MxMIndia

Category: MxM JOURNALISM REVIEW

  • Infer or imply? Discreet or discrete? Evoke or evince? Common misunderstandings can lead to confusing writing… Vidya Heble in 'Speaking of Which'

    Speaking of Which: Confounding Confusions

    By Vidya Heble

     

    Using the right word can ensure your brief or release or presentation is accurate; using the wrong word that sounds right could mean the difference between “enter” and “inter”. If there are words you are unsure of, and which you need to look up more than once, add them to a list which you can easily refer to, when you need clarification. There’s nothing wrong in admitting that one needs to look something up – I do it all the time. With gadgets at our fingertips, accessing a dictionary or a thesaurus or even an encyclopaedia has never been easier. When in doubt, look it up. Meanwhile, here’s the kickstart to your list.

     

    convince / persuade

    One convinces a person that something is true but persuades a person to do something. “Pointing out that I was overworked, my friends persuaded [not convinced] me to take a vacation. Now that I’m relaxing on the beach with my book, I am convinced [not persuaded] that they were right.”

    Tip: Don’t use “convince to”, it should be “persuade to” and “convince that”.

     

    historic / historical

    Historic means important in history. Historical refers broadly to what has gone before, in history (whether important or not).

    Eg: “The historic meeting between heads of state was held in the historical Great Hall.”

     

    beside / besides

    Beside is a preposition that means next to: “Stand here beside me.” Besides is an adverb that means also: “Besides, I need to tell you about the new products my company offers.”

     

    alternately / alternatively

    Alternately means one after another, taking turns. Eg: “We carried the bag alternately on the walk home.” Alternatively means on the other hand; one or the other, as an alternative. Eg: “You could buy a cooking range, or alternatively you could just go for an induction cooktop.”

     

    discreet / discrete

    Discrete is not a fancy way of spelling discreet. Discreet means careful, prudent, modest. Eg: “Her discreet handling of the case earned her accolades.” Discrete means separate or individually distinct. Eg: “Each section operated discretely.”

     

    farther / further

    Farther refers to distance, further refers to degree or extent.

    Eg: “We can go farther with more petrol, but discussing it any further is pointless.”

     

    literally / virtually / practically

    These are not words you can freely interchange.

    Literally means that it actually happened. Eg: “When I heard the knock on the door I literally fell out of my chair.”

    Virtually is an imagined happening. Eg: “She virtually drooled over the shoes in the shop window.”

    Practically is hand in hand with virtually, and almost there. Eg: “He practically spat the words out at her.”

     

    flaunt / flout

    To flaunt means to show off in a brazen way. Eg: “They missed no opportunity to flaunt their win.” To flout means to show scorn or contempt for something, usually a law. Eg: “The older boy was a misfit and often flouted the rules.”

     

    leach / leech

    leach – to empty, drain, or remove

    leech – a bloodsucking worm or to a person who preys on or clings to another; also a verb meaning to (archaic, unless people still practice this somewhere in the world) bleed with leeches or (current) act as a parasite

     

    imply / infer

    Imply means to suggest indirectly, while infer is to draw a conclusion.

    Eg: I imply that your work is below standard. You infer that I hate your guts.

     

    ‘Speaking of which’ is a new fortnighly series that (or should we say ‘which’?) will, among other things, talk of common errors people in our media make, and how good usage can make for better communication. Written by Vidya Heble, Deputy Editor, MxMIndia and Managing Editor, The Blue Pencil Company, a content editing and writing start-up. Vidya has over two decades of experience in advertising, print and online media… in India, the Gulf and Singapore. She has also edited books, written speeches and communiques and recently took a sabbatical to set up and execute the online avatar of a popular show.

     

  • And on this Friday, the 14th, Ranjona Banerji wonders why are guests better behaved with Karan Thapar and how no one calls Arnab Rajdeep these days

    Ranjona Banerji: News on TV is not necessarily news in the papers

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The gulf between newspaper-land and TV-land is as wide as between this solar system and some other, in a place where one must boldly go where no one has gone before. Every night you think the end of the world is imminent as strife, rage and anger rule and eminent Indians are forced to spend the last few hours screeching at each other. And then you open your newspaper in the morning, have sip of your tea or coffee or hot water with a squeeze of lime and there well be horrible things happening in the world but the sun is shining (or rain falling) and birds are chirping, even if they are crows in urban areas. The sky has not been fractured by a rift in time and space and there are no alien spacecraft hanging over our heads.

     

    The reason for this long description is quite simple – I decided to watch Dr Who on BBC Entertainment instead of one more night watching warring armies clash by night!
    In the newspapers, therefore, life has moved beyond CAG and coal. The mysterious letters which Arnab Goswami keeps brandishing have not re-appeared in any newspaper as yet. The diesel price hike and the capping of the amount of LPG cylinders has moved from the outrage of middle classes on TV to the importance of reducing subsidies in order to deal with the nation’s fiscal problems. Obviously, industry is happy but populism is not. The media is sometimes on the side of populism and sometimes against but no one speaks for the outraged middle classes more than TV.

     

    I take that back. No one speaks for outrage more than Twitter. All day, people rant and rave over just about everything. One can only hope that it helps them hive off the stress in their non-cyber lives!

     

    **

     

    Surjit Bhalla in the Indian Express continues to take on CAG on the coal allocations. This week he also targets well-meaning liberals who have decided that anything that is against the government is therefore correct. It’s a bold view to take, in light of the general anger against this government and the mind-boggling enormity of the CAG’s calculations.

