MxMIndia

Category: COLUMNS

  • If this truancy is allowed to continue, then viewers will never be able to experience the film the way the director conceived and wanted us to see, writes Sanjeev Kotnala

    Sanjeev Kotnala: Seriously psychopathic! Why the 89 cuts in Udta Punjab?

    By Sanjeev Kotnala

     

    I had seen the powerful trailer of Udta Punjab. I was eagerly waiting for release on June 17. Udta Punjab ( can’t even shorten to UP as someone else may take offence) is, as the nation knows by now, a Drug Crime thriller exposing drug problem and is currently locked in a battle with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Now it may get delayed. Guess what we will finally see will not be Udta Punjab given the desired 89 cuts in a 123-minute movie. Watching it will be like watching a body without soul. The fabric will be in broken.

     

     

    What are these cuts? IndiaTimes reports that ‘The committee demanded the filmmakers chop off all the references to politics and elections and all references of expletives and visual substance abuse to be dropped from the film’.

     

    It is said that the producers are planning to move the Bombay High Court against the panel’s verdict. For whatever it is worth, I’m with the producers. They must take the battle forward to its logical end. If this truancy is allowed to continue, then viewers will never be able to experience the film the way the director conceived and wanted us to see. It will be a shame.

     

    People in the know call it the most honest movie. If what I know, read or have been told, in fact, Udta Punjab is a movie with a relevant message for the young audience. An ideal candidate for tax-free label, the movie is fighting for release.

     

    Is CBFC even bothered about such small matters? NO. The chairman is known for political unilateral decisions and don quixotic behaviour. The CBFC board members and the review committee members have publicly questioned the wisdom of chairman. The government has no inclination of the angst being created. Co-producer Anurag Kashyap has compared it to living in North Korea, and he may not be far from truth. However, he must watch, there is something called ‘insulting a foreign dignitary’ under which he may be hassled.

     

    This takes us back to the good old Doordarshan (DD) days, where the agencies submitted the TVC script for DD approval before they went for the shoot. India is a democratic country which proudly sees itself as the protector of independent views and freedom of expression. However, now it appears, the producers will be better advised to send a fully bound script to censor board for approval before starting shooting.

     

    CBFC was constituted for CERTIFYING the film for viewing by a certain set of audience. It was never meant to ask for changes and cuts. However, it did. No one objected, and it became the tradition. And this role of cuts and changes is anyway and undesirable irritant in the information parity world. The time is right where the industry must stand together.

     

    The objection is as stupid as the reason. Remove Punjab from Udta Punjab. Remove all references to Punjab cities, places, people from the movie. Or it may tarnish the image of Punjab. Oh, by the way, elections are some nine months away, so, this silly movie gives some prominent parties sleepless nights by bringing up a valid issue and throwing all the punches.

     

    I am certain this CBFC would have not allowed Salaam Bombay (Prostitution), Bombay (Riots) etc. And the esteemed Board believe that by removing Punjab from the title and its audio references from the movie, the illiterate, information-starved, simple citizen will never be able to guess which state it was talking about.

     

    What is show in the film is a grim reality. The problem exists. You release, or you do not release the movie. Keeping Punjab in or out of it is not going to change it. Even an Ostrich will be ashamed of such thinking.

     

    Drugs are a national malaise. Punjab is taken as an example to demonstrate the extent and its hugeness. And there is no reason for anyone to feel prosecuted. This way never ever will Indian film producers be able to explore realism in cinema.

     

    Social media had its own show on the side. Thank god a bit of freedom still exists. Though there are rules to operate within. I hope I am not crossing any.

     

  • The ones laughing through all this would be the content creators in the internet business, notes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Cutting us to Size: India’s Censorship Woes

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    I can say ‘I told you so’. Last week, in this column, I had said: Udta Punjab is coming up, but a messy mix of certification board, courts, state governments and religious-cum-political ‘activists’ will thwart its flight.

     

    Though the writing was on the wall, the authorities have managed to add a dash of dark humour to this episode, by becoming a laughing stock in no small measure. But one that gets a laugh of exasperation out of you.

     

    One can vaguely sense that there are some reforms on the anvil. But the truth is, the entertainment business, be it films or television, has never been on the priority list of governments over the years. They are only used strategically to achieve political objectives when convenient.

     

    The idea of censorship goes beyond certification. The latter recognises the freedom the former is designed to curb. They are near opposites in ideology. Yet, we are still struggling to pick one over the other. The ‘certification’ board actually censors, because it has managed to generate a long list of taboo things that won’t even get the toughest of the certificates – the Adults only (A) one. This taboo list can keep getting shorter or longer with every successive board chief (and the powers backing him/ her). But the problem shall remain till the idea of this list is dropped in the first place.

     

    “Self-regulation” has often been suggested as a solution. I find that phrase a bit of a misnomer in the Indian context. Self-regulation should imply that the owners of the content, e.g. TV channels or ad makers, responsibly regulate what they put on-air, on their free will, in the interest of their audiences and the society at large.

