MxMIndia

Category: COLUMNS

  • The British press sort of forgot that since Fred Perry's victory in 1936, four women have been Wimbledon singles champions, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Social prejudices rule in Britain on Murray win

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Andy Murray’s win at Wimbledon has been celebrated across Britain. The Times, London called him “The History Boy”, The Guardian, The Independent and The Scotsman all went with the simple but evocative “Champion”, The Daily Express said he was “Magical Murray”. Some said a knighthood was on its way, “At Last, “Wimbledone”, “Yes!” and “Golden Boy” were some of the others.

     

    But where there is media, can controversy be far away? It started in fact on Saturday, July 6, just before the ladies singles final was to be played. John Inverdale, a BBC radio commentator had this to say about Marion Bartoli who went on to become the champion, “‘I just wonder if her dad, because he has obviously been the most influential person in her life, did say to her when she was 12, 13, 14 maybe, “listen, you are never going to be, you know, a looker.

     

    “You are never going to be somebody like a (Maria) Sharapova, you’re never going to be 5ft 11in, you’re never going to be somebody with long legs, so you have to compensate for that.”

     

    Bartoli is undoubtedly a quirky player with some tennis court rituals that are out of the ordinary (though perhaps Rafael Nadal wins that one). But what her physical beauty has to do with her tennis playing skills was not made clear by Inverdale or anyone else who thinks that female tennis players must be good-looking before they pick up a racquet.

     

    Inverdale’s sexist comments are part of an almost accepted form of conversation as far as the women’s game is concerned. It is possible that he even thought he was being funny, as this is how he explained his remarks: “She is an incredible role model for people who aren’t born with all the attributes of natural athletes.”

     

    His apology included these remarks: “The point I was trying to make, in a rather ham-fisted kind of way, was that in a world where the public perception of tennis players is that they’re all 6ft tall Amazonian athletes, Marion – who is the Wimbledon champion – bucks that trend.”

     

    It is unclear however whether these are Inverdale’s thoughts – that all female tennis players ought to be 6 ft tall blondes – or whether indeed, this is true. Of course, the Williams sisters spring to mind seeing as how they have been the most dominant of recent times.

     

    But if Inverdale’s sexism was bad, things were about to get a lot worse. In the hysteria of excitement at Andy Murray’s victory, the British press sort of forgot that Murray was the first man to win a Wimbledon singles title in 77 years. Since Fred Perry’s victory in 1936, four women have been Wimbledon singles champions. Virginia Wade, who won in 1977, is a prominent commentator and columnist, even if the other three have been forgotten.

     

    Tennis is the only sport in the world where women play at the same level, in the same tournaments and get paid the same amount of money as men. It is a shame therefore that social prejudices should be reflected so thoroughly in the media which ought to know better. Yes, there is no doubt that in the men’s game, Andy Murray has made a massive breakthrough. But there is surely no need to disrespect the women who have achieved exactly what he has. Yet both The Times and The Telegraph have similar headlines about the end to a 77-year wait for a British win.

     

    This link from The Guardian makes it clear: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/shortcuts/2013/jul/08/virginia-wade-wimbledon-champion-tennis

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • If the Gujarat CM sneezes, it'll be time for a political debate on TV and a dissection of the symbolism of a sneeze on opinion-based websites, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Modi mania in the media

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The big media sensation in India these days is definitely Narendra Modi. Ever since he was made the chairman of the BJP’s election committee – seen as heir presumptive of his party – if the Gujarat chief minister so much as sneezes, it’s time for a political debate on TV and a dissection of the symbolism of a sneeze on opinion-based websites.

     

    Modi himself – or his publicity machinery – adds fuel to the fire. One day, he is supposed to have almost single-handedly rescued 15,000 Gujaratis from the floods of Uttarakhand, soon after he claims to have felt as bad as a person sitting in a car which runs over the son (or daughter) of a dog – an elliptical reference to the victims of the Gujarat riots. This interview to Reuters spread like wildfire across social media and what is now called mainstream media (acronymed to MSM which does sound like some disease you don’t particularly want). The words used by Modi were translated as “puppy” and the merry-go-round started again.

     

    Two things are clear from this. One, Modi’s publicity machine is trying too hard. And, two, the media’s focused attention is a double-edged sword, as Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal and the organisers of the anti-corruption movement found out to their horror. Modi now cannot take a step without someone watching, someone tearing it apart and someone else explaining what he meant in excruciating detail.

     

    Tied to the Modi-in-the-media story is that of the intelligence agencies, people killed in fake encounters and the Gujarat government. The death of Mumbai teenager Ishrat Jahan in 2004 has now overshadowed that of her companions and also exposed a divide in India’s various investigative and intelligence agencies. The media, rather than look at the issues involved objectively, has sided with one or the other investigative agency.

