MxMIndia

Category: COLUMNS

  • If objectivity is a cornerstone of journalism, then joining a political party means that you are immediately disqualified, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: When editors get into party-mode

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    MJ Akbar, respected and well-known journalist, joins the Bharatiya Janata Party. There is applause at one side of the political spectrum and disquiet at the other. Akbar, like anyone else, is free to do what he wants. This is not the first time he has taken to politics – he was with the Congress in Rajiv Gandhi’s time.

     

    The question to be asked is not about Akbar himself – because he is one of many – but about journalists leaning towards political parties or being members of political parties or being outright supporters of particular politicians. If objectivity is a cornerstone of journalism, then joining a political party means that you are immediately disqualified.  But there are subtle arguments that lurk about that deny such an extremist position.

     

    A reporter and a sub-editor for instance need to be objective. But editors and columnists? They are allowed a little leeway. For instance, an opinion writer can be politically left or right – without necessarily being part of or approving of political parties that follow a similar ideology. But it’s a fine line and where should one draw it?If an editor or a columnist – who is a journalist, not an academic or analyst and so on – is openly supporting a politician or a political party, what happens then? In India, unfortunately, media houses do not openly declare their political leanings. They all claim to be all things to all people but in fact overtly or covertly support one party or another. The odd thing is, they can declare their political leanings without any damage to credibility. Everyone knows what The Guardian or what Fox News stands for.

     

    The essence of journalism is to criticise everyone and perhaps we need to be more stringent about that. Also, when newspapers invite non-journalists as columnists, they need to make their political leanings clear.

     

    And finally, it ought to be understood that once you join a political party, you are no longer an independent-thinking journalist. At best, you can edit the mouthpiece of the party to which you belong.

     

    **

     

    Some of the bluster against media houses however remains from disgruntled supporters of some political party or agenda who feel they’re not getting fair treatment from every single media house. However, since one can easily count people who are on some side, these accusations are easily debunked. I am amused though by fellow journalists who stridently object to editors who are seen as favouring one side but have ample excuses for those who favour another side. Double standards of course are a human failing and perhaps even a sound survival device.

     

    **

     

    Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN has discussed media responsibility in his column for Hindustan Times. His argument is partly about attacks on the media and the difficulty in starting an independent media house in India. I must however disagree when he makes a case for owners, saying that it is unfair to tag them as evil when responsibility must end with the editor. That is true in an ideal world. What is true in today’s media is that owners do play a role in determining how a TV channel or newspaper or website responds to news. And the phenomenon of “paid news” is a deal struck by the managements of media houses, not by journalists. Yes, journalists are not innocent but that does not mean that owners are not guilty.

     

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/rajdeepsardesai/time-for-media-to-turn-the-gaze-inwards/article1-1199548.aspx

     

    **

     

    I make this plea in vain to Star Sports India – for the umpteenth time. If it could please not bother to buy tennis tournaments that it does not want to show in their entirety. This week’s Miami Open coverage has been upstaged by football and motorcycles. Agreed, Star Sports is free to show what it wants. But tennis fans don’t really want to watch a tournament in between the requirements of other sports. So if your six channels are not enough and one channel is reserved for endless reruns of Jai Ho, leave tennis alone and let someone else show it. This dog in the manger attitude is winning you no fans.

     

    It might also be polite if whoever runs the @starsportsindia twitter handle would answer questions put to it now and then.

     

    This is not the first time I have discussed this and I am guessing it will not be the last…

     

  • M S Dhoni is being accused of corruption of the highest order though the actual suspicion is not of the highest order. This is how reputations are destroyed based on whispers and journalists need to understand this better, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: When journalism pretends to not be tabloidy

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The Supreme Court’s scathing observations on the running of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, on the BCCI president N Srinivasan, on the Indian Premier League and on the general state of cricket have more or less ousted politics from headline news for at least one night and one day. Supreme Court advocate Harish Salve’s criticism of MS Dhoni’s deposition before Justice Mudgul meant that the India captain was also under scrutiny.

     

    NewsX had a debate on Thursday night with an extraordinary proposition: that Dhoni should be “barred” from Indian cricket. Not all the guests agreed with host Rahul Shivshankar which is hardly surprising. Once more, we see how journalists – I use the term loosely to include TV anchors – are unable to distinguish between allegations and proof and deliberately try to create sensations instead of reporting or commenting on the news. Nothing wrong with tabloid journalism: the problem is when you pretend not to be a tabloid or a TV equivalent of one.

     

    Dhoni of course has gone from being a media darling to the equivalent of a major demon after some losses by India in the field. Now he is being accused of corruption of the highest order though the actual suspicion is not of the highest order. This is how reputations are destroyed based on whispers and journalists need to understand this better.

