed down. On the contrary, they are thriving… and the most loyal viewers or readers are the severest critics as well. Quite puzzling!

Kishore, your comments are well taken and appreciated. Remember, the Mumbai blasts activated the media (from mobile phones to TV to newspapers to blogs) in such an extraordinary manner. People used the media to pour out their frustrations, anger or helplessness, or just to suggest a way out. It is such a tribute to the industry I work in.

At the end of it all, we journalists take comfort from one thing… that even at the risk of being criticised, saturation coverage has ensured that every common person is fully involved and participative in the social, economic and political events and issues that affect all of us. Such discussions are now, no longer restricted to or the privilege of a few academicians.

Hopefully the city is strong enough to get through this, its good to see Mumbai’s people coming together in this tragic event to help each other. This help is needed more then the news stories.