     

    The problem here is a little different from the “for or against” Modi camps in the media. For years, editors have allowed reporters working on intelligence and police beats to become mouthpieces for those agencies. The logic is that you pick up on inside stories and the senior edit team works out the kinks caused by bias. But life and a newsroom never work that way and the result is that print journals and to some extent news channels just become conduits for intelligence agency politics. Print prides itself on having more filters than TV but as the various headlines, allegations, fights and quite frankly bogus information masquerading as news has shown recently, the filters have been playing hookie.

     

    I must make my own bias clear here: I lived in Gujarat before and during the 2002 riots. There is little doubt in my mind about state government complicity, whether active or passive. However, that does not mean that everything that happens in Gujarat has to be vilified. It cannot be a “for us or against us” case for the media at least. Modi is a chief minister with a sordid past. But he’s just a chief minister of one state. He is not a superhuman being sent either to destroy or redeem us. Myth-making is a long organic process. It is unlikely that a media with chronic short-term memory loss can be successful at it.

     

    **

     

    In the rest of the world, news has had a sort of similar focus. The US has been concerned with the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin last year. Zimmerman shot the teenager assuming him to be hostile while on his rounds as part of a neighbourhood watch scheme. Martin, 17, has no weapon on him and his two biggest crimes appeared to be wearing a hoodie and being black.

     

    As the US grapples with the consequences of this verdict, Britain where I am now, is waiting for the arrival of the “royal baby”. The “due date” (last Saturday) has come and gone and the breathless media has to concentrate on this event. Babies as we all know can be tremendously uncooperative in such matters. But the stories must continue. A special reclining chair for daddy in the hospital suite, also champagne and luxury toiletries, father William playing polo, mummy Kate “putting her feet up” at her parents, the sun shining, no clouds, step-mother letting slip the new due date might be this weekend and other such trivialities occupy the national press.

     

    Who says the media is different anywhere else?

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • The last decade has been shockingly under-served when it comes to comic television in India, rues Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Who stole our Comedies?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Everyone likes a laugh. Across cultures and eras, ‘Comedy’ has never lost its relevance. In India too, comedy films have a rich legacy, going back to gems like Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi, Padosan, Angoor, Gol Maal and Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro. On television, the ’80s featured exemplary comedy work, none less than Kundan Shah’s Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi.

     

    Television comedy continued to thrive in the ’90s and the early 2000s, with Dekh Bhai Dekh, Hum Paanch, Khichdi, Baa Bahoo Aur Baby, Movers & Shakers and Office Office. You may have missed the nuanced work of Kundan Shah and Basu Chatterjee in some of these, but you certainly couldn’t have complained of quality or quantity in absolute terms.

     

    The last decade, however, has been shockingly under-served when it comes to comic television in India. If we keep aside the launch and the subsequent success of Comedy Central, there’s not much of a story to write.

     

    In 2005, The Great Indian Laughter Challenge made stand-up comedy a mass phenomenon, leading to a spate of clones, till Comedy Circus found a personality of its own, standing out as a unique idea amongst the me-toos. 2005 also saw Sarabhai Vs. Sarabhai, a modern classic in its own right. But as Star One moved away from comedy into romance, they created a vacuum that no one was willing to fill.

     

    Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah launched in 2008 and has been the frontrunner of the comic genre over the last five years. But this has also been a period when other channels have labeled comedy a ‘SAB TV thing’, paying very little attention to it in their core programming strategy.

     

    That it is a case of missed opportunity seems like stating the obvious. Here are 10 reasons:

    1. Comedy films continue to deliver consistent repeat viewing and high ratings on television.

    2. De-stress and relaxation (called ‘Mind Fresh’ by consumers across the country) remains a frontal benefit delivered by television viewing in India. Whenever it has been used well in existing soaps as a device, it has worked wonderfully.

    3. Comedy Nights With Kapil has shown that a good comedy format can beat reality shows with five times its budget on viewer popularity.

    4. Jethalal is the most popular television character on Hindi GECs today, ahead of Anandi, Sandhya, Mahadev and Ram Kapoor.

    5. India is going through a phase of political disenchantment, and time could not be more right for a satirical look at the state of the nation.

    6. General Entertainment Channel (GEC) cannot exclude the most unifying and ‘general’ of all genres!

    7. Some of the biggest Bollywood box office successes in recent years have been comedies.

    8. Rohit Shetty is the No 1 director in Bollywood today, and the only director who can command audience attention like a superstar, purely on the strength of his action-comedies.

    9. There’s liberal sprinkling of humor in the top reality shows, featuring anchors like Manish Paul and Jay Bhanushali. And it works.

    10. Short comedy formats continue to thrive on radio, across big and small towns.

     

    So what gives? Why has comedy become a ‘single-channel + an odd weekend show’ phenomenon? I believe there are two reasons.