     

    It is no one’s case that journalists should not go after someone because they are popular or successful. But even journalists have to work on some kind of proof. It would help if all the news channels which are on this demonisation course would do some investigations of their own. Of course, it is another matter that many journalists do not know the difference between a judicial probe and a court of law or between an allegation and evidence and between an observation and a verdict. And if I might add in a non-related political aside, that so many actually believe that “clean chit” is some legal provision in the Indian Penal Code.

     

    The other tragedy as far as the media is concerned is that few of these arguments being made against cricket, the BCCI and the IPL are new. So if there are to be debated again and again, it would help to get some new names on their panels so that we can hear some fresh points of view. Otherwise, we might as well be on perpetual rewind.

     

    **

     

    The rest of the media’s time is spent trying to figure out whether Narendra Modi will be India’s next prime minister or not. The fact that no one knows except the Indian voter is no deterrent. Instead, the media has decided to do the BJP’s work for it. Please note I am not ascribing any allegations here but only pointing out that some journalists have sort of forgotten if they ever knew what their job is.

     

    **

     

    Having said that, The Indian Express has a very readable story on how the Aam Aadmi Party’s journalist-candidates are using their media experience. http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/from-reporting-news-to-being-the-news/

     

    Have to also thank Indian Express for explaining to readers the back story of Aditya Verma, the Cricket Association of Bihar man who filed the PIL that started the whole process against the BCCI. http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/little-known-aditya-verma-and-his-powerful-backers/

     

    **

     

    Indeed, if you read the sports pages of all the newspapers you get an excellent idea about what’s happening in the BCCI. One alone will not do.

     

  • The sport needs to find its coolness back, writes Shailesh Kapoor. An overhaul may be required sooner than later

    Shailesh Kapoor: Cricket under threat from the Digital Generation?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    There was a time, not too long ago, when India-Pakistan cricket would bring life to a standstill across the country. When India played Pakistan in the World Cup semi-final on March 30, 2011, the country was unofficially shut on a middle-of-the-week working day. A rivalry that started in real measure with the Australasia Cup final in Sharjah in 1986, when Javed Miandad hit that famous last-ball six off Chetan Sharma, has seen many highs over 28 years.

     

    But there are signs that the battle is losing its edge. The recent Asia Cup ODI between the two countries (Sunday, March 2) rated less than what a moderately successful Hindi GEC serial does night after night. The World Cup T20 contest last week, scheduled well into the primetime on a Friday, rated about the level of a regular Diya Aur Baati Hum episode only.

     

    When you begin to look at the ratings of other India matches, like India-Sri Lanka or India-New Zealand, the real reason is exposed. Cricket is not growing. There seems to be an audience that is moving away from the sport completely, irrespective of the format. This audience is the younger lot (12-24 years) in the big cities. This shift may have started happening over the last 4-5 years only, and is now resulting in real impact.

     

    I have written several pieces in this column about the power of cricket in India. Lest I should be misunderstood, it is important to clarify that cricket’s de-growth does not make the sport irrelevant any time in the near future. We are still a one-sport nation, with football being a distant second. Cricket has a huge plus in the patriotic element it brings to the table. That is unlikely to be challenged by any mass sport for a long time.

     

    But when you are the only one, your competition is with yourself. So cricket has to find ways of maintaining its viewer base. The big idea of 2008, IPL, is now under some real threat of disintegrating, because of power-hungry officials who care little about the future of the sport. As the audience that was brought up on cricket in the 1980s and ’90s grows older, they will begin to matter less and less in size. The new generation needs to be coaxed into watching the sport.

     

    Star Sports seems to have understood this better than BCCI. Their online presence has been given the stature of a TV channel, no less. With quality Hindi commentary, they have changed the elitist mindset with which cricket coverage was handled for decades in India. They have the best platforms to market the sport, and the ability to create persuasive messaging to achieve the desired impact.

     

    But when your target audience is a generation that is visibly high on distraction, and perpetually so, the task is a mammoth one. Cricket needs to find its cool-ness back. An overhaul may be required sooner than later. But do those who are running the sport have the will to do it?

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • CNN-IBN editor-in-chief comment that 30 years ago journalists were stenographers rehashing press releases while today’s journalists are more assertive and questioning was gratuitous, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Were journalists of 30 years ago mere stenographers, as Rajdeep Sardesai said?

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    According to an article written in Hoot by senior journalist Seetha, editor-in-chief of CNN-IBN Rajdeep Sardesai commented at a CII panel discussion that 30 years ago journalists were stenographers rehashing press releases while today’s journalists are more assertive and questioning. The credit for this, he felt, was due to television.