     

    **

     

    In between watching Masterchef Australia on Star World, when I went to visit Arnab Goswami on Times Now, he was demurring that he wasn’t in fact the most powerful and influential Indian, with a shy smile. Nowadays, if you’ve noticed, no one calls him “Rajdeep” by mistake any more. Everyone knows better.

     

    **

     

    Is it a mystery why the same guests who are usually obstreperous TV are much better behaved when they are on Karan Thapar’s Last Word on CNN-IBN? I think they know he is sterner and tougher and can out-shout them. Perhaps nothing frightens a badly-behaved guest than a stronger rival?

     

    **

     

    And lastly, has Meenakshi Lekhi succeeded Nirmala Seetharaman as the BJP’s main female TV voice? I even think I miss Seetharaman…

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: Barfi!

    Barfi!

    Key Cast: Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, Ileana D’Cruz

    Written and Directed By: Anurag Basu

    Produced By: Ronnie Screwvala, Siddharth Roy Kapoor

     

    Anurag Basu’s last film was the disastrous Kites, so he really needed to prove his credentials again. The charming, though often oversweet story of a deaf-mute man and the two loves of his life is so far ahead of the regular Bollywood mainstream tripe, that hardly any critic had the heart to give it less than 3 stars, and gently point some of its flaws. Everyone agreed, however, that Ranbir Kapoor is brilliant and his two leading ladies, Priyanka Chopra and Ileana D’Cruz, were excellent too.

     

    Rajeev Masand of Ibnlive wrote, “That rare film that puts a smile on your face even before a single frame of the story is revealed, Anurag Basu’s Barfi envelopes you like a warm blanket from the moment you settle into your seat. Even as routine acknowledgements appear on a black screen, you’re charmed by the accompanying ditty, Picture shuru, whose chorus instructs you to switch off your phones and submit yourself to the experience that follows.” Still he stuck with 3 stars.

     

    Anupama Chopra of Hindustan Times offered reluctant praise and 3 stars. “In Barfi, writer-director Anurag Basu creates a gossamer, fairy-tale world. Sometime in the 1970s, somewhere in the misty hills of Darjeeling, a penniless but irresistibly charming deaf-mute boy named Barfi gets the prettiest girl in town to kiss him. But their sweetly awkward love affair comes undone, after which Barfi embarks on an adventure with an autistic girl. Somehow these two, on their own, manage to survive the city of Kolkata – Barfi gets a job and even a ramshackle house with a spectacular view of Howrah Bridge. To point out that this is unlikely seems churlish. Because Barfi is designed to be a bittersweet, tender fable.”

     

    Shubra Gupta of the Indian Express also gave it three and commented. “Just the fact that this film’s chief focus is on two people who cannot communicate the way you and I do, makes it automatically different. Barfi!’ comes out of mainstream Bollywood, whose standard idea of creating difference is to shuffle one step forward, two steps back : given that context, and its subject, Barfi! does take several brave strides. It’s good in many ways; what stops it from being a great film is a degree of fuzziness, and an insistence on prettiness.”

     

    Raja Sen called it flawed but still had good things to say. “Romance is never easy. Neither is bringing it to the big screen, though Anurag Basu – a filmmaker inherently gifted when it comes to visual imagery and metaphor – is a fine man for the job. He can roll up his sleeves and whip out one peachy moment after another, keeping things wonderfully endearing while poking the audience ever so forcefully in the gut with a monkey-wrench. He is then to be commended for his latest, Barfi!, a film that admirably refuses to yank the sympathy cord. Instead, it creates genuine characters and a truly charming relationship before, alas, one of his lead characters chooses not to follow the director’s example and instead mistakes sympathy for love, making for a lesser film than it deserved to be.”

     

    Madhureeta Mukherjee of the Times of India, expectedly went with 4.5 stars – the highest it received. “He was born to a song playing on a Murphy radio, but this ‘Murphy’ baby (Ranbir) aka Barfi has a different law. Everything that has to go wrong will go wrong, but not if you brave it with a broad smiley. So ‘mute’ the high-decibel chaos and deafening melodrama around and tune into Barfi ki duniya; which is simple, sweet and SILENT! Yet, extreme emotions of love, joy and pain resound – at different ‘frequencies’.”

     

    The always-enthusiastic Taran Adarsh of bollywoodhungama.com gave it a relatively mingy 4 stars, going by the rave. “On the whole, Barfi! is unusual for Bollywood. You don’t formulate movies like Barfii! targeting its box-office potential or its commercial prospects. You create such films for the passion of cinema. Barfi! is akin to a whiff of fresh air. Its foremost triumph is that it leaves you with a powerful emotion: Happiness! I sincerely believe no Hindi movie buff should deprive himself/herself of watching this brilliant motion picture. Also, the viewer needs to savour Ranbir, Priyanka and Ileana’s paramount performances, one of the strengths of this movie. Strongly recommended!”

     

    Aniruddha Guha of DNA gushed, “A movie like Barfi! comes along rarely. It’s a film that engages you at a personal level, playfully nudging you to experience various emotions without really resorting to overt manipulation, one that makes you laugh and cry at the same time, and reminds you of what Roberto Benigni told us some time ago: Life is beautiful.”

     

    Kunal Guha of yahoo.com who is usually acerbic softened enough to write, “When a movie begins by revealing the grim end, no matter how cheerful the following flashback journey may be, you’re left dreading the inevitable. But Barfi! manages to make you forget just that by narrating a lighthearted tragedy that wins particularly for what it doesn’t do: It doesn’t draw a pitiful picture of the deaf-mute lead. It doesn’t attempt to do anything that would suggest that it has been made to attract foreign festival ferns on the DVD cover. It doesn’t make the lead character overcome his disability to do something no man, woman or dog (without that disability) would ever think of attempting.”