     

    One, it is not easy to make the audiences laugh. Writing for a comic show requires special talent, and the writers’ breed thriving today is more of the daily-soap variety. Hence, we have a dearth of good comedy ideas anyway, and those, which may sound good on paper, may eventually falter in execution.

     

    Two, there is an under-estimation of the genre’s potential at the broadcaster’s end. Because not too many comedy shows since Taarak Mehta managed to achieve great success, the genre has been put under question. In reality, it’s the execution that should have been examined. Comedy Nights With Kapil proves that a well-crafted comedy show can achieve mainstream success at par with the best of television.

     

    I hope to see a change, where comedy features as a mainstream GEC genre. The time cannot be more ripe. The need cannot be more under-served. The writing on the wall cannot be more clear. It’s a matter of when and who, than whether.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • As the 2000-2005 generation stars grow older, we may have a genuine dearth of "personalities" and "stars" on our television, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Death Of The ‘Television Star’

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Sangeeta Ghosh, one of the several television stars from the golden era of Star Plus, is back on the telly, in a new Sony show titled Jee Le Zara. In the well-executed launch promo, her refreshing presence creates an unmistakable appeal for the audiences. Ghosh was not one of the biggest icons from the last decade, but she was, and remains, a star in her own right. And her stardom shines through the promo.

     

    But that can’t be said about dozens of other serials that launch every year. Many feature newcomers anyway, but even actors in their second and third serials don’t have a presence that makes them the centerpiece of the communication, and eventually the show.

     

    The last decade was very different. A slew of TV stars emerged as strong real-life personalities, with their appeal going beyond just their character or their programme. This long list includes Smriti Irani, Sakshi Tanwar, Rajeev Khandelwal, Ram Kapoor, Ronit Roy and Urvashi Dholakia, amongst others. They may still be known by their character names, but their appeal extends well beyond that tag.

     

    For the newer lot, their character remains their only identity. Even after doing three shows, some TV actors of today don’t bring even a hint of stardom with them. They are just workhorses who have learnt to play their roles and balance endless working hours in a grueling job.

     

    There are exceptions, none less than Drashti Dhami (Geet, now Madhubala), but only far and few in between. Everybody else is a part of a nondescript crowd, where replacing an actor is only a matter of picking another one from the crowd.

     

    Have we then seen the death of the television star in the last 5-6 years? Evidently yes. And as the 2000-2005 generation stars grow older, we may have a genuine dearth of “personalities” and “stars” on our television.

     

    What led to this? The analysis is not evident, and there are at least two hypotheses I could come up with, which I understand may not be exhaustive. One, it could be about the daily show grind. When Kyunkii and Kahani first started in 2000, daily serials were a relatively virgin idea in India. Actors probably saw them as a creative challenge. The crew was largely from weekly shows and hence operated out of that mindset.

     

    Over time, the mindset seems to have changed to a quick-fix, let’s-get-the-episode-out daily show mindset. The creative challenge is now being found elsewhere, in shows like Nach Baliye and Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa, than in the main acting role itself. Being on the sets everyday is not fun anymore. The rising number of health issues being reported from the industry hold testimony to this change.

     

    Second, I believe most actors in the 2000-2005 period had better training than their counterparts today. Whether the training came through theatre or acting schools, they just seemed more prepared. Today, we literally see young, college kids landing up lead roles. Perhaps, casting has become more about looks and a basic level of dialogue delivery, than about the search for a potential star.

     

    Whatever be the genesis, we have a real issue at hand. What’s needed is casting vision, something with Balaji Telefilms managed to display admirably in the 2000s. Otherwise, we may have an almost star-less television industry five years from now!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • After reading out emotional and meaningful poems at protest venues after the Delhi gangrape, Prasoon Joshi was on ‘Storyboard’ saying advertisers are marketers after all and we just try to sell products

    Ranjona Banerji: Disappointing Prasoon Joshi

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Do people invite Shaina NC to their shows only to take issue with her or ignore her or humiliate her? I am no fan of this member of the Bharatiya Janata Party but I cannot understand why she is invited as a guest to studio discussions only for her views to be pooh-poohed. It is true that her views are usually extremely silly – in which case, why ask her to share them unless you want to expose her? There are many other foolish people in all parties who regularly express their equally daft views without being treated with similar contempt.

     

    On Arnab Goswami’s show last week, Shaina NC tried the impossible task of trying to defend RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s India versus Bharat remarks regarding rape. There were other Sangh Parivar worthies like Subramaniam Swamy and GVL Narasimha Rao on the show who also did their bit but Shaina NC got the most flak. There were times when she looked on the verge of tears. On the Best of the Big Fight on NDTV, Shaina NC got the same treatment from Vikram Chandra and other guests like Madhu Kishwar for her somewhat confused remarks about how India was a fully spiritual nation (as in no sex please). Please note that this was seen as a “best” bit.