     

    Seetha’s excellent piece demolishes the stenographer accusation. I found the supposition a bit strange and thanks to the logistics of Twitter, had a small conversation with Sardesai – whom I do not know – on the issue. The upshot of which was that Seetha had not quoted his whole contention and used his comments out of context, that 30 years ago journalists were stenographers but there were also some good journalists then and it was unfair to attack TV journalism which was a soft target and finally, “Let’s not glorify the past and damn the present.” (That’s a direct quote from Twitter by the way.)

     

    I am not going to venture into Seetha’s territory, since she has done an excellent job defending the “stenographers” of the past. (http://thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=7398&pg=1&mod=1&sectionId=10&sectionname=Columns)

     

    But I am going to look at the further discussion. Past and present. TV and print. My understanding is that there were good and bad journalists then as there are now – which is hardly rocket science. In which case the “stenographer” remark is gratuitous. The additional argument that TV has made journalists more assertive and questioning is intriguing. I suppose in one way, Sardesai is correct. TV journalists are forever asking all kinds of questions: How do you feel, why didn’t you do this or that, should X do this or that, are you a tomato or have you at any time been a tomato. Not to mention asking questions on behalf of the nation. Then there’s assertiveness. Which you have to be if you are going to stick a microphone in someone’s face.

     

    So let’s assume that Sardesai is correct. TV has made journalists more assertive and questioning. The problem is the quality or the need of the questions. And that’s when we feel old, like Father William. Even at the risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy stenographer of yore, TV journalism in India at least has failed at taking the profession further. Our primetime programmes have descended to chaos and melodrama. Decibel levels determine success. And if investigative and development journalism earn low dividends in print, you can rest assured they are meaningless on television.

     

    Obviously, there are good and bad TV journalists and good and bad print journalists. And there are better and worse as well. But on an average, the nature of TV journalism, in India at least, seems to have got stuck. The discourse has been lowered and like commercial cinema, the lowest common denominator always wins. Newspapers have also dipped in quality in some areas, but they have maintained them in others. That is the nature of the beast. Print will always find it easier to be all things to all people. It will also be able to fish in a larger pond of interests. And the time that print has to process and absorb “breaking news” gives it an edge.

     

    The biggest threat to both however comes from the internet. There will be good and bad websites (I am getting so tired of this meaningless chestnut) but on the whole, they will give both paper and TV a run for their money. News websites can be immediate, like television, but they can also be discerning like print. I am all for the future even if I am an old and grizzled stenographer. The present is what I find dubious. There was perhaps no golden age in journalism like there was no golden age in anything. But to damn the past is beyond my limited capabilities or understanding as also to demean my peers and forebears.

     

    Let’s put it this way then: one would only wish that today’s journalists, especially some of those on TV, would be a tad more intelligent and aware while they are being assertive and questioning? Is that a lot to ask? I am aware of today’s date, so am not holding my breath.

     

    And here’s from the genius BBC comedy series Broken News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRbihhHfTcQ

     

     

  • One would hope that shows like Khatron Ke Khiladi do their bit in making a small difference in creating more exposure for a largely inward-looking populace, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Adventure? You’re in the wrong country!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The new season of Khatron Ke Khiladi (KKK), the Indian adaptation of Fear Factor, went on-air this March. In its fifth season now, KKK was the launch vehicle for Colors in 2008. Barring a forgettable season with Priyanka Chopra as the host, the show has offered top quality production and hosting. Yet, it has met with only limited success on the viewership front. The current season has opened better than the previous ones, and offers more content variety. If the numbers sustain, this may end up being the most successful season till date.

     

    The tough journey of the show does not surprise me. We are not the adventure-loving country where such TV show formats find natural traction. Adventure sports and activities are not only low on awareness in India, even those aware have little inclination to try them. Hence, the experience of any adventure-based TV show is unlikely to be immersive. The adrenalin rush is restricted because of the watch-from-a-distance mindset with which such shows are consumed.

     

    Two other successful television properties use adventure as a theme too. However, they focus more on the human angle to achieve viewer traction. MTV Roadies is about expression of the youth, than about biking. Man vs. Wild is about survival and the human spirit of excelling against all odds. Both are learning and inspiration led, albeit in very different ways.

     

    Go beyond these three shows and you will struggle to recall any other adventure shows in the two-and-a-half-decade history of Indian satellite television. Survivor India, Star Plus’ brush with the genre, was a washout, reinforcing that the success of Roadies and Man vs. Wild is also restricted to a limited audience base, and the wider GEC audience care little about this genre.