     

    Yet, self-regulation operates in our TV industry more out of fear than responsibility. There have been instances of English channels being taken off-air by the courts for not censoring adult language or visuals. That has made all channels airing foreign content treat every show or movie with kid-gloves. Footage is cut out, words are muted, subtitles are asterisk-ridden, and so on.

     

    If you want to watch international content uncensored in India, you are literally forced to take the piracy route, because nothing in the theatres or on TV airs without mutilation. Only the degree varies. This is all self-regulation, of course, the powers will tell you. But you create fear and you get this. It’s self-regulation by coercion, not by free will.

     

    The problem is not limited to foreign content. Indian television stays clear of any potential controversies too. The language is sanitised, even the most hardened criminals don’t smoke, and the idea of showcasing sexuality is entirely irrelevant. It’s another matter altogether that superstitions, potentially a lot more threatening than many things on the TV taboo list, are casually endorsed across serials.

     

    But make no mistake. Our television is censored too. The self-regulation garb is only a sham. After all, it is humanly impossible to censor television, given the volume of daily content. If it were, it would fall under CBFC in no time, like films on TV do.

     

    The ones laughing through all this would be the content creators in the internet business. Censoring films and television will only make the internet a more viable option for mainstream content consumption. But don’t be surprised if someone decides to censor that too. The tool there is probably the easiest to execute – Send sarkaari instructions to all ISPs to block the site. No revising committee, no FCAT. Fight a battle in the courts if you will.

     

    North Korea? Not yet, but quite close.

  • "As is the norm, international writers did not whitewash Ali’s mistakes and contradictions and the seamier parts of his life and personality. This is important because often in India, we expect all people we ourselves have placed on a pedestal to be perfect. And once we do that, reality disappears. The Indian media is especially guilty of this and most particularly with film and sports personalities," writes Ranjona Banerji.

    Ranjona Banerji: The world’s media bids farewell to boxing legend Mohammad Ali

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The death of boxing legend Mohammad Ali on June 3 was one of those rare occasions when most of the world mourned. Ali was 74 and had been suffering from Parkinson’s for years. His larger-than-life persona, his boxing prowess, his fight against racism, his conversion to Islam, his refusal to fight in the Vietnam War at great personal cost, his kindness to strangers, his philanthropy and the ups and downs of his personal life all made him much more than a beloved and talented sportsperson. He was a symbol of so many things that it is hardly surprising that so many agreed that Ali was correct when he called himself “The Greatest”!

     

    Front pages of most newspapers all over the world and top of the news for most news channels were therefore to be expected and were definitely well-deserved. Here in India, many wrote charming pieces about their encounters with Ali, when he visited India for instance, and elsewhere and others wrote angry pieces about how our sportspersons did not and do not have Ali’s courage of conviction.

     

    As is the norm, international writers did not whitewash Ali’s mistakes and contradictions and the seamier parts of his life and personality. This is important because often in India, we expect all people we ourselves have placed on a pedestal to be perfect. And once we do that, reality disappears. The Indian media is especially guilty of this and most particularly with film and sports personalities.

     

    It was interestingly, our resident BJP fans on Twitter who were the most critical of Ali. It was interesting because Ali’s links to India were minimal but mainly because of this desperate need of the rightwing on Twitter to jump onto any bandwagon to get noticed. Ali’s chief crime for them appeared to be that Cassius Clay converted to Islam, which given the Hindu majoritarian ideology of the BJP is hardly surprising. What this has to do with Ali on the day he died is another story.

     

    But for the most part it was appreciation of a great person and an outpouring of sadness at a loss. One of the better days for a media watcher.

     

    **

     

    “Trending” on Facebook this week, have been some interesting stories. Like Virat Kohli hugged Anoushka Sharma. And how Shilpa Shetty’s husband surprised her on her 41st birthday. For all of you who fulminate on how trivial newspapers and news television has become, remember, “trending” on Facebook meant that Facebook users liked these news items. Cricket and Bollywood and Bollywood and Cricket.

     

    This is what people read no matter how much they pretend that they are desperately concerned about the education system in Bihar. OMG, did Virat really drop Anoushka to the airport? And did he kiss her? And whatever Raj Kundra got for Shilpa Shetty which to be honest I did not bother to read. My interest in glamour trivia is often at abysmally low levels.

     

    It was even more interesting therefore to see the anger and frustration with the Film certification board’s tendency to act as a censor board almost 30 years after the Emergency ended. Everyone has spoken out about the rash of cuts suggested in the film Udta Punjab by certification board chief, especially on Twitter and later on television. Of course, people have been ranting about Nihalani for ages and it has made no difference which might point to the limits of media protests or the intractability of the government.

     

    Director Anurag Kashyap also producer of the film Udta Punjab appeared on Twitter and television to tell us that he felt he was living in North Korea and that the experience was Kafkaesque. Most journalists took him at face value because the space for Kafka in an atmosphere dominated by a possible kiss from Virat Kohli is very limited.

     

    At any rate, the media has kept us fully informed on the fight over a film on the drug problems in Punjab, with analysts tackling issues of politics, freedom of speech and expression and the travails of film-making. In all this I did not notice anything from the Chief Upholder of the Government in The Film Industry, Anupam Kher. Did you?