     

    So the one rant by Karan Bali from upperstall.com went, “No doubt, it’s commendable that Barfi! tries to treat its plot and characters in an endearing Chaplinesque sort of way by mixing light and slapstick humour with a tug or two at the heart-strings – and I’ll even say that you so want it to work, and not just box-office wise, for more better, sensible films to be made in Bollywood – but sadly, the film is unable to quite pull it off. Yes, it has its charming moments, it boasts of some great visual quality in places, even has good performances but still ends up finally as being curiously uninvolving and, dare I say it, boring, its length really telling in the second half.”

     

  • Journalism is indeed in need of serious review. Internally. And externally too, says Shishir Joshi.

    Shishir Joshi: Journalism needs PR, desperately

    By Shishir Joshi

     

    “You guys have changed the way we watch news,” I remember an elderly businessman’s rather appreciative remark, when I had told him I work for a news network. This was a little over fifteen years ago. What he was referring to was his experience as a viewer of the earliest versions of the English Star News (then produced by NDTV) as opposed to years and years of watching state-owned Doordarshan.

     

    The world has come full circle. “You guys have changed the way we watch news,” is what a lot of people have begun saying to me, once again. However, this time, the appreciation of the previous decade has been replaced by a look otherwise reserved for skunks. Why have we become the favourite punching bags? How fair is the criticism? Are we, media or journalists, being singled out? Truth be told, journalism has invaded our lives to an extent second only to cell phones. And while one can debate on the boons and banes of a cell phone in our life, increasingly, people are finding nothing but faults in the journalism that they see or read. While there can be many a reason for journalism reaching such lows, there surely has been one defining image and line which has made us the butt of many a joke, and ridicule. And that is of a young, always-in-doubt-but-never-wrong journalist, clutching a ‘boom’ mike and seeking an answer for the priceless “aapko kaisa lag raha hai” question. This one line has been the unifying link between the umpteen reportages on rapes, molestations, thefts, murders, victories, losses, triumphs and earthquakes that we have seen on news television through interviews of people, common or uncommon. But the problem is larger.

     

    Increasingly, media practices and media men have become a subject of greater scrutiny. And for a profession which had been regarded so highly, gossip about A, B or She journalist’s fall is consumed with great sadistic pleasure. And to top it, there hasn’t been one big story in recent times where the credibility of some or the other mighty hasn’t been questioned. Be it Aroon Purie and his jet-lagged editorial, portions of which were picked up from Slate.com, or the ‘Radiagate’ tapes where the mightiest in television seemed to be breaking bread with bed-switchers, or down south, where the Hindu’s honcho N Ram conveniently edited colleague Chitra Subramaniam’s name from the Bofors’ expose’ credit lines, we seem to have been there and done that. It has been summed up scathingly by BV Venkat Rao in http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-the-fall-of-xerox-zakaria-is-unthinkable-in-indian-media-430088.html.

     

    The list seems unending. Every state seems to have a case too many of such violations. If Guwahati saw journalists accused of provoking molesters for a video story, Mumbai saw the arrest of a journalist on charges of conspiring to eliminate a former colleague. The latest is from Karnataka where journalists have been arrested as part of an ISI plot. The book threatens to get only thicker. There was a time when we had politicians, parliamentarians, businessmen, gangsters, extortionists, showmen and lobbyists, and social workers. Categories of businesses, vocations and professions. And then you had journalists, the ‘clean’ guys. Today, that line appears tampered with. It is either people from the ‘other’ categories doubling as journalists (and media owners) or worse, journalists wearing multiple hats. But this is not about where we have gone wrong. Or why.Or the ‘sensational’ and ‘breaking news’ which have become eyesores. It is about the numerous stories, the game changers, which miss our attention. For every 26/11 reportage where we have been accused of crossing the ethical line, there has been a December 3, when lakhs converged at the Gateway of India to express anger against the political spineless, resulting in ministers losing their jobs.

     

    For every free housing scheme that journalists have grabbed from Chief Ministers through the so called “press quota”, there has been the unearthing of the Adarsh scam, the CWG or the 2G scam. And for every Radiagate which saw journalists cross an ethical line, there has been a Coalgate expose. Relentless. Unending. Cases of exemplary journalism abound in non-urban, non-English media too. What I have pointed out are less than a handful of the hundreds of fabulous stories and efforts which journalists are working on, day in and out. For every Rakhi Sawant who gets some airtime on a news network, there are countless unsung heroes who are encouraged to become citizen journalists too, thanks to inspiring journalism. For every saanp-bicchoo story which makes it to some crime show of a news channel, there is also the story of a braveheart hospital attendant who saved lives in operation theatres when trained medical help was not within reach. For every case of public humiliation or molestation that gets played up for alleged TRP gains, there are stories of faces-in-the-crowd standing up against a road-rage bully. The 48-hour rescue operation of little Prince from a borewell in north India is now an oft repeated case study of the levels to which news networks have stooped for TRPs. But, was it only TV channels which gained or did the village also get transformed thanks to the media and political attention? Yes the latter did take place. But nobody seems to be talking about it. Or is it that people are no longer watching?

     

    Yes, journalism is indeed in need of serious review. Internally. And externally too. External autopsies have been done time and again. In these challenging times, under the guise of upholding free speech and democracy, every Narendra, Raj or Abu has tried surgical procedures to silence the media. For masses, it is vicarious pleasure over a cuppa chai. There is no doubt that for a vibrant democracy to thrive, it can’t be a more welcome change. Having said that, what journalism now needs is a desperate makeover. If to woo a Marathi manoos, an Uddhav can praise an estranged Raj’s political stunt, surely journalism can do with some PR.