     

    The other question of course is: why does Shaina NC want to get treated like this? There is a theory is that she is the most personable face that the BJP has, which is why she is sent out to defend the cause. There is another sexist theory that she has a pleasant face. And a somewhat nasty theory is that she is one of the more stylish members of the BJP, especially since she belongs to India and not Bharat (by Mohan Bhagwat’s definitions, not mine). Plus there’s a cynical theory that her father Nana Chudasama was hedging his bets by making one daughter join the BJP. Whatever the reason, it is unfortunate that she is such a sucker for punishment.

     

    I can safely say this much: Shaina NC is not the sort of person edit pages of newspapers would or should invite to write opinion pieces.

     

    **

     

    Prasoon Joshi

    Have to say that I was most disappointed with Prasoon Joshi’s appearance on CNBC’s Storyboard show with Anuradha Sengupta. For someone who has used his advertising experience to craft himself as a sort of Renaissance man, one would have expected some better responses on a show about how the media can become more gender sensitive. There was Joshi at protest venues after the Delhi gangrape reading out emotional and meaningful poems. And there he was on CNBC saying well, advertisers are marketers after all and we just try to sell products.

     

    The “too bad if you don’t like it” attitude was attempted to be ameliorated by some anodyne remarks about how gender sensitivity as important but it was mere tokenism at best. Unfortunately, there was no Arnab Goswami to call him out. However, the hypocrisy was exposed one way or another.

     

    I suppose the problem comes from wearing too many hats and sometimes you forget when you’re a sensitive poet and when you’re a hard-hearted purveyor of rubbish.

     

    **

     

    The Indian media has stuck to the rape story and the treatment of women in India for over three weeks now, showing incredible tenacity. India TV, often not the most credible but always entertaining, had a brilliant sting operation last week which exposed how women in India are harassed for the simple crime of just standing by the road.
    The media has of course been helped by sheer idiocy of remarks spewed forth by politicians and so-called spiritual and societal leaders.

     

    **

     

    A pat on the back to the media for sticking to the law and not revealing the rape victim’s name, even though the father has apparently given it to the UK Mirror. The Hindu had a front page note from editor Siddharth Vardarajan explaining just how the law worked as far as India is concerned

     

    The news agency ANI has apparently taken action against a stringer for taking remarks by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat about a woman’s place being in the kitchen out of context. Bhagwat was it seems explaining how marriage worked in the western system unlike in India where it is a spiritual union. Sadly, a woman’s place remains in the kitchen here as well, judging from how our worthies feel about women in public places!

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. The views here are his own

     

  • In Freaking News, which will now appear every Tuesday and Friday, Ranjona Banerji reviews the fare in the morning papers and the nightly news. And sometimes the afternooners, the newsmags and all that's on the Web.

    Freaking News: How the media covered 10 years of Gujarat riots

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Interesting to see that Hindustan Times has gone for all out coverage of 10 years of the devastating riots in Gujarat, while The Times of India has played it down. This is particularly intriguing because at the time, TOI quite beat all other papers when it came to covering the Godhra train attack and the subsequent riots. Disclosure: I was deputy resident editor of the Ahmedabad edition of The Times of India at the time.

     

    Of course, it must also be pointed out that Hindustan Times does not have an edition in Gujarat, only a bureau and as Sujata Anandan, political editor for HT, then Mumbai bureau chief, pointed out in a related piece, she had to send people from Mumbai to cover the terrible events. It is possible however that the Delhi edition of TOI has not picked up the relevant stories, which is even odder because 10 years ago it was TOI Mumbai which shied away from riot-related stories and opinions. Apparently the resident editor at the time did not think it was relevant.

     

    On Tuesday, in the Hindustan Times, Harsh Mander, former IAS officer now social worker who works with Gujarat riot victims, hopes that there will be, well, hope soon. The day before Ashok Malik had asked whether it is time to forgive and forget. I wonder about that and our ability in India to behave as justice is an on and off system which we press when it suits us.

     

    Television, in particular CNN-IBN and NDTV, did focus on the riots and their aftermath: after all both their main faces Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt did cover the riots extensively, perhaps for the same channel at the time, my memory fails me here. As a print journalist however, the strident hysteria of TV reporters and anchors, especially at such critical times, can often be more of a hindrance than help and so it was 10 years ago in Gujarat. Provocative people may make for good television but sometimes it can lead to irresponsible journalism.

     

    * * *

     

    Having spent a few days in Delhi, or more correctly Gurgaon, it is fascinating to see how crime dominates the papers. Is this because crime dominates events here or because local journalists look out for it?

     

    * * *

     

    On TV land on Monday night, Arvind Kejriwal’s remarks about Parliament being full of robbers, rapists and murderers got some play (see what I mean about TV promoting people just to create good television?). Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN wanted to know whether everyone agreed with Kejriwal and the Election Commission’s intent to tweak existing laws to bar people accused of severe crimes for contesting elections, within a certain time limit.