     

  • I admire people who can watch these TV debates night after night… they deserve the highest civilian awards for bravery, writes Ranjona Banerj

    Ranjona Banerji: An award for those who can watch TV debates every night!

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida which has left 49 people dead and 53 injured – at last count – quite rightly dominated news cycles in India and abroad. Although in India it did compete with the fight over censorship, freedom of expression and the film Udta Punjab.

     

    Reports started with the death of a singer at the nightclub Pulse, but it soon became clear that the attack was more horrific than that. Once the identity of the shooter became clear – Omar Mateen, an American born US citizen of Afghan origin – the focus shifted to Islamic terrorism, especially since Mateen had pledged allegiance to IS.

     

    However, there was a seemingly conscious attempt by American investigators and government spokespersons not too walk too far down that road without evidence. This attitude was reflected in the media as well. Barring Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump – who has a good future as an Indian politician – most were not willing to stick their necks out so far.

     

    But even then the media and social media reflected the various aspects of this crime. For one, it was the largest mass shooting in a country which has more mass shootings than most others. For another, it was a vicious attack on the gay community and on people having fun. For a third, there definitely appeared to be some religious angle. For another, was the focus on the perpetrator taking away the pain of the victims’ and their families?

     

    This is how a story unfolds and that is why initial caution is more advisable than jumping into the deep end at first instance. Western TV news has shown some signs of initial caution in such instances – especially since Anders Brevik’s mass shooting in Norway but Indian news television perhaps still has some lessons to learn.

     

    Current news stories suggest that Mateen was himself gay and a regular at Pulse and his ex-wife says he was violent and bi-polar. CNN meanwhile has decided to focus on the victims and not the shooter.

     

    **

     

    The Bombay High Court may have ended the whole fight over the film Udta Punjab, but it provided much grist to news television’s mill. We had “debates” on the matter for almost a week. Like most TV debates, they reached no conclusion, they had various party spokespersons shouting at each other, they confused political one-upmanship with the problems of drug-dealing and addiction with the concept of freedom of expression with the need for a certification board to behave like a censor board.

     

    More and more I admire people who can watch these TV debates night after night. They deserve the highest civilian awards for bravery.

     

    **

     

    A diary item in Coomi Kapoor’s Sunday column in The Indian Express tells us that the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his party were very upset that the media did not focus enough on an award that he received on his recent trip to Afghanistan. Instead, the headlined story was the follow-up of a hit and run accident involving a teenager at the wheel of a Mercedes and the death of pedestrian. Apparently, several tweets were sent from ministers questioning the news priorities of the media.

     

    Two points to note here. The first is would such a miss of the PM’s foreign travels and honours been possible two years ago?

     

    And the second is India has one of the highest mortality rates when it comes to road accidents. According to government figures, some 400 people die every day on Indian roads.

     

  • The copy is good, bordering on excellence for the simplicity of the message, and if the argument has to be taken at face value. However, is that all what the newspaper is all about, asks Sanjeev Kotnal

    Sanjeev Kotnala: The Indian Express’ soft touch to rejuevenate newspapers… but does it work?

    By Sanjeev Kotnala

     

    On June 13 when I boarded my flight to Nagpur, I was in for a small surprise. There was Indian Express placed on the aisle seats. The surprise was short as the cover was Jet Airways proudly selling its services. And then the last two pages of the wrap had the ad from Indian Express. The ads carried Creativeland Asia’s key line.

     

    I read and experienced Indian Express after a long time and realised I was seriously missing something. I am serious thinking of switching to the Express. Think such a good product undersold itself in the communication it carried.

     

    First let’s take a detour to a flashback. In 2015, Indian Express ran short films titled ‘Death of a newspaper’ . They started with a bold statement. ‘First things first, the newspaper is dead’ and went on to say that the Newspaper died when people started watching the news on TV. However, Indian Express is ‘More than a newspaper’

     

     

    A year later; the brand was presenting a positive side to a newspaper and sharing why it is still important- and well it has every right after the Panama Papers, the biggest investigative report in an example of multi-country journalism.

     

    The first ad headline from Indian Express- for the Intelligent Indian was

    ‘Does news always
    have to be breaking?

    And the second read:

    You heard the news last night.
    But, do you know it.

     

    Both ads were signed off with ‘Indian Express- Journalism of courage’.

     

    Now I do appreciate Indian Express taking on and defining what and why newspaper is still the best way to have the news. Such an approach will always benefit from a collective approach from newspapers, but then we know that it is a phenomenal statement but a fantasy in current situation. I remember the initiative from teh magazine association and the recent work by outdoor association, which are far more outreaching.

     

    The copy is good, bordering on excellence for the simplicity of the message, and if the argument has to be taken at face value. However, is that all what the newspaper is all about? Is that all that ‘Journalism of Courage’ could muster? In this tonality, I found the Mumbai Mirror campaigns had more impact.

     

    When I read the copy and reread it, it did nothing much to me as a reader.

     

    I present the copy of ad-I for reference. (Italics within brackets is my reaction)

     

    ………………………………………………

    Headline

     

    Does news always
    have to be breaking?