     

    Networks need to play up some game-changer stories that talk of good journalism. Newspapers and social media could follow suit. Prime time can also have some promotions of non-‘sensational’ but ‘real ‘stories. People, viewers, on the other hand need to get out of their drawing-room gossip mode and start writing in to networks on what they need more, rather than stuff themselves with pap. A bit of PR on image building and reputation management could do wonders to a sagging morale. Don’t get me wrong. We aren’t talking of hiring a PR agency here. But well, in the world of paid and private treaty journalism, a bit of philanthropy from journalism’s first cousin, PR, at least in spirit, can work wonders. Applications are invited. In confidence. Beep beep, pings the inbox. Applications have already begun pouring in. Uh oh. …Anybody other than Nira Radia please…?

     

    For those away from ground reality, journalism and PR have always shared a love-hate relationship. Journalists are accused of being egoistic, badly behaved (on the phone) and always ones to take a short cut. PR people on the other hand are seen to be clueless at their jobs, too busy ‘selling’ a story rather than defining it on merit, and flaky. Can the twain, then, meet?

     

    Shishir Joshi is the co-founder of Journalism Mentor, and till recently was Group Editorial Director of the Mid-Day group of publications.

     

  • If you want to learn something new, don't watch the news channels. Try Discovery, Nat Geo… whatever, suggests Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: ’cause Arnab Goswami wants to know…

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Suddenly last night, it was no longer “India wants to know” on Times Now. It was “I want to know”. And the nation breathed a collective sigh of kinship – we were all the same as Arnab Goswami, the man who speaks for us all.

     

    The thing is, you or me or even he may want to know, but who is willing to tell us? The discussion (I still call it that, for want of a better word) on FDI in retail was organised as a sort of cross-examination of Ravi Shankar Prasad of the BJP, since his party is the main opposer of FDI. This meant unfortunately that Prasad was given more than his fair share of time to be disingenuous. Everyone knows (that’s you, me and Goswami, hereon known as “I”) that the BJP was all for FDI when it was in power but has been forced to have a change of heart thanks to being in the Opposition and wanting to win the next election and all that.

     

    Anyway, Kiran Mazumdar Shaw of Biocon had a big grin on her face through the whole show as she watched Prasad tie himself up in knots and then proceeded to demolish his arguments against FDI in retail. She even accused the BJP of not looking out for the best interests of the nation, which in a sense, stepped quite firmly into Goswami territory. Veteran journalist Kumar Ketkar also pointed to the BJP’s double standards and then looked on amused. There were some bit players as well, but they just provided ballast.
    The upshot is: did we learn any more than we already knew? What an idiotic question. If you want to learn things from television, you should watch Discovery or National Geographic or whatever.

     

    **

     

    On CNN-IBN’s The Last Word, Press Council of India chairman Markandey Katju told Karan Thapar that he was all primed and ready to take on anyone who filed any more foolish sedition charges against innocent people and how foolish the sedition law is in the first place. It is heartening indeed to know – and Thapar seemed much reassured – that a retired judge who heads a toothless body which deals with complaints against the print media is going to take on the world and save the people from transgressions on freedom of speech. Some people I fear may have more faith in Arnab ‘Save the Nation’ Goswami.

     

    **

     

    By the way, the next issue which Goswami is going to take up is the All India Tennis Association’s decision not to pick Mahesh Bhupathi or Rohan Bopanna for any more Davis Cup ties till June 2014. This is to punish them for their high questionable behaviour in the run up to the London Olympics. Watch out, everyone. L’etat C’est moi.

     

    While on the subject, DNA seemed to get a scoop over other tennis journalists with the news that Mahesh Bhupathi and Rohan Bopanna are ending their doubles partnership. Bhupathi will tie up Daniel Nestor and Bopanna’s trying to get back with his old partner Aisam Qureshi, whom he had earlier dumped for Bhupathi.

     

  • West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee dominated headlines in both mediums, notes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: TV said Bandh was total, papers said partial

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Televisionland and Newspaperland presented us with two different versions of India and the news on Thursday and Friday. If you watched TV through the day on Thursday, you would have got the impression that the Bandh was all that had happened, with a couple of detours to take in the split in the anti-corruption movement with Anna Hazare rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s political turn.

     

    The idea of a “Third Front” emerging once again on the stage also excited our TVwallahs.

     

    But what disappointment in the morning: shock and horror, there was other news! For one, the “Bharat Bandh” called to protest against FDI in multi-brand retail was only a partial success and almost a complete flop in some parts of India. Mumbai’s newspapers therefore could not concentrate much on something that hardly happened.

     

    The one person however who dominated headlines in both mediums was Mamata Banerjee. The impulsive and reckless nature of the West Bengal chief minister continues to befuddle and bemuse. The Times of India carries an excellent – and frightening – analysis of the future of Bengal under a chief minister who blocks every economic move by Abheek Barman. In ‘The UPA after Mamata’, Barman explains how the former Left Front government vastly increased the number of government employees. Therefore, he writes; “…the Bengal government could soon become the largest unpaid workforce in India. If it continues to get paid, there will be nothing left to invest in infrastructure, healthcare, utilities and other services which people expect democratically elected regimes to provide.”

     

    **

     

    The Indian Express is now the main paper to go to for updates on Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal and the India Against Corruption movement. The newspaper has been more detailed and more consistent than any other. Today it tells us that Baba Ramdev was behind this new rift.