     

    The normally rambunctious Chandam Mitra of the BJP, normally quick to have hysterics was abnormally quiet as he hummed and hawed and said a debate was necessary and suppose the accused was later proven to be innocent? (Incidentally, this problem of later being proved innocent never bothers the BJP where Muslims accused of terrorism as concerned!).  An activist pointed out that the proposal was seven years old and surely that was enough time to debate the matter.

     

    Prashant Bhushan, who defended Kejriwal, said a few innocent people suffering was a small price to pay to keep criminals out.

     

    The Times of India, in its second editorial, slammed Kejriwal and Team Anna for swinging their “bludgeon in all directions while assuming partisan and authoritarian overtones”, which can only lead to the movement floundering.

     

    * * *

     

    On NDTV, Congress leader Renuka Chowdhury got into a made-for-TV fight with an anti-nuclear activist. This was more interesting than the issue itself – foreign-funded NGOs – which got nowhere.

  • Why should any advertiser, besides at best the title sponsor (that too arguable), buy onto an India-Zimbabwe series, by paying rates that would be at significantly higher CPRPs than most other genres, asks Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: India-Zimbabwe: As Dull As It Gets

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    In my almost 30 years of cricket following, this week has been a new low. India is playing a five-match ODI series in Zimbabwe. Out of sheer habit, I tried sampling one of the games. Within seconds, I was out of it. Dead grounds, players going through the motions and commentators from the B-league… There was nothing on offer at all.

     

    I have written a few months back on ‘Too Much Cricket’ and how pointless cricket creates that perception. But here, the question is even larger. It makes one wonder: Who funds this cricket? And whether indeed any such cricket can ever make money?

     

    In our IPL advertising equity research Ormax Trac20, we found that only about 20 brands managed to attract viewer attention over the course of the 45-day tournament, out of the 200+ brands that associated with IPL or its franchises in various ways. The 2011 World Cup was not very different, where about a dozen brands controlled 80% of the recall share.

     

    So, even in the most high-profile, high-interest tournaments, only the big sponsors and innovators stand out. Why should any advertiser, besides at best the title sponsor (that too arguable), buy onto an India-Zimbabwe series, by paying rates that would be at significantly higher CPRPs than most other genres?

     

    And if indeed no one should, why should such a series be held in the first place? If it were to promote cricket in Zimbabwe, an India A team would have been a good idea too.

     

    This brings me to the larger question of media bias, where media choices of several brands are influenced by individual perceptions. I know of brands who would like to be on cricket, because certain senior executives, including the CEO at times, “feels” cricket is the right choice for them. And if they can’t afford the IPL or an India-Pak series, they settle for whatever comes their way.

     

    In an interesting case a few years ago, I heard about a CMO who bought into cricket series and then planned an extensive travel itinerary for himself, so that he can give out the Man of the Match awards. This, while his new product launch, which was being advertised in the series, should have taken his time and attention at the marketing office.

     

    I wonder if CMOs sometimes buy into such properties to make their CVs more attractive. “Spearheaded the launch of the new handset through the title sponsorship of an India-Sri Lanka series” sounds more attractive than “Delivered the most cost-efficient TV campaign in the mobile phones category in 2012-13”. Maybe not!

     

    In another case, a sales executive at a channel (not a GEC) managed to sign a 30 lac sponsorship deal for a reality show by luring the MD of the brand to be the “Chief Guest” in the season finale, where he will give out the cheque to the winner, and speak about the brand. The MD spoke for about three minutes, and all of that had to be retained in the actual show.

     

    Even as the big agencies continue to grapple with larger questions related to measuring advertising effectiveness that goes beyond just CPRP benchmarking, we have a universe of ad hoc advertisers providing us enough entertainment on the sidelines.

     

    Come to think of it, if you watch the fifth India-Zimbabwe ODI tomorrow like you watch a B-grade film that’s so bad, it’s good, you may end up having a good time anyway!

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

     

  • It is a worthy knack of the media to take intelligent academics and make them sound like gibbering fools. We take grave events and then try to make them as trivial as possible, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Childish, hysterical, inane News TV

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The sheer childishness of Indian television news hits you like a gale force wind when you switch on after a break. This phenomenon is compounded by the fact that my newspaper vendor appears to be sulking with me! I have been surfing through all the news channels at our disposal and am hard-pressed to find one that I can stick with.

     

    The most amusing I could find was – nothing new here – Times Now. The little headlines for their poll on the next general elections (Jayalalitha juggernaut, Jagan blockbuster debut and so on) are reminiscent of the work of newspaper subs from the 1980s who have had to come up with a barrage of headlines while working on a special issue close to deadline. Anything goes. Of course, what was fun in the 1980s is just some fuddy-duddy stuff in 2013.