     

    Bodycopy

     

    When a child falls into an uncovered bore well it can’t be breaking news ( agreed). It’s a heart-breaking news
    (agreed and even Arnab Goswami agrees with this point of view )

     

    When a nation of billions fails to bring back a single gold medal from the Olympic games it’s disappointing news 

    ( yes, it is and maybe some time soon we all in news will be again rehashing and discussing this)

    When a developing country puts a spacecraft in the Martian orbit.
    It’s hopeful news

    (So).

    A newspaper is about pursuing news. Getting to the bottom of it. Making sense of it.
    (Agreed… don’t know where you are getting to)

     

    It is about answering every question. Questioning every answer. 

    ( Yes, yes, come on, that’s something so close to climaxing- build it up)

     

    And having it served on the breakfast table as infuriating news, moving news, eye-opening news, reassuring news, or shaking news. 

    (Good and here was I thinking that news was always just news. However, I am willing to go with you on this )

     

    It is never just about breaking news. 

    (One rarely gets an opportunity but yes, Indian Express still manages to break news)

     

    It is about breaking news down. 

    (And yes only Indian Express does that, so much honest to the brand statement, love the interplay of words. Someone is really having fun)

     

    Signoff

     

    TheThe Indian Express, for the Indian Intelligent
    (WTF! After all that build up, a let down – almost sounded like Rashtra Praharai, guardians of the nation)
    Let me present the second ad… it reads better:

     

    Headline

     

    You heard this news last night.
    But, do you know it.

     

    Bodycopy

     

    News breaks quite often these days
    (Yeah, I agree, and I hate when it breaks at such a frequency)

     

    Its pieces are hurled at us from our TV screens
    (Oh no that is not the only medium)

     

    The hastag on our Twitter feeds and trends on our Facebook. 140 characters of information, enough to feed a two-minute conversation
    (Oh, oh, how simplistic is this getting and how basic )

     

    Open your mouth and parrot it out. Did you see? Did you hear? Did you share? 

    (Oh now you have taken it emotionally)

     

    But did you read? Did you read through the pages? Into the paragraphs, between the lines 

    (Now this is nit picking, oh no- who reads and why must i read)

     

    Did you turn it n its head? Did you search for new perspectives? 

    And if you entered the third minute of that conversation.
    Did you stutter, or did you pleasantly surprise?
    Did you close and argument?
    Did you open a mind?
    (Oh, yes, you asked the similar questions last year too. Nothing has changed. What changed is the duration of conversations, nowadays they are rarely more than two minutes. We chat on What’sapp and share on Facebook- and there it’s cut and paste, share and be shared, like and dislike, comment and be commented on. Nevertheless, your perspective is welcome. I am not convinced if this need is satisfied only by newspapers.)

     

    I may not be the part of Indian Intelligent. However, I question if there is a lot left unsaid in this fight of newspaper against digital and TV. Will someone stand up and take the call? Newspapers are so much more than breaking news. They are more intelligent and deeply pursue the news to its ultimate end. They give you all the points of view, create impressions, mould perceptions and understand the readers a lot better.

     

    The question remains and here I am questioning the answer. Is this all that the newspaper needs to do to get the non reader or lapsed readers?

     

    Sanjeev Kotnala is founder of Intradia World; a Brand, Marketing & Management Advisory. His focus area includes Ideation and Innovation; he also conducts specialized workshops like IDEAHarvest, Liberate and InNoWait. For soft skill training, he follows SHIFT (Specific High-Intensity Frequent training), a process of continuous training with frequent shorter sessions. Email sanjeev@intradia.in tweet @s_kotnala web: www.intradia.in www.sanjeevkotnala.com.

     

  • For the first time since 2014, I have begun to notice a change in the tide in previously pro-Narendra Modi journalists and media houses, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Rising prices sees end of media’s love for Modi govt

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The general perception of the media in India, especially the English media, is that it is a monolithic structure paid for by the Vatican, the Saudis and remnants of the USSR (never China, mind you) with the sole purpose of denigrating and destroying India’s great culture and past. All journalists are part of this conspiracy which has its origins in the Congress Party, Jawaharlal Nehru’s family and the university named after him and thus deserve to be called “presstitutes”, “newstraders” and so on.

     

    Luckily for the media’s diversity – if not for its sanity – once Narendra Modi’s run to the prime ministership began, many journalists in the English media saw him as the messiah. Because public memory is so short – and journalists sometimes top this list – this is not the first and only time that the media has shown itself in different colours (shhh, don’t tell the conspiracy theorists!).

     

    During the Emergency, many journalists objected to restrictions on Constitutional rights. Journalists also supported VP Singh in his rebellion against Rajiv Gandhi – many of them starry-eyed women as some cynics today like to point out! I still remember the excitement at the Bombay Union of Journalists’ office when he came to address us. In the Bofors exposures, it was the media that ran fastest and longest with the story of bribes paid to Rajiv Gandhi and his friends, long after politicians of all hues preferred to forget about it.