     

    Lack of adventure signifies that the market (India) is low on experimentation, exploration and curiosity. We like our lives well planned out, and the focus is on a collective unit (family) than on individual pursuits. This mindset also lowers the appeal of other genres such as travel, food and science, which are led by similar core needs as adventure.

     

    The infotainment genre is the most affected here. To their credit, they have managed to understand the Indian mindset well, and created a steady flow of local programming that is more conducive to the ‘safe’ needs the market caters to.

     

    Over the next few years, one may expect evolution as new generations take over. But with the subject being so inherently cultural in nature, this evolution may happen at snail’s pace, unlike other changes we are seeing around us, e.g. the whole-hearted embracing of technology our country has witnessed over the last decade.

     

    I’m glad Colors has pushed the envelope and kept faith in KKK. Television is a part of the larger pop culture, and one would hope that shows like KKK do their bit in making a small difference in creating more exposure for a largely inward-looking populace.

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • Does a journalist who comes by such red-hot material abide by the law and refuse to view it or write about, asks Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Is it right to watch the Tejpal tapes?

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    How seriously should journalists take the Supreme Court rulings on keeping secret the identity of a woman who has filed a rape complaint? And do journalists have to respect court and investigative procedures if they get hold of evidence that is material to a case? Is the search for a story more important than everything else?

     

    Tarun Tejpal is still in jail on rape charges (or sexual assault amounting to rape). The case had many sensational elements in it, was highly publicised and both the accused and the accusers were journalists. Issue of work place harassment, India’s new rape laws, the functioning of Tehelka, how seriously journalists take themselves, the role of Tehelka managing editor Shoma Chaudhury were all discussed. Tejpal is still in jail, bail pleas having been rejected.

     

    And now as the case comes to trial, we see defence for Tejpal being built in the media. Articles on blogs and in magazines claim to have seen the CCTV footage of Tejpal and his accuser leaving the lift where the incidents are supposed to have taken place. Now this footage is part of the evidence. It lies only with the defence and the prosecution: or that is how it should be. Those who are part of the young victim’s (or accuser if you prefer) support team have not seen the CCTV footage nor it seems has the young woman herself seen it, according to lawyer Vrinda Grover.

     

    Journalist Manu Joseph in Outlook first suggested that he had seen the footage in his article ‘What the elevator saw’ but is later quoted as saying that it is not “relevant” whether he has seen the footage or not. Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap says he has seen the footage which proves that no rape took place. Senior Seema Mustapha also says she has seen the footage and it proves that the young woman was lying.

     

    So does a journalist who comes by such red-hot material abide by the law and refuse to view it or write about? Or does a journalist see this as a massive scoop where journalistic ethics trumps the law? The Supreme Court ruling about keeping a rape accuser’s identity secret is precisely to avoid the sort of vilification that is taking place by the Tejpal defence. How seriously should journalists and editors take that? Is a journalist one might ask supposed to take sides and work for the defence of either an accused or an accuser?

     

    After the Niira Radia tapes expose by Outlook and Open magazines, Joseph, then editor of Open, is supposed to have told Barkha Dutt, as I was reminded by a very senior journalist: “Sometimes the source is the story” or words to that effect. The implication was that Dutt had missed the fact that a telecom lobbyist was pushing for A Raja as telecom minister. So did Joseph ask himself why he had been given the tapes and whether he was being used as a stooge by Tejpal’s defence team?

     

    I am asking these questions because we are in a very grey area here. We all have our personal responses to the issues of rape and sexual harassment and mine is that the Supreme Court ruling as far as the identity of the accuser is concerned must be followed. Certainly, any journalist is free to argue for and against any person. But if he or she wants to take on the Supreme Court on the subject of keeping a rape accuser’s identity secret, then they should do it directly. By talking about the CCTV coverage, they have showed bad judgment and bias.

     

  • It is to the point, the results are up-to-date and the anchors and panellists are not given to high drama, hi jinks or spouting meaningless hi-falutin hogwash, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Rajya Sabha TV is the channel to watch

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Should news channels have broadcast the BJP’s election manifesto as it was revealed on Monday? Unless the Election Commission issues a written embargo to all news publications or had banned the BJP from releasing its manifesto once voting was underway, this whole exercise becomes a little pointless. The media has to share news as it gets it unless it is illegal to do so and even then there are some grey areas. As we have seen so dramatically played out in the Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden cases. If the Election Commission wants its diktats to be heeded then it has to be stricter in the way it goes about it.

     

    **

     

    Meanwhile as the elections approach, it is time to start choosing which channel you are going to track the results on. Those looking for excitement and high drama must of course go to Times Now and watch Arnab Goswami run around like the Duracell bunny. Or if you want platitudes and placidity, you can watch CNN-IBN. If you are youth-obsessed, there’s Headlines Today. If you are confused, there’s NewsX. And if you are nostalgic by nature, there’s the Prannoy Roy-Dorab Sopariwalla double act on NDTV.