     

    The time warp that Indian TV is lost in however just relates to the written matter. No Wren and Martin or any other grammar books may be in evidence but the writing is arcane. But when it comes to the representation of news, then the sheer inanity of what is on offer is pure 21st century India. Skims the surface, minus depth and just careens from one hysterical breathless breaking bit of nothing to another.

     

    How about a comparison with the British TV coverage of the birth of the royal baby? They took a fairly trivial if engaging event and attempted to give it gravitas, sometimes with hilarious consequences. We take grave events and then try to make them as trivial as possible. It is an art which is quite commendable, if you look at it minus bias.

     

    The very strange personal squabble between two (great?) economists Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati is a good example. Usually, such worthies would have quarrelled in some inaccessible scholarly journal in suitably erudite jargon (one hopes…). Instead, they took each other on in the mainstream media and even more incredibly in the broadcast media. So you had Bhagwati saying that he had done everything first long before Sen, then you had Sen saying he was hurt by the personal attacks people made on him. This spilled over in their newspaper writings and interviews. The result was that their scholarly stars dimmed and their economic theories remained opaque. It is a worthy knack of the media to take intelligent academics and make them sound like gibbering fools.

     

    **

     

    Trying to understand the news through the social media is even funnier than television, it has to be admitted. Social media operates between derision and outrage which means that all events get skewed and it is impossible to make sense of anything. Yet, for all that, social media is an excellent aggregator of news and you can browse through a vast variety of articles and opinions from across the world which may not have otherwise come your way.

     

    **

     

    The fight in the media as far as the next Indian general elections are concerned has been between Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi. But one might suggest that the Indian electorate is given to complexity in its reactions and this simple two-horse race might just be a chimera that entertains but amounts to little more than a distraction from more substantial issues. (If I was a 21st century person, I would have used the erroneous substantive here and got away with it! Alas…)

     

    **

     

    Is it just me or do other people reach for the remote when news channels try to give us “positive” news? I knew it. Just me.

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • If you cannot bite the hand that feeds you, can you be considered fair when you criticise other media group, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Trashy Times & how media houses fail in human relations

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The Outlook Group has had to shut down three magazines, all of which were foreign franchises – People, Marie Claire and Geo. Any profit-making organisation is well within its rights to close down a business which is doing badly. But media houses seem to be severely short of any kind of human relations with their employees. Inevitably, employees are told at the last minute and shunted out immediately. We have seen it recently with Mid-Day closing down centres in Delhi and Bangalore and with NDTV Profit in Mumbai. The callousness can usually be attributed to managements or the corporate side of the journalism business.

     

    In the case of the three Outlook Group magazines, most editorial employees apparently found through a tweet by a writer not connected to the group. It also appears that the management sections of the magazines had been given prior warning. There is something disquieting – apart from distressing for those concerned – in the cavalier way in which media managements treat editorial staff. This trend has remained unchanged even though Admin and Personnel departments now have fancy names like “Human resources”. As anyone who has interacted with them will vouch for, there is little that is human about them.

     

    A labour court in Bandra has stayed the termination of services of 17 editorial staff of People magazine. The writer who revealed the closures on Twitter has written an article for newslaundry.com explaining her case and the attitude of the management. http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/07/a-bleak-outlook/ In this, Rajyasree Sen raises some pertinent points. One which stands out is the silence on the matter by Krishna Prasad, editor of the group’s flagship magazine, Outlook. Prasad has a very successful blog called churumuri, which often comments on media matters. It has been harsh – and rightly so – on the sacking of senior editorial staff of Forbes magazine. Sen questions churumuri’s silence when it comes to Outlook’s treatment of its staff in his blog: http://churumuri.wordpress.com/. I could not find any references to this issue on churumuri either.

     

    The problem however is obvious and it is also why journalists rarely come together in unity for causes any more. There are innumerable clichés I could use but they all boil down to one thing: money. No one is going a rock a boat that they’re perched on. As long as the salary lands in your bank account every month, it is better to remain silent about management behaviour and transgressions. I do not know how much clout editors have with their owners and senior managers any more. Earlier, there were some signs of support, of editors fighting for their staff or showing solidarity. Now solidarity within the profession seems to be in short supply. More than three years outside a newspaper organisation has taught me this much: journalism is now a cut-throat dog-eat-dog business. Perhaps if any of us were the editor of Outlook (!), we would also be silent on this matter no matter how much venom we poured on other media groups for their misbehaviour! But the corollary is that if you cannot bite the hand that feeds you, can you be considered fair when you criticise other media groups?

     

    **

     

    The Times of India sometimes manages to surprise even hardened cynics. Because of a little storm on Twitter, India’s largest read English newspaper has been exposed for carrying the most unprintable bilge on its website. Under its lifestyle section, masquerading as gender relations, the website has been carrying a series of articles about how to have sex, positions women like and so on.