     

    Badly paid as journalists were, it was somewhat inevitable that many were concerned with the problems of the less fortunate. Glamour journalism as we know it today did not exist. Even when it came to film stars, magazines like Stardust were far more cynical and critical and sometimes wickedly funny than today’s rah-rah form of journalism. And when you looked around you in India, what did you see but the miseries of your fellow Indians. How could you in any good conscience decide that they deserved no help?

     

    It was LK Advani’s Ram Janmabhoomi movement which saw a big religious schism appear in journalism in India. For the first time, many realised that so many of their colleagues were in fact distinctly pro-Hindutva and anti-minority. Everyone knew, for instance, that Girilal Jain, the iconic ivory tower editor of The Times of India was vaguely sort of, maybe, you know pro-Hindutva. But those were different times, with less scrutiny and frankly, less media.

     

    Economic liberalisation in 1991 and the advent of television changed the country’s ethos and the country’s media. We were told that Hindus, long forgotten and ignored by our evil secular socialist Constitution, were now coming into their own. I even contributed to a story for India Today magazine on the “saffron-clad yuppie”, a new and intriguing phenomenon for us.

     

    But ideological schism or no schism, most journalists are just journalists. Things get back to status quo sooner or later when stories have to be done and somehow, a balance is found. When I was deputy resident editor of the Times of India in Gujarat in the 2000s, the various branches of the same newspaper reacted differently to the riots, with Mumbai being the least interested in what has happening – until some of us protested that a story that the world was interested in was being ignored. In India Today, the local bureau chief swung for the rioters while the group’s new channels told the story like it was. But the group itself at the time was seen as pro-RSS.

     

    My main point is that nothing of what we are seeing now is new. Much closer to our time, we have seen that the same news channels that lionised Arvind Kejriwal during the India Against Corruption movement are now the most critical of him as chief minister of Delhi.

     

    And as far as India’s messiah Narendra Modi is concerned, for the first time since 2014, I have begun to notice a change in the tide in previously pro-Modi journalists and media houses. The sticking point is one that has been a problem for all governments: rising prices. The cost of dal did not cut it but tomatoes at between Rs 80 to Rs 100 a kg and the obfuscation of government spokespersons, have many more questioning where that “achche din” promise has gone.

     

    And thus the cookie crumbleth.

     

  • Shailesh Kapoor discusses the TV industry's Talent Pool Challenges – then and now

    Talent Travails on Telly

     

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    It’s about 25 years since the start of the satellite television industry in India. While 25 years is a long time, the industry would still qualify as being fairly young when benchmarked against more traditional sectors like FMCG.

     

    One of the most interesting facets of a new or young industry is how it builds its talent pool in its early years. This aspect has been of particular interest to me for the television, film (even younger) and digital content (newborn) industries in India.

     

    In the ’90s, in the first decade of the TV industry, talent pool creation was largely organic. While some senior hands from other sectors were hired at the top levels by most networks, especially the foreign ones, the bulk of the talent pool was created by hiring young people in the creative field, erstwhile working with ad films or features, often at assistant levels, or by hiring media planners and buyers to staff up the sales function in TV channels.

     

    If one had to describe the overall feel of the talent pool in that first decade, they were a bunch of young and semi-maverick people passionate about working on something that was new and growing.

     

    It’s difficult to say when exactly that phase ended and the next one started. It would have been somewhere in the 2001-2004 period. The next phase, which lasted for about seven to eight years, that is, till the turn of the decade, involved two key shifts. By now, media was becoming a lucrative option for senior resources in FMCGs, consumer durables and other such marketing-savvy sectors to consider. The top layers of several broadcasters witnessed entry of such “outsiders”.

     

    The impact of the “outsiders” was evident in the processes and the marketing focus they brought in. The content creation side of the business, however, didn’t change much, and continues to operate much the same way even today. The failure of the “outsiders” to impact the way the production side works (not what they create, but how they work to create what they create) is probably the missed opportunity of this phase.

     

    The second key shift in this phase was related to the geometric (not exponential) increase in the number of channels and hence the demand for talent. While senior hires in big networks happened from outside, the middle level witnessed a lot of demand and not even quality supply. Dangerously then, we saw promotions before they were due. Executives with less than a decade of experience, and not necessarily a glorious career backing them, were put in roles that they were just not ready for. Not that they knew it then, or for that matter, realise it even today.

     

    As a result, there was a huge loss from the idea to execution stage, i.e., from the top levels to what goes out to the consumer.  Many network heads carried this frustration with them, of just not being able to get the next level to see where they are coming from.

     

    This problem, if we can call it that, began to ease off around 2010, as the young lot that was promoted too early learned the ropes and grew with experience.

     

    Now in the third decade, there are two talent challenges the industry is facing. One of them is the reverse of the demand problem from the last decade. With the number of new channels drying up, there are not that many jobs being created within the sector anymore. We see a lot of shifts between networks, but for someone to grow up the ladder is becoming increasingly difficult. There’s just not enough demand for senior level broadcasting jobs today.

     

    The second challenge is one that digital poses. Many on the creative and the marketing side of the broadcasting business are being lured by opportunities that digital content could offer in the coming few years. There is also a sense of frustration with the status quo on GEC content, triggering the shift to digital faster than it would have happened otherwise. The next year will be a defining one for digital content in India. And how many make the transition from TV to digital content will be interesting to track.