     

    As for me, through trial and error, I have found my haven in Rajya Sabha TV. It is to the point, the results are up-to-date and the anchors and panellists are not given to high drama, hi jinks or spouting meaningless hi-falutin hogwash.

     

    **

     

    While on the BJP manifesto, media reactions have been mixed. Some have applauded good economic sense and the focus on job-building and the “neo-middle class”, others have been struck by the manifesto’s mentions of the Ram Temple, Uniform Civil Code and Article 370 and there are those who are amused by the similarity to the Congress manifesto. The Times of India’s edit calls it “lacklustre” and perhaps that is closest to the truth.

     

    In fact, everything that has happened around the BJP manifesto brings up the question of whether a manifesto really matters to voters any more.

     

    **

     

    The big issue for the media remains the polarisation of society and opinion over Narendra Modi. The venerable Economist, the publication that looks like a magazine but calls itself a newspaper, decided against Modi in spite of the economic development he may bring to India as prime minister. Those who applauded the Economist for calling Manmohan Singh ineffectual were very upset with this leader: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600106-he-will-probably-become-indias-next-prime-minister-does-not-mean-he-should-be-can-anyone

     

    Which only proves once more that you can never trust any media organisation, ever.

     

    And The Guardian has not helped with this comment about whether Narendra Modi’s anointment as prime minister will be good for gender issues: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/narendra-modi-as-prime-minister-womens-rights-india

     

    **

     

    I was quite surprised to learn that Meenakshi Lekhi, now a BJP Lok Sabha candidate from Delhi and once a formidable BJP TV spokesperson, was allowed back on Times Now even after she accused star anchor Arnab Goswami of taking money during a discussion on LGBT rights. I really thought that she would never ever ever never ever never ever appear on Times Now again after that.

     

    **

     

    And if, like me, you find most Indian news channels very distressing, there is hope: Comedy Central India have brought back their anchors Ornob Musambi and Rajbeep Sardesai. You might never ever never ever ever want to watch anyone else again!

     

  • The social media has become a hilarious space for journalists to throw accusations others, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Curses UnLtd on Social Media

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    If there is one argument that has got really boring, it is the squabble amongst journalists about who is fair and objective and who is not. Frankly, everyone has a political perspective or leaning. And every columnist has a point of view. I can understand the general social media-empowered public throwing curses at every columnist who does not agree with him or her. But journalists should know better.

     

    The social media has become a hilarious space for journalists to throw accusations others. None however see the irony in the fact that they display their own preferences while they accuse others of prejudice. Even worse, the jejune arguments used by party worshippers are now being used by journalists as well. Grow up, guys. And if all you want is a column with your mugshot next to it, then please hone your arguments. From what I read right now, Facebook posts are as far as most deserve!

     

    **

     

    The third phase of polling saw big voter turnouts and big play on TV all day. But by the evening, Samajwadi chief Mulayam Singh Yadav’s comments which appeared to justify on rape dominated the news space – hardly surprisingly. Some primetime discussions also centred around the issue and on Times Now, Arnab Goswami got a chance to bellow about a subject he seems genuinely concerned about. I also saw the former BJP TV spokesperson and now Lok Sabha candidate Meenakshi Lekhi back on Times Now myself – evidently, she has been forgiven for saying that he took money.

     

    Mid-Day has done a spine-chilling interview with Abu Asim Azmi, Mumbai’s Samajwadi chief  where he has made his own deplorable comments about women and rape. http://www.mid-day.com/articles/shocking-women-having-sex-should-be-hanged-says-abu-azmi/15222050

     

    **

     

    Prime ministerial hopeful Narendra Modi’s sudden disclosure that he has a wife also collected a chunk of news time and space. Everybody already knew that he had a wife but his admission on his nomination form is a first. Political opponents have made the most of it – especially since he did not admit to this wife in all previous elections. As The Indian Express points out, the disclosure came only after the Supreme Court insisted that candidates fill in their forms without omissions.

     

    Only The Times of India, as far as I could tell, mentioned an allegation from the Congress that Modi said he “did not know” his PAN card and any financial details. This I find more intriguing than his long-known-about wife. Surely, in these days of corruption chatter, we need to know more about the financial condition of this PM nominee?

     

    **

     

    In their news sections, just about every newspaper saw a spurt of support for the BJP or electoral calculations favouring them. This perhaps either means that all newspapers are now BJP agents or not or are just reflecting what they have seen on the ground? It somehow puts paid to the blanket argument one way or another.