     

    They appeared to have been written by the same person and are not only badly written and in bad taste but also have little journalistic reason for being there. It is like a monkey trying to imitate the Cosmopolitan style of 57 ways to suck your man’s toes and so on. If you found the Cosmo articles silly, you cannot imagine how the TOI website versions would upset you. I have to use the past tense because the articles have been removed from the website after the criticism. It makes you wonder if there had been no editorial control so far on what this young person had been writing. I am loath to name him or her but the name is doing the rounds on the social media. It is also evident that whoever wrote these appeared not just to be misogynistic (women do not bathe often and are smelly are two popular themes) but also not very experienced in sexual matters.

     

    This comment on the TOI website by Huffington Post encapsulates the disgust and scorn that has been apparent on social media for the last couple of days: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/30/times-of-india-women-facts_n_3677378.html? utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false&utm_content=buffer266a7&utm_source= buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

     

    Without being moralistic about it, why should a reputed newspaper’s website have to resort this kind of bordering-on-bad-porn writing? The articles had no corroborations or quotes or access to surveys. They were not funny or even sexy. The writer appeared to have no qualifications to hold forth on the ‘5 sex positions that women die for’. It was like someone senior said, “Let’s have some writing on sex” and someone junior was put on the job.

     

    I have been told that most newspapers have similar kinds of “stories” on their websites. True?

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • The campaign seems to have started without sufficient background work and fact-checking, notes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: More questions, less answers on Durga Nagpal

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    I wouldn’t want to be in Durga Shakti Nagpal’s shoes right now. The IAS officer from Uttar Pradesh is being held up as a beacon of bravery and honesty by the media and by political parties trying to get mileage out of just about anything. Television seeks to sensationalize because it feels that’s what it needs to stay relevant. And print gasps along behind, trying to catch up.

     

    The more the media calls Nagpal “the brave officer” and “an honest officer”, the more frightened the brave and honest officer should feel. Whenever you are set up too high, those that set you up will ensure that your fall is as dramatic and certainly more painful.

     

    The curious thing is, that the reason why Nagpal is being projected as brave and honest is somewhat obscured. Was it because she took on illegal sand miners? Was it because she demolished a wall of a mosque? Or was the mosque an excuse to prevent her interference in sand minding? Did the villagers object to her demolishing the wall of the mosque to did they ask her to wait until after Ramzan? Was there an intelligence report about the tensions in the village and the chance of a communal flare-up or not? Was she brave and honest or just arrogant?

     

    There are no clear answers to any of these questions. There are conflicting reports in different media. And there is nothing from the IAS officer herself. There is speculation about how her parents named her most aptly after a goddess in warrior form and strength particularly female strength in the Hindu context. There are campaigns to protect brave and honest officers from evil politicians. There are opinion pieces on how the bureaucracy is stymied by political interference.

     

    The turnaround when it comes will reverse all these questions. We will find out how the bureaucracy is an evil money-grubbing enterprise, Machiavellian in its spirit as it hoodwinks the people and politicians. Brave and honest will cease to mean anything (if they mean anything now) and become jokey references about dishonest people. TV will quickly move on to something else because this story will have lost its traction.

     

    The media is what the media is. But there are some notable points. The first is that this campaign seems to have started without sufficient background work. How are we to form a reasonable opinion on what happened without adequate facts? And secondly, why start a campaign that is so open-ended and ridiculous. Tweets and online polls – let’s push the issue – might get the charge sheets against Nagpal dropped. But how will all this make any substantial difference to the way bureaucrats and politicians run this country?

     

    The attention around the India Against Corruption movement and the ignoring thereafter and the rise and fall of Anna Hazare must send shivers down Nagpal’s spine. Perhaps that is why she has been silent. And no intrepid (brave and honest?) reporter has managed so far to convey her take on the matter so far.

     

    If I was her, I would run as far and as fast as I could!

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • When a Shah Rukh Khan comes to a reality show, you have, what an Executive Producer will call, a "rocking episode", writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Chennai Express: On A TV Near You

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    You can love him. You can hate him. But you could not have missed him on your television over the last week. Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) was omnipresent on the small screen in the lead upto the release of his new film Chennai Express. From reality shows to daily serials to news channel specials to the innumerable promotional spots on music channels, if you wanted an SRK-less life over the last week, the only real option you had was to turn off your TV sets.

     

    Some may call it overkill, but the blitzkrieg has definitely helped the movie. The film is set to challenge the opening day record held by Salman Khan’s Ek Tha Tiger. And that may only be the start.

     

    Television has fast emerged as not just the lead but also the dominant media for film promotions over the last decade. In a 2012 study conducted by us, television’s impact on the buzz of a film was more than twice that of posters and trailers in the theatres, which emerged as the second-most effective media to drive the buzz for a new release.

     

    By now, most producers, especially the big studios, understand this impact. Hence, TV plans have got more aggressive while other media, especially outdoor, are being used more judiciously in recent times.