     

    **

     

    The anchor story on the front page of the Mumbai edition of the Times of India said in its headline: ‘How Rushdie helped world meet Potter’. The few paragraphs there told us all about his friend and first publisher Liz Calder. Not a squeak about JK Rowling and boy wizard. You were asked to go to page 22. And had to trawl through a very complicated sequence of events which led to this: Rushdie did not give Calder Satanic Verses to publish. And Bloomsbury, where she worked, discovered Rowling. Thank you. There is an impolite term for this kind of a story and they’ve just made a Hindi film with that as a name (if you use the initials). I tell you no more.

     

    **

     

    To get back to the Bandh, I am sorely disappointed that no newspaper that I read told me why the Bihar police, in an NDA state, arrested Ravi Shankar Prasad of the BJP for protesting against the Central government’s policies. India or at least I demand an answer!

     

  • There are those who argue that accurate grammar and spelling doesn’t matter as long as the message gets through. Vidya Heble begs to differ

    Speaking of Which: Why words matter. Why everything matters

    By Vidya Heble

     

    I had a little run-in on a discussion board recently with someone who argued fiercely that attention to grammar and accurate language should stop when the workday stops. Sure, she has a point, though I don’t agree with it. In any case, it’s one that was valid some – many – years ago, when our work lives and our non-work lives were demarcated fairly clearly. We swiped out or signed out and went home, and lived our other lives. Those of us who had a telephone may have had some seepage of work into their personal lives but if that happened it was an emergency; it was not expected and certainly not taken for granted.

     

    Nowadays, work and life are one and the same thing, as the constant tap-tapping on diminutive keyboards all around us demonstrates. I’ve staunchly resisted getting a smartphone because I don’t want to be working 24/7. Though I work primarily from home, I want to be able to switch off when required, and not take my email with me to the vegetable market.

     

    But for many, it’s taken for granted that even if they are with their immediate family or close friends at a personal event late at night, an email can be read and answered, a work call can be made. It’s insane. Work is almost never switched off. It is also the reason one cannot switch off grammar and spelling, either. There is no excuse for using language badly, but at least a case can be made for informal usage, shortcut spellings specially in the age of SMS, and a disregard for grammar that, when done well, can be charming (for example, the deliberate muffing of the language on icanhascheezburger.com).  But that’s when you’re at play, not at work.

     

    Today, there is practically no demarcation between work and play. We write emails side by side with Facebook posts. Breaking the rules in one seeps through into the other, hence it’s better to follow the rules for both. For those who communicate, communicating well needs to become second nature.

     

    But how much does grammar and spelling matter? Let’s find out. Back when Arundhati Roy won the Booker Prize, the Sunday edition of a certain publication carried comprehensive coverage of her and her family, mainly her mother Mary Roy who was already a very well-known person in a different sphere. The story on Mary Roy was written by someone based in a part of India where, as I learnt later, they pronounce “Marie” as “Mary”. (How they pronounce Mary, I have no idea.) So the publication’s correspondent wrote the whole story about “Marie Roy”, and because she was senior enough, no one questioned it. And so it was that this Sunday publication was probably the only one in the country which talked about Arundhati Roy’s mother “Marie” Roy. Incidentally, that correspondent was the same person who had the argument with me (and ended it by unfriending me on Facebook).

     

    Spelling may not matter to some… but what if you are the one whose name is misspelt? What if the name you misspelt belongs to a future boss of yours?

     

    That’s why it matters. Try to get it right. Because someone, somewhere will notice.

     

    PS: On a Singapore Airlines flight I read an article on tea in their inflight magazine Silver Kris. The brand of tea Twinings was spelt “Twinnings”, a surprising gaffe for a magazine of that quality. I happened to know the writer of the article and later asked her how the mistake had happened. “Oh but that’s the spelling,” she said. “Haven’t you seen the brand in the supermarket?” I asked her. “Of course I have,” she said, “that’s the name, Twinnings.” Lesson: You can wave the brand name under the writer’s nose but you still can’t make them spell it right if they don’t want to.

     

    ‘Speaking of which’ is a new fortnighly series that (or should we say ‘which’?) will, among other things, talk of common errors people in our media make, and how good usage can make for better communication. Written by Vidya Heble, Deputy Editor, MxMIndia and Managing Editor, The Blue Pencil Company, a content editing and writing start-up. Vidya has over two decades of experience in advertising, print and online media… in India, the Gulf and Singapore. She has also edited books, written speeches and communiques and recently took a sabbatical to set up and execute the online avatar of a popular show.

     

  • Twists and thrills dominated television news channels, though not created by the TVwallahs

    Even though, even though…

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Everyone is claiming credit for exposing the irrigation scam in Maharashtra. The Times of India says it did it (which is how I remember it). CNN-IBN is saying it did it. And the BJP is saying it did it.

     

    Well, whoever was responsible, they should all be thanked. But the coverage of the scam has made a couple of segues since it made the news. The first side-step came with the resignation of Maharashtra’s deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar of the Nationalist Congress Party, one of the chief accused. Suddenly, we were into the drama of Pawar versus Pawar, Pawar versus Chavan and NCP versus Congress. Only the very naïve journalist (on television of course) took it as far as government in trouble.

     

    Then out of nowhere came another sideswipe – from one of the RTI activists (of India Against Corruption) who had also worked on exposing the scam. Anjali Damania said she had met Bharatiya Janata Party president Nitin Gadkari who apparently told her that the BJP could not go all out against the irrigation scam because of his connections with the Pawars. Gadkari, Damania, also said he was going to stop his partyman Kirit Somaiya from filing a PIL on the matter. This however did not happen.