     

    However, edit pages understandably give you analysis and comment and that can wander in any direction. Avijit Ghosh in The Times of India talks about how this much-touted “Modi wave” thins out as you move into the hinterland of Uttar Pradesh: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Addictions/entry/whither_the_great_wave _the_modi_effect_fades_as_one_steers_off_highways_and_drives_deeper_into_up_s_hinterland

     

    Senior journalist Bharat Bhushan also did see a Modi wave in this opinion piece for Business Standard: http://www.business-standard.com/article/ opinion/bharat-bhushan-modi-is-unsure-if-the-surf-s-up-114040901248_1.html#.U0Z3_wpF1a8.twitter

     

    Anil Dharker in the Hindustan Times points to the UPA’s many deficiencies, communication being at the top of the list: http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/analysis/ inability-to-communicate/article1-1206714.aspx

     

    **

     

    Then there’s the plane. The media is very hopeful of its being found.

     

  • The more the Congress screams 'Et tu Brute' given Sanjaya Baru's book 'The Accidental Prime Minister', the more the media and the Opposition will make merry, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Media booms with Baru book

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Sanjaya Baru’s book, The Accidental Prime Minister, about life in prime minister Manmohan Singh’s office from 2004 to 2009, has captured media space ever since it was released. Baru, a journalist was media adviser to Singh for the United Progressive Alliance’s first term at the Centre. But what the book is about is another matter: all things to all people.

     

    To the media, not unnaturally, it is about controversy. Baru has attacked the PM and the UPA when they are at their weakest, he has given ammunition to the Opposition, he has confirmed what everyone always knew – that the PM was a puppet and Sonia Gandhi ran the government.

     

    The Government and the Congress have gone into high dudgeon, thus providing even more fodder for the media, what with attacks on Baru. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee and smiling like the shark in Finding Nemo.

     

    Baru himself has said he was written things as he saw them and said the publisher decided on the release date, Further, the PM read the book before it was released and said nothing. No comments on that!

     

    The Indian Express has a front page story on how furious Singh’s family is on Baru’s abuse of trust. This is a journalistic coup for the Express, since no one else has managed to get what Singh himself thinks of the matter.

     

    But commentators provide a variety of explanations. Manoj Joshi in Mid-Day thinks that the Congress did itself no favours in protesting about Baru’s book. It has been exposed in its efforts to protect Sonia Gandhi at all costs: http://www.mid-day.com/articles/the-pmo-files/15230074

     

    An edit in the Hindustan Times questions the timing of this book and that of former bureaucrat  PC Parakh on the coal allocations scam: http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/timing-of-two-recent-books-showing-pmo-in-a-poor-light-is-suspect/article1-1208092.aspx

     

    Jaitirth Rao, founder and former CEO of Mphasis, says in The Economic Times, that Baru is clearly a Manmohan Singh fan who has however decided not to ignore the PM’s faults: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/guest-writer/the-accidental-prime-minister-sanjay-baru-shows-manmohan-singh-in-good-light-with-some-blind-spots/articleshow/33755224.cms

     

    On Monday night, Karan Thapar on his new programme on Headlines Today, ‘To the point’, skilfully conducted a debate between Shashi Tharoor batting for the Congress party and Seshadri Chari for the BJP. Since Thapar does not allow decibel-challenging hysterics on his show, the discussion was interesting and even illuminating.

     

    But perhaps there is some truth in Joshi’s assertion that this matter will only die out when the Congress party shuts up about it. The more it screams ‘Et tu Brute’, the more the media and the Opposition will make merry.

     

    **

     

    Two surveys on the media in these elections need attention (warning: this is not about election results). CMS Media Lab looked through prime time coverage of five news channels (Hindi and English) between March 1 to 15 and found 429 minutes were devoted to Arvind Kejriwal, 365 to Narendra Modi and 72 to Rahul Gandhi. Not all of this was positive coverage however. The channels scrutinised were Aaj Tak, ABP News, Zee News, NDTV 24×7 and CNN-IBN.

     

    This means, effectively, that between 8 and 10 pm, we have Kejriwal dominating over the rest. Rahul Gandhi frankly is a very poor third while Modi has perhaps fallen a bit, coverage-wise at least. However, Kejriwal got more negative coverage than Modi. In all the allegations thrown around about “paid media” and “paid news” this survey makes for interesting reading.

     

    Of the topics discussed, the list is even more fascinating, keeping in mind the feeling that this election is all about “development”. Personality topped the list, followed by Hindutva, party, development, corruption, public policy and governance.