     

  • "Trending on Facebook" is my current favourite source of news, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: The News via Facebook

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    No newspapers arrived yesterday and only Yoga Day on the news this morning. And then people wonder why you have to go to the internet to find out what’s happening in the world. “Trending on Facebook” is my current favourite source of news. Right now, as I write this, these are the top three news items of paramount interest to a Facebook algorithm near me.

     

    1 Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Poster Released for Upcoming Harry Potter Spinoff Film.

    2 Ishant Sharma and Pratima Singh: Cricketer and Baseball Player Engaged, Photos Show.

    3 Finding Dory: ‘Finding Nemo” Sequel Breaks Box Office Record with $135.2 Million Opening Weekend

     

    And once more this proves to me that people are really not interested in serious matters and that Facebook really believes in “upper/lower” although we were taught that upper/lower is not an easy reading format.

     

    And also I am seriously surprised that Game of Thrones has not found a mention. Although that may well only prove that the Facebook algorithm follows the wrong people. There is hardly an issue of Time magazine that goes by, for instance, without a #GoT reference. (If you gotta say it, you gotta hashtag it.)

     

    The other day, when the newspapers had arrived, I read about an interaction between the Hindu’s Readers’ Editor and the Hindu’s readers. As usual, the questions from the readers were the same: why is all news negative news and why is your newspaper mean to the people I like?

     

    Much as readers are pained when they feel that they only get bad news from the media of their choice, “good news” is a frothy myth of nothingness. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. No one would read any newspaper which only said, “Six people went for a nature walk today in my neighbourhood and were very happy when they noticed two butterflies” on a day when there has been a terrorist attack in their city.

     

    However, judging from Facebook, absolutely anodyne information about entertainment and famous people, is top of the pops for your average person. Think of that every time someone you know blames “the media” for concentrating on the frivolous and for publishing sections like Bombay Times and so on.

     

    **

     

    As for “the media” being prejudiced about people you like, this is one of the sweetest and most plaintive little whines you can hear. About 90 per cent of the time it comes from some pro-rightwing person who surprisingly reads the edit pages. I say surprisingly not because pro-rightwing people do not normally read edit pages but because newspapers managements routinely tell editors that no one reads edit pages.

     

    However, thanks to the internet where opinion – whether from impassioned and well-intentioned bloggers or seasoned commentators – matters, people feel strongly about how people think. I doubt that newspaper managements – often sadly never the brightest crayons in the pack – will realise this, but viewpoints continue to rule social media. As for the sad readers who feel their favourite opinions are being given short shrift, the only consolation for them is that one day the wheel will turn their way.

     

    **

     

    A tweet from Rahul Kanwal of India Today TV sometime last week was amusing and intriguing. Kanwal accused Times Now of stealing a story 24 hours later with the “same guests, same story” about an ACB report. Since I rarely watch either news channel, except Karan Thapar on India Today TV, can anyone please clue me in?

     

  • Writing a new chapter starts with the passion and intent to define something and make a mark, writes Sanjeev Kotnala

    Sanjeev Kotnala: Will your chapter change the story title?

    By Sanjeev Kotnala

     

    The past is just a story. You can do nothing else but learn from it. And future is vague, undefined but intended. So today is when you are nearest to the reality, ready to write the next chapter. Today or for that every moment of your life has been the opportunity to write the chapter that can give your story a new direction. However, maybe you have been working on a default mode or your conscious and subconscious has not been in sync.

     

    Writing a new chapter starts with the passion and intent to define something and make a mark. To be constructive and proactive. With this intent, you invest time and energy to read the story. You understand the situation; you understand the support cast, their capabilities and potential. This is what will be the foundation, barrier and the catalyst for writing the next chapter.

     

    The story exists and most likely it has a title. Title that did justice to the story. It is usually a working title until it hits the press. And here you are, determined and destined to write the next chapter.

     

    Now the new chapter you write can possibly do one of the two things.  It can help move the story forward in the intended direction towards its destiny, or it can re-evaluate and decide the direction the story should be taking. What will happen, depends upon few definitive alignmentsdefined by the author. Why is the chapter being written? Is the author of a follower or a leader, an execution specialist or a strategist, committed to the cause or just a fellow passenger?

     

    In case of Apple, the chapters written by Steve Jobs not only changed the title to the story called Apple, but it went further and redefined the title to the story of information technology, telephony, music, camera and marketing. When MK Gandhi started the chapter of non-cooperation in Indian freedom movement, he did not rewrite his story, he wrote the story of an Independence movement and gave a new tool to fight. When Verghese Kurien started the white revolution with village cooperatives, he redefined his story, image and many more lives. When E Sreedharan the metro man first took the project, the story of Metro rail was hazy but with his actions, he has written a completely new story. Many of them have not been happy with the story that was pushed to them.

     

    The impact of the new chapter can be felt on the front page, the cover of the book. Does the chapter (revision or an update) in the story is powerful enough to demand a new title? Is it so revolutionary and disruptive that it is reorienting organisational resources and redefining how it is known and perceived? If your actions impact the equation organization has with its stakeholders and the way it syncs with its ecosystem. This will need a change of Title.