     

    That was it. The whole mood shifted and Ajit Pawar, Rs 72000 crore and the loot of Maharashtra are now almost forgotten. Gadkari refused to speak – but he has filed a legal notice – and BJP spokespersons had to take time off from their convention to try and put up some sort of defence.

     

    By the evening and primetime, the nation wanted to know where Gadkari was and why he wasn’t defending himself. However, as all Maharashtra journalists know and will make the light of day sooner or later, Maharashtra’s politicians are quite cosy with each other when it comes to money matters and sharing the spoils. From all parties, they’ve had their hands in the till.

     

    **

     

    It was in fact Arvind Kejriwal who put on his best with Arnab Goswami face and first asked Gadkari to come forward. He was very chuffed that all along, having been accused of being RSS-BJP agents, here he was, challenging the BJP president.

     

    **

    Friday’s news cycle had a couple more thrills – the Supreme Court announced, on listening to a presidential reference on 2G that auctioning of national resources was not a must and on a CBI plea on the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, that former Gujarat minister could get bail but that the case would be shifted to Maharashtra.

     

    The Central government felt it was off the hook as far as coal allocations were concerned on the first one and on the second case, as usual, many journalists confused bail with acquittal.

     

    **

     

    In one of those rare occurrences, cricket did not upstage national events even though India has a new board of selectors and even though Jimmy Amarnath was unceremoniously dropped – even though he was tipped to become chairman of the selection committee – and even though Sandeep Patil became chairman seemingly out of nowhere.

     

    The overuse of “even thoughs” comes down this unexpected turn of events – a few years ago, any slight wiggle in the world of cricket would have dominated the discourse in India.

     

    **

     

    In all these news breaks, a couple of events could do with some more TV attention – the two cases of gang-rape in Haryana and the floods in parts of North East India.

     

    **

     

    For intelligent, cohesive discussion minus melodrama, the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha channels are still the places to go. Lok Sabha TV even had a discussion on Thursday on the implications of the face-off between China and Japan over the Diaoyu-Senkaku islands, an issue which has barely dented TV radar in India and had a very small play in print.

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. The views expressed here are her own.

     

  • The latest quarterly figures of the IRS have seen newspapers and mags use 'degrowth' to describe their condition, notes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Of degrowth, ungrowth & regrowth

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Newspapers and magazines have started using a wonderful word to describe their condition as far as readership and circulation are concerned: “degrowth”. And for once, journalists are not responsible for this travesty of logic, comprehension and grammar.

     

    Degrowth does not mean that the periodicals have slowed down. Nor does it mean that they are at status quo. It means that they have shrunk in numbers. They have “un-grown” in fact. The latest quarterly figures of the Indian Readership Survey have been released. Ungrowth and degrowth are everywhere to be seen. Seven of the 10 top mainline dailies have seen a decline in their readership. Only DNA, Mumbai Mirror and Tribune have grown.

     

    Already The Times of India’s Mumbai edition is selling degrowth as a virtue: or at least ignoring the degrowth and concentrating on the fact that it’s ahead of its competition virtually everywhere. Undoubtedly others will follow as their marketing departments try to put their own spin on degrowth.

     

    Incidentally, I first came across this word when I worked at DNA and at least it’s good to see that the newspaper is now regrowthing – it was once the second largest read newspaper in Mumbai but has in the past couple of years slipped to a dismal number 3 behind Hindustan Times.

     

    **

     

    The fight between the BJP and Congress over Narendra Modi’s allegations that Rs 1880 crore was spent on Sonia Gandhi’s treatment has become very high decibel on television but completely lacking in clarity. Rajeev Shukla of the Congress and Meenakshi Lekhi of the BJP yelled over each other almost throughout their interaction with Arnab Goswami on Times Now and Lekhi shrieked alone. This constant stream of allegations and counter-allegations cannot instil much confidence in the sanity of the members of the two parties and I am not even sure it makes for good television any more.

     

    It took The Indian Express to shed a little light on where the figure came from. The Gujarati daily Jaihind published it on July 12: “The editor Yashwant Shah told The Indian Express that the item had been sourced from a local agency, “Hindustan Samachar’. Hindustan Samachar bureau chief Bhupat Parikh, however, said the item “was not my story at all”, and pointed out that it was not credited to the agency.

     

    Make of that what you will. But there is an old adage which every journalism is told at birth: Never believe everything you read in the newspapers.

     

    **

     

    Arvind Kejriwal launched his new nameless party and spoke “exclusively” to every news channel in India. One day, hopefully, they will realise that the viewing public is on to this “exclusive” gag. However, while Kejriwal’s entire speech promising the moon on a platter was most assiduously covered by every channel, none of them told us how many people he was talking to.

     

    This morning we discover that it was 1,000. Best of luck, is all one can say.

     

    **

     

    The big story of the day is of course the expected. The poor Indian cricket team has been knocked out of the T20 World Cup. ‘How India lost the plot’ said The Times of India; ‘India disgraced’ said Hindustan Times and ‘Run-rate mars India’s fate’ said Mid-Day. The post-mortems and gratuitous are not going to be kind, one prophesies.

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: English Vinglish

    English Vinglish

    Key Cast: Sridevi

    Written & Directed By: Gauri Shinde

    Produced By: Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, RK Damani, Sunil Lulla, R Balki

     

    Even after 15 years, Sridevi’s star power shone bright and dazzled most critics.  Gauri Shinde’s debut feature, English Vinglish, got a universal thumbs up with 3 to 4 stars.