     

    The full story is here in The Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/TV-time-429-minutes-to-Kejriwal-365-to-Modi-72-to-Rahul-Gandhi/articleshow/33755909.cms

     

    **

     

    As far as social media goes, a survey by the Pew Research Centre shows that most Indians use social networking sites to keep in touch with family and friends (90 per cent) and share matter/opinions on music and films (87 per cent). Even religion tops politics – although by one one per cent at relatively low percentages of 36 and 35 per cent respectively.

     

    Perhaps these elections are being fought on the ground and not on social media after all…

     

    **

     

    Congratulations to The Guardian and Washington Post for winning the Pulitzer for the Snowden leaks.

     

    More power to them.

     

  • Changes at the top are forecast at CNN-IBN, Times Now, NDTV, Indian Express, India Today after the elections, learns Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Rumours UnLtd on news channel top jobs

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The rumour mills within the media are running as fast as those in the political sphere. Just about everyone is playing musical chairs or is on the merry-go-round. Changes at the top are forecast at CNN-IBN, Times Now, NDTV, Indian Express, India Today… Those of you who are feeling left out are free to start your own rumours. Remember however to add a dash of feared political reprisal because of your leanings, the dangers or joys of corporate interference and the ability to interact with sundry India experts in foreign universities in order to give your rumour some believability. The last only applies to print journalists and editors. TV has its own rules about where it finds experts. Usually, it is print journalists.

     

    I have to confess some severe dereliction of duty. The decibel levels surrounding this election have steered me far away from TV news. However, I watched Times Now the other night after ages. The panel included Rahul Narvekar, once of the Shiv Sena but now with the Nationalist Congress Party. Before the discussion on Ramdas Kadam’s remarks on how Muslims would be treated if Narendra Modi comes to power could begin, there was a little light-hearted studio banter. Arnab Goswami mentioned Narvekar’s shift to the NCP. The person from the National Conference said Narvekar could join the NC anytime. Goswami said to Narvekar, See you are getting job offers. Narvekar said, Why Arnab I believe you are also getting job offers. Goswami simpered. Yes, dear reader, I still watched this programme for another 15 minutes.

     

    **

     

    I also watched Nidhi Razdan’s Right, Left and Centre on the hullaballoo over the principal of St Xavier’s College, Mumbai, writing a mail to students telling them to “choose wisely” when they voted. The principal did not mention any names but since he stated that the Gujarat model was not all that it was touted to be, the inference was that he was asking his students not to vote for the BJP. Since he talked about the Food Security Bill, he was pushing students towards the Congress was the other inference. In today’s climate, even heavy breathing down an old-fashioned telephone line can start a forest fire. And so we had one.

     

    True confession: I was invited to be on the show but could not make it. But veteran journalist Anil Dharker and Nandini Sardesai, former head of department of Sociology at St Xavier’s put up a fine defence of the institution while Kiran Bedi and Gurcharan Das blustered through the various merits of the Gujarat model. Das interestingly seemed to think the St Xavier’s principal was against job development.

     

    On Twitter meanwhile, people were struggling with the difference between principal and principle.

     

    **

     

    For a few weeks now, former colleague Govind Ethiraj has been running a serious on Google hangouts called India Hangouts where he, Ayaz Memon and guests discuss election-related news as well as other issues of the day. I joined one yesterday as a guest, talking about Mumbai’s low voting percentages. Questions are taken on Twitter. It’s a half-hour show and there is little digression from the issue at hand. An interesting experience and an alternative to TV debates.

     

  • IPL has shown over the last four years that it can set new benchmarks in consistency, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: It’s time for the ‘Indian Permanent League’

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    It’s that time of the year again, when the IPL begins to hog media attention. In the election season, the league had a relatively low-key launch yesterday. But don’t be fooled by the apparent lack of buzz. IPL has shown over the last four years that it can set new benchmarks in consistency. Irrespective of any input factor, be it the players, the teams, the venues, the scores, the marketing or the scandals, IPL viewership hits roughly the same sweet spot. And the same 3-4 teams drive this viewership, while others continue to struggle.

     

    As always, the trade media is keen to cover the IPL. The problem is: They are not quite sure about the pegs to take year after year. For the last three years, I am being posed roughly the same questions by various financial papers and trade websites, e.g. Will it do well this year, how will it impact GECs, how will GECs respond to IPL, will movies release during IPL, how will box-office be impacted, etc.

     

    These questions have gone from being relevant to puerile over the time continuum of 2008-2014. From being a novel idea that would grab the attention of the masses by the scruff of their necks, IPL has graduated to being a “fixture” in the real sense. It is now well and truly a part of the annual entertainment calendar. Viewers don’t have to “figure it out” every year. They can decide what to do with it with far greater ease than ever before. As a result, it can co-exist with other entertainment options in a manner far more harmonious than when it started. IPL has, now, become the Indian Permanent League.