     

    Don’t be awed by the names like Messrs Kurien, Steve Jobs and Gandhi and believe that you do not have the opportunity to read the story, forget about writing the chapter. Look closer home and you will see the Bansals rewriting the chapters, Kishor Biyani, Subash Chandra, Ronnie Screwvala. R Balki is writing a new chapter in his own story. See the students who have secured good marks in schools or have made to IAS coming from a background that only said, you should not dream. But they dared. Instead of accepting the constraints that were better defined than the possibilities, they moved on; they pushed themselves because they had the passion and conviction not to be part to the story they found themselves in.

     

    Write a powerful chapter or change the story you are in.

     

    Once you write the chapter and change the title, do not for a moment think that the job is over. The new title became a reality when you wrote the chapter is just another working title. A co-author at a later date and time through action and inaction will redefine and give the story a fresh title.

     

    It is rare that a chapter completes a story. ‘The end’ is not a chapter in the story of organizations. In professional life, it is the day you stop contributing and not necessarily the day you stop working of retire. In personal life, ‘The end’ is the universal truth- death.

     

    However, when you do write a new chapter that is powerful enough to change the title of the book, you can be assured that when ever the book is read, referred, discussed or published- the Chapter, you wrote will have the title you intended. After all, all you were interested in was not the past, that was just a story ad future was always intended and vague. You were and are the present, and that is what should be the focus, writing the current chapter that will change the title of the story.

     

  • Among the four language states in the HSM, Maharashtra has by far the highest representation in the ratings universe, notes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Sairat on The Kapil Sharma Show: A Victory Of Intention

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Weekly ratings are a source of excitement and anxiety in the television fraternity. The day and time of their release may have changed over the years, but the drama they bring along has not. Be it a small channel that should not even be looking at a weekly number in isolation, or a big channel where a single episode has more viewership that a small channel’s entirely weekly audience, there’s something in it for everyone.

     

    But if you detach a bit, weekly ratings are exciting only to the extent of knowing that big headline. Like a new show with much hype not opening well. Or like the dark horse Naagin getting a start so incredible it made you go: ‘There must be some error here!’ But you don’t get such headlines every week.

     

    This week, though, was an exception. We got a headline that was worth the long wait (since Naagin last year). The Sunday, June 12 episode of The Kapil Sharma Show, featuring the cast and the director of Marathi blockbuster Sairat, became the highest-rated episode of the program, and by a significant margin too.

     

    Despite the BARC advisory that broadcasters should not use % Ratings in any official communication, the 3.7 number was all over social media yesterday. You can’t hold a good story back, after all.

     

    The episode rated almost 70% more than the Saturday episode in the same week, and almost 30% higher than the launch event featuring Shahrukh Khan.

     

    Now this should make no sense, right? Sairat may have set new benchmarks for Marathi theatrical business, but why should regional content deliver at a national level? A look at the Maharashtra ratings answered the question in no uncertain terms. The numbers look unreal in today’s times, being 200% more than the national average. And that meant that even if some of the other markets dropped, one state could single-handedly pull the national (HSM Urban) number to a record level.

     

    Sairat is a rare film and one can’t expect this to become a trend. And if even we have more success stories like it, there is a geographical limitation. Among the four language states in HSM (quite a misnomer, as some of these markets are not Hindi-speaking, which is the whole point here), Maharashtra has by far the highest representation in the ratings universe. A content piece around Gujarat will have to work doubly hard to get the same impact at the national level, because of lower weightage. And Punjab and West Bengal are even lower in their contribution to the universe.

     

    While the regional learning may thus have limited relevance, there’s another one that is far more useful. The film released on April 29, and the episode in question aired six weeks after its release. The episode’s success relied on a sizeable fan base of the film. Equally importantly, there was more to ask and do, as the chatter and the fun and games centred on the familiar content of the film. The episode, in effect, becamea homage to the film, than a promotion of it.

     

    This honesty of intention shone through the content. It won’t take much thought for even Maharashtra audiences to desert a big Marathi film’s pre-release promotional episode. But honest content, without a peg to be sniffed out, can touch hearts. More power to those who made this special one happen.

     

    Now waiting for the next substantive ratings headline.

     

  • All of Thursday, as the world wanted to know about Britain's vote on staying or leaving European Union, international news channels were quite on their own usual pet news subjects, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Does the BBC think Indians aren’t interested in Brexit?

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    I was going to start this with a rant against the BBC World Service and with other foreign news channels which broadcast to India. All of Thursday, as the world wanted to know about Britain’s vote on staying or leaving European Union, international news channels were quite on their own usual pet news subjects. This appears to be part of a misconception on the part of editors or managers that the countries which these channels broadcast to are not interested in what is happening in the countries they originate from.

     

    That is why, I imagine, the extraordinary Democratic Party “sit in” over control was not seen as top news by CNN International yesterday. And the German channel DW was more concerned with some football league as news of a gun attack in Germany was breaking across other news channels.