     

    Everyone agreed that it was simple – cliched even – story well told, with loads of charm and great performances. It steered clear of melodrama, created a lovely heroine in Shashi Godbole and, everyone flipped for French star Mehdi Nebbou, even if the film’s leading lady did not.

     

    Anupama Chopra of The Hindustan Times wrote, “English Vinglish is that rare thing – a Hindi film that creates a heroine out of a homemaker… But even when the film feels shaky and stretched, Sridevi doesn’t miss a beat. Her performance is a triumph. She’s vulnerable and sad, yet selfless and strong, in the way we all know our mothers to be. She imbues Shashi’s quest for respect with genuine emotion. It’s hard to imagine that this is an actor who hasn’t worked in fifteen years.”

     

    Rajeev Masand of IBNLive commented, “There’s little that’s blazingly original here; much of it feels formulaic and predictable, in fact. Yet Shinde knows there’s comfort to be found in the familiar, and she mines feel-good moments in been-there-seen-that territory.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of the Indian Express was zapped too, “English Vinglish, Gauri Shinde’s first feature, is a likeable film, which gives us a silky-smooth first half, a slowed-down second, broad-brushstroke-y characters, and an actress who makes it all work. Despite the saucer-large eyes and too-squeaky delivery, Sridevi makes Shashi a living, breathing woman, who channels pain and joy and the subtle shades in-between with a look and smile and a tear.”

     

    Raja Sen of rediff.com was bowled over and it’s not all that easy to get him to gush thus. “Go watch English Vinglish, and take your mothers along. As shown by one great scene which has Shashi speaking furiously in Hindi to her chef friend Laurent, who replies back in thoughtful-sounding French, it isn’t about language. It’s about one of the biggest stars of her era transformed into the plainest Jane, a delightful heroine who saves all her grace for hoisting her son onto her pillow. It’s about how vital the smallest-seeming dreams can prove to be. Ah, spell it English Win-glish, I say.”

     

    Saibal Chatterjee of NDTV seemed slightly underwhelmed. “This film hinges on an idea that only reinforces the phony notion that a woman, no matter how gifted, must speak fluent English in order to truly assert herself.  Tame superficiality is indeed the biggest bane of English Vinglish, which, for the most part, is otherwise reasonably watchable, especially owing to a charming performance by Sridevi, back on the big screen after a 15-year hiatus. A star is reborn and one wants to fall in love with her all over again. But despite the temptation, it is eventually too docile an affair to send the heart pounding and the pulse racing.  English Vinglish, for all its surface gloss and clean family entertainer aspirations, doesn’t possess that little something needed to turn a one-dimensional account of the makeover of an unassuming homemaker into a convincing, universal drama about a woman’s empowerment.”

     

    Meena Iyer of The Times of India raved, “Easily one of the best films of 2012; is a tale of women empowerment (actually it is bound to empower every viewer) because it strikes a chord, right from the start to the end titles. Debutant Gauri Shinde, who made advertising films before she ventured into the feature area; proves she’s an ace cinema writer-director. The result is a sweet, sensitive and superlative film that makes you laugh, cry and smile. Every emotion is identifiable, every nuance is balanced. The characters are real, the performances effortless.”

     

    Aniruddha Guha of DNA commented, “English Vinglish, the directorial debut of Gauri Shinde – Balki’s collaborator and wife – does something similar. It tells a story that revels in its simplicity, with aid from some witty writing and honest moments that elicit a smile here, a laugh there, and which leave you touched. Here too, at the centre of it all, is an actor who earned the tag of superstar years ago, but who appears to have reinvented herself to fit into Shinde’s world with remarkable ease. In Sridevi, Shinde finds her Bachchan.”

     

    The inernational press, exposed to the film at the Toronto film festival, was impressed too.

     

    Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian wrote, “It’s very amiable, feel-good entertainment, featuring some broad comedy and stereotypes, yet with a notably bold repudiation of homophobia. An undemanding picture that goes down as well as the heroine’s tasty ladoos.”

     

    Kate Taylor of the Globe And Mail commented, “It’s hard to believe that anyone would take for granted the glittering presence of Sridevi, the Indian movie star now making a professional comeback after a 14-year-absence during which she raised her two daughters. At 49, she can still convincingly play fresh sweetness on screen; off-screen she emits a don’t-mess-with-me maturity. But in Bollywood, as in Hollywood, your downtrodden heroine can’t look too downtrodden.”

     

    Joe Leydon of Variety wrote, “Far more often, though, English Vinglish is traditional Bollywood escapism, a lightly enjoyable trifle featuring exuberant musical interludes, an extremely chaste approach to conjugal relations and extramarital temptation, and a crowd-pleasing wrap-up that allows the lead character to be all she can be while still respecting family values.”

     

  • Ranjona Banerji on how Hindustan Times' efforts to carve a niche for itself is paying off. The edit page though has far too little analysis or informed opinion

    Ranjona Banerji: Why HT scores in Mumbai

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    For Mumbai, The Times of India has to be the primary English newspaper. But seven years ago, a very serious challenge was mounted by the Hindustan Times and DNA. For at least five of those seven years, DNA was well ahead of Hindustan Times in circulation and readership and for a while, even had the Old Lady of Boribunder worried. But since then, Hindustan Times has overtaken DNA and left it behind as a third contender. The difference between the two papers is not much in terms of numbers – a few thousand copies, not hundred thousands – but it represents how much DNA has lost, its recent rise in IRS calculations notwithstanding. I’m not counting Mumbai Mirror in this race since it is not a standalone newspaper.