     

    Being a fixture is both a sign of strength and a challenge. Sign of strength because it’s a comment on the inherent equity the league enjoys. Arguably, IPL doesn’t need to be “sold” anymore. It comes pre-sold. It only needs to happen. But the challenge comes in the form of the question that bothers many brands: “What next?”

     

    In the Lalit Modi era, innovation was a core value IPL had espoused. In the first three seasons, we saw new ideas being experimented with. Some worked, some didn’t. But in the second half of its seven-season history, IPL has slipped into maintenance mode. Being a fixture, that’s not such a bad thing. But extended lack of innovation can create brand fatigue, though there were no evident signs of this fatigue being very strong till last year.

     

    The next quantum jump in IPL’s equity can now come via only one route – building of team loyalties. Unless there is a strong, passionate fan base at least 3-4 teams enjoy, the league will remain entertainment-led than loyalty-driven. Chennai Super Kings, Mumbai Indians and Kolkata Knight Riders have achieved this to some extent. But it’s only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. There is a long way to go before IPL can ignite passions like EPL, an oft-quoted benchmark, does.

     

    So the IPL continues to exist, to make a mark and evolve, in its own “fixture-ized” way. Now, won’t it be heartening if the media commentary on IPL evolved too?

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • Narendra Modi is omnipresent on television these days, barring the kids genre. If media planners had any theories on how many exposures you need to build reach or effectiveness, you can throw those theories out of the window, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Modi Ads: How much is too much?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    For the first time in about two weeks (or at least it seems like that), the front-page jacket on The Times Of India Mumbai edition did not carry a BJP ad today. The Mumbai elections being done with, the print budgets are sure to have shifted to Punjab, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. But national TV ads will continue to make their presence felt for at least another three weeks.

     

    There has been enough talk about BJP’s advertising budget and the source of that money. What interests me more, however, is the thought behind such an aggressive media plan. Surely, if Congress or BJP wanted such a plan in the past, say 2004 or 2009, they would not have issues in finding resources to put it together. Hence, it comes down more to the will and the need, than the budget.

     

    Narendra Modi is omnipresent on television these days, barring the kids genre. Even websites and apps, including the most unlikely ones, throw up a BJP ad with him and the lotus symbol prominently displayed. If media planners had any theories on how many exposures you need to build reach or effectiveness, you can throw those theories out of the window. Here, you may as well ask: How many exposures do you need to build a “wave”?

     

    Yes, it comes down to that. BJP (or Modi, used interchangeably here on) has been smart in realizing that their best chance to get an absolute majority in these elections lies increating a “wave” or a “leher” across the country. The party does not have presence in several states, such as West Bengal, Kerala and the North-East. In several others, like Tamil Nadu, it is in alliance with the weaker regional parties. In effect, if BJP-led NDA have to cross the 272-mark, they have to win 272 out of 400-odd constituencies in the heartland states, not out of 543.

     

    That makes it two out of every three seats! A sizeable segment of “undecided” voters, led by first-time voters, can make the difference. After all, more than 50 seats in 2009 were decided by a margin of about 15,000 votes or less.

     

    BJP’s campaign message has been smartly selected and phrased. It wants us to “assume” that a Modi Government is only a formality. The headlines are phrased as statements of fact, not as pleas to the voters, ranging from ‘Hum Modiji ko laane waale hain’ to ‘Abki baar Modi sarkar’ to ‘Kamal ka button dabayenge, Bhajapa ko jitayenge’.

     

    Over many exposures, you would tend to believe that these “facts” are indeed “facts”, and a Modi government is only a matter of formality now. That would be enough to sway both the first-time voters and those sitting on the fence in general. Anything less than a campaign of this visibility may have arguably fallen short of giving credence to the claim that a Modi government is a given this year.

     

    A “wave” in today’s world largely stands for “buzz”. It’s more about talk value. The decision-making takes care of itself thereafter. As a country, we are in a phase where it is becoming increasingly easy to create buzz using the media, but at the same time, it is becoming increasingly difficult to sway opinions. With more sources of influence, media campaigns are now playing a “show” role than a “tell” role.

     

    So, is there a Modi wave? Yes. But does that wave mean a majority of seats for NDA, we will know only on May 16. But one thing is clear. If NDA does not cross the 272-mark this year, with this campaign and such lack of options available to the voter, they never will in the next few decades at least.

     

    To that extent, the pressure is on Modi. Even 230-240 seats may open up possibilities that he would hate to be a part of. On one day, middle of May, it will all be known in a matter of hours!

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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