     

    But a key component of the TV plan goes beyond paid promos and the music free-play on channels like MTV and 9XM. It is the GEC and the news part that’s more exciting today. The former delivers reach beyond the relatively “niche” music genre, while the latter delivers male audiences, the core theatre-going populace.

     

    But then, every star is not an SRK or a Salman Khan who can make the most of the exposure his film gets on reality shows and news specials. I have been a strong opponent of channels giving free mileage to films through in-programme plugs, in what is an evidently one-sided relationship. But when an SRK comes to your reality show, you have, what an Executive Producer will call, a “rocking episode”. So the relationship is clearly win-win.

     

    But most other stars just make an appearance, not knowing much to say or do that could add value to the film’s campaign or to the programme’s ratings. These appearances do nothing to the rocking-ness of the episodes. There are other extremes too. When Sunil Shetty made appearances to promote his (wrongly-spelt) film Enemmy, the only audience reaction was: “Isko abhi bhi filmein milti hain!”

     

    Coming back to Chennai Express, SRK has been witty, charming and edgy in equal measure, in his promotional appearances for the film. Having seen him promote many films with equal vigour in the past, one can safely say that Rohit Shetty is one of the best things to have happened to SRK. He seemed relaxed and at-ease promoting an outright fun film. The genre evidently suits his persona well.

     

    Come October, things may change and become even more interesting. Most readers will be aware that film producers get heavily discounted ad rates from channels, compared to what an FMCG brand pays, because trailers are seen as part-content. If the 10+2 ad cap indeed sees the light of the day, these discounted rates will be the first ones to go, as channels, short of saleable inventory, will have to shed low-priority advertisers, part-content or not.

     

    We can then expect innovation that goes beyond reality show episodes, where channels and producers co-create content, like the Eid event to promote Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara, scheduled this weekend on Colors.

     

    For SRK, meanwhile, life has come a full circle. The medium where he started his career has now embraced him whole-heartedly as he gets sets to deliver his next blockbuster.

     

    For the sake of television entertainment, wish they made more like him!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • The lack of distinction between yellow and sensationalist journalism and more serious or at any rate thoughtful journalism in India is beginning to hurt us now, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Hysteria and hypocrisy rule news media

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Was the news that the Supreme Court refused to stay the Bombay High Court order that the BCCI constitute another panel to probe into spot-fixing and betting in the IPL not important enough to make Page 1? The Hindustan Times obviously thought it did but strangely The Times of India directed the news to the sports pages.

     

    The imminent war with Pakistan as desired by our news channels and the fight over the wording of the statement about the killing of five Indian soldiers got Page 1 prominence. That is understandable, except that the infiltration into Indian territory by Pakistanis – terrorists or soldiers or both – has practically been forgotten in the shouting matches on TV and in print. The words used by the Indian defence minister and how and why he used those words and where he got them from is now of paramount importance.

     

    Given media’s poor understanding of geopolitics and its predilection to outright sentimental hysteria whenever soldiers are mentioned, it may be wiser for the future of the neighbourhood if the media’s focus remains on cricket rather than war. We can still blame Pakistan – Dawood Ibrahim the lynchpin of all crime in India still lives there happily – but we can perhaps avoid imminent destruction.

     

    Sarcasm apart, the lack of distinction between yellow and sensationalist journalism and more serious or at any rate thoughtful journalism in India is beginning to hurt us now. The race to reach the lowest common denominator cannot be healthy in the long run.

     

    **

     

    The Supreme Court has commented that the contents of the Radia tapes are more dangerous than the 2G scam. This is a remark which has to be taken very seriously. There can be little doubt that the amount of money lost to the exchequer in the sale of bandwidth to telecom companies, as estimated by the Comptroller and Auditor General, was terrifying. But there was much more that the taped conversations of Niira Radia, boss of a public relations company revealed. There was the nexus between journalists, business houses and politicians. There was the influence that corporates wielded in all spheres of official decision-making. There were the journalists who agreed to act as brokers or spokespersons for political parties and corporate houses.

     

    The tapes in fact showed the world the shady wheeling-dealing that runs India. The impact on the media at the time was substantial but fleeting. Barkha Dutt continued with NDTV in spite of fairly damning phone calls and Vir Sanghvi lost his much-looked-forward to political column in Hindustan Times but retained his food column for the same group. He suffered more and even tendered an apology. Dutt did not appear to suffer – at least not publicly – and also refused to apologise.

     

    The dent to Indian journalism however has not gone away. Even if members of the public did not necessarily understand what had happened and even if the media has not been affected in terms of revenue or reader or viewership loss, we know that our credibility has taken a beating. Even worse, we know that we do not trust each other. If the Supreme Court reopens discussion into the Radia tapes, can we afford to brush them under the carpet a second time?

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own