     

    So far it has seemed that DNA’s loss was HT’s gain – through no major effort of its own. But lately, HT’s efforts to make a niche for itself seem to be paying off. Unable to compete with the TOI for blanket coverage of city news – and severely hampered by the no-poaching pact between their managements – HT had specialised in packaging and focused campaigns. Now it seems to be taking a surer route – re-introducing the city to its readers.

     

    Monday’s newspaper has an excellent exploration of changing trends in the Girgaum area by senior journalist Smruti Koppikar. It’s good to see Ayaz Memon’s insightful and incisive column on “So Bo” (how I hate that phrase!) back in HT, shifted to Monday’s city pages from its earlier Sunday slot. HT Cafe is clearly trying to be less PR-driven than its competitors and ruffling a few feathers with its stories. And HT sports section – although this has little to do with Mumbai – is one of the better ones.

     

    That leaves HT’s edit page, which for my money is too skewed towards India’s TV stars and has far too little analysis or informed opinion – in my humble opinion!

     

    There are many ways for a newspaper to gain ground and many of those have to do with circulation, branding and management. But for editors, you have to grab the hearts and minds and HT Mumbai seems to be working that out for itself after seven years.

     

    **

     

    Mohd Junaid Ansari asks in what passes for the humour column on The Times of India’s edit page: “Aren’t we all a little bit in love with Hina Rabbani”. This takes off from the gossip that Pakistan foreign minister is involved in a love affair with the Pakistan president’s son and putative heir, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

     

    Attractive as Rabbani is, I would contend that only men and lesbians are likely to be in love with Rabanni. Even accounting for female foeticide, dowry deaths and accounting for same-sex selections, roughly half the human race might prefer to not to be in love with a woman. Some might even pick Bilawal over Rabani. We do count you know, even in a male-dominated world!

     

    **

     

    Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan and other members of the new un-named political party and what’s left of India Against Corruption are bound to be disappointed with the media’s reaction to their allegations against Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra.

     

    Although TV has given the story playtime, newspapers have been tepid. The main reason is the allegations are unsubstantiated and it requires some work to find out just how the connections between Vadra and DLF work. It looks as if Kejriwal and friends just threw a pebble into the pond to see how many ripples it would create.

     

    Now instead of taking it further, the anti-corruption crusader and politician is encouraging people in Delhi to break the law.

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia

     

  • And why all Indian TV editors should give themselves a 10-minute window where they speak and the rest of the world listens. and then allow their guests to have their say

    Ranjona Banerji: When Arnab congratulated Rajat Sharma…

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The business dealings of Robert Vadra and the DLF group remained top of the news. Discussions were held on the major English news channels but of the lot, Karan Thapar’s Last Word and Sagorika Ghose’s Face the Nation, both on CNN-IBN, stood out. That is mainly because unlike Arnab Goswami on Times Now and Nidhi Razdab on NDTV (I did not check Headlines Today last night), neither Ghose nor Thapar invited the spokespersons of political parties to take part. Every time I skipped past Times Now, there was either the BJP’s Meenakshi Lekhi screeching at dangerous decibel levels or the Congress’s Manish Tiwari trying to answer her with big words which only prove that he did well in vocabulary in school. I don’t know if the other guests got a chance to speak.

     

    On The Last Word, Shalini Singh of the Hindu was clear that there was some hanky-panky in the Vadra-DLF deal, tax expert Subhash Lakhotia was equally sure there was not and so Thapar had to play referee, Gurcharan Das said he needed more information and lawyer Dushyant Dave said it was common for the relatives of all politicians to behave extraordinarily rich. It seemed clear though that based on the revelations made so far, no laws had been broken by Vadra or DLF. The link between Vadra getting unsecured loans/property from DLF and DLF getting land or other benefits from the Haryana government has not been established. Until then, further action is not likely.

     

    On Face The Nation, all the participants – Madhu Kishwar of Manushi, Siddharth Vardarajan of The Hindu and Jonathan Shanin of Caravan magazine – agreed that the Indian media usually pussyfoots around political figures and does not subject them to intense scrutiny.

     

    The only problem with the show was Ghose’s unfortunate habit of speaking over her guests or speaking on their behalf. She asked Vardarajan a question about the different ways that the Congress and the BJP handled the media and then hijacked the answer when he had barely begun his explanation. Perhaps all Indian TV editors should give themselves a 10-minute window where they speak and the rest of the world listens. After that, they should allow their guests to have their say.

     

    It is not news of course that the Indian media is usually respectful of important people and it is also true that important people in India will not tolerate it any other way. The tough interview is rare. Personal lives are also usually still sacrosanct in India. Some will prefer it this way. But while we don’t have to go as far as stalking Kate Middleton sunbathing on holiday, a little extra scrutiny of powerful people would not go amiss.

     

    **

     

    India TV’s sting operation on cricket umpires involved in match-fixing – in this instance to do with the Sri Lanka league – was the other news of the day. Rajat Sharma of India TV found himself on Times Now, thanks to the largesse of Goswami who most graciously congratulated Sharma, who looked a bit bemused: should he crow over his journalistic coup or should he be mindful of the tremendous honour bestowed on him by Times Now by acknowledging him?

     

    **

     

    The suicide of singer Asha Bhosle’s daughter Varsha Bhosle is a blow for the family and for the journalistic community. Varsha had been a very popular columnist for rediff.com for many years and was known for her scathing style and her support for the Hindu right wing. Her column stopped some years ago. She had been suffering from depression and attempted suicide a couple of times before.