     

    The BBC World Service is perhaps the best at this misconception. From an ex-colonial point of view (mine), it almost appears like “white-splaining” – that is, I the BBC, know better than you (the brownie) want to know about. That is why, I assume, anything to do with British royalty gets maximum and endless play on the BBC World Service. The BBC weather service is best at this – people dying all over India from drought and lack of rainfall and the meteorologists ruing areas where there are chances of rain while glorying in all that killer sunshine. I am also happy to discover that Astana has the maximum number of BBC World Service weather forecast viewers.

     

    But while from Thursday to Friday morning India time, CNN International was ahead of the BBC on the “Brexit” vote, luckily by 9 am India time, the BBC woke up to the Brexit results and provided blanket coverage, presumably from the BBC newsroom itself and not the World Service.

     

    And when they get it right, they do it quite well: Sober discussions with people being allowed to have their say without hysterical interruptions – not to mention a choice of intelligent and articulate guests. Even better, politicians with opposing viewpoints sat next to each other without screaming their heads off, without bringing everything down to an uncivilised cacophonic civilisational crisis.

     

    A quick look at international news channels at 10.30 am on Friday saw every channel (CNN, BBC, DW, RT, TV5Monde Asie, France 24, ChannelNewsAsia, Al-Jazeera and Australia Plus focusing on the UK referendum.

     

    All Indian news channels were on the top news except for the delightful News 9, which had local Karnataka News. Surprisingly, even business channels which normally operate in a separate galaxy from all other news channels had the UK referendum as top news. Yes, I know I know, markets have a role to play here.

     

    One can only hope that the results themselves – UK to leave the European Union – will be debated through the day. It is highly likely that we will go back to Syria and Astana.

     

    **

     

    The film star Salman Khan is known for his popular movies and loyal fans but also for his controversial behaviour and for several court cases against him for manslaughter and killing endangered animals. His latest comment that a tough shooting schedule which left him feeling like a “raped woman” has created enormous outrage on social media and in the mainstream media.

     

    What has saved Khan every time is his clout within the industry and in larger circles of influence, not least in the media. Thus, no sooner did his unsalutary remark become public than his apologists within the media swung into action. That his remark was unsalutary is undoubtedly my opinion and we can debate that. But questions need to be asked about those in the glamour media who cannot distinguish between journalism and fandom.

     

  • The Prime Minister is a consummate public performer and given that Goswami was largely docile, he was never going to be a threat, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Did the nation get to know what it wanted to know when Gentleman Goswami interviewed the PM?

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Let us not be ungracious. Congratulations must be given to Times Now and to its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami for getting an interview with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This is no small achievement. Modi’s interaction with the press, since becoming Prime Minister, has been very scant and mainly limited to selfie-taking sessions. Goswami has also managed to pip other channels – for instance, Aaj-Tak – to the post here.

     

    But did the nation get to know what it wanted to know? That is, would Goswami be as he is on his show – fire and brimstone and with an underlying tone of the panellists or interviewee “being thrown to the dogs” Ramsay Bolton style with Modi? Or was he the sweet, simpering, frankly terrified (like a Bolton victim?) who interviewed Raj Thackeray? Or was he like the schoolyard bully who tore into a lost and hapless Rahul Gandhi?

     

    The answer should of course be obvious – he was gentle and considerate. He asked some pertinent and even tough questions but did press further when he did not get an answer. He allowed Modi to provide his bland answers and present himself as a reluctant politician who is only interested in the “development” of the country. The Prime Minister is a consummate public performer and given that Goswami was largely docile, he was never going to be a threat. People may remember that this was how Goswami interviewed Modi before he became PM, though arguably he was a little sweeter this time.

     

    The media should note that it is to blame for making “heroes” out of the publicity seekers in Modi’s own party and parivar, according to the Prime Minister. One assumes that it would suit the BJP tremendously if we ignored all the communal hate-mongering that routinely emerges from BJP elected officials and members of Parliament.

     

    As an aside, this is also Modi’s response to current problem within the BJP over Subramanian Swamy’s attacks on Arun Jaitley. Modi has honed in solely on Swamy’s need for “publicity” which is what drives him to attack people within his own party publicly. It does not take even half a degree in “entire” political science to know that Swamy’s game is a bit more devious than only looking for “publicity”. But if Goswami accepted that argument from the PM, reluctantly or otherwise, then it is an interesting way to see yourself as a journalist. Or look at it this way: Union finance minister Arun Jaitley has cut short his trip from China to deal with Swamy’s assaults on him and his team. Does that sound like Swamy is merely a misguided publicity-seeker?

     

    But disingenuous answers to tepid questions apart what is the takeaway from this interview for the media? Undoubtedly that Goswami has proved that he is India’s top anchor and everyone else can weep! He got the elusive Prime Minister of India to agree to an interview. The fact that the interview is headline news for practically every newspaper in India tells you how important Goswami’s achievement is. He has also proved that fire and brimstone has to be used not indiscriminately but selectively. If Ramsay Bolton had figured that out, he might not have become dinner for hungry doggies!

     

    I however will continue to watch Wimbledon, which started on Monday on Star Sports, rather than Times Now. And if you’re really interested, also the season six finale of Game of Thrones which airs tonight in India.