MxMIndia

Tag: journalism

  • A Q&A with ChatGPT on whether the AI tool will replace journalists…

    Will ChatGPT see the end of journalism as we know it?

     

    There has been much discussion and fear about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and various tools like ChatGPT on journalism. So we decided to do a Q&A with ChatGPT and asked it some leading questions. Here goes. Our first question is what this feature is headlined: will ChatGPT see the end of journalism as we know it?

     

    No, ChatGPT will not see the end of journalism as we know it. While AI language models like ChatGPT can assist with certain functions in a newsroom, such as fact-checking and content curation, they cannot replace the role of human journalists and editors entirely.

    Journalism is a multifaceted field that requires skills, experience, and critical thinking that go beyond just language proficiency. Journalists conduct interviews, investigate stories, and provide context and analysis, all of which require a deep understanding of the subject matter and the ability to make editorial judgments. Additionally, journalists are responsible for upholding ethical standards and ensuring that their reporting is fair, accurate, and balanced.

     

    While AI can automate some tasks in the newsroom, it cannot replicate the human element of journalism. Journalists bring a unique perspective, creativity, and storytelling ability to their reporting that AI cannot replicate. Furthermore, AI-generated content lacks the context and analysis that human journalists can provide, and it is not always able to capture the nuances of language, culture, and social context.

     

    In summary, while AI can assist with some functions in the newsroom, journalism will continue to rely on human reporters, editors, and analysts to provide context, analysis, and storytelling that AI cannot replicate.

     

    And here are a few more questions we asked:

     

    What kind of media professionals should be worried about losing their jobs thanks to ChatGPT?

     

    While AI-powered tools like ChatGPT can assist with some aspects of media production, it is unlikely that they will lead to widespread job losses in the industry. Instead, AI is more likely to augment the work of media professionals, freeing them up to focus on higher-level tasks that require human expertise.

     

    That said, certain types of media professionals may be more susceptible to job displacement than others. For example, journalists who specialize in writing routine news stories, such as earnings reports or sports recaps, may find that their work can be automated to some degree using AI tools. Similarly, content creators who produce large volumes of similar content, such as social media posts or product descriptions, may also be at risk of automation.

     

    However, media professionals who bring a unique perspective, voice, or set of skills to their work are less likely to be displaced by AI. This includes journalists who specialize in investigative reporting, opinion writing, or feature writing, as well as creative professionals like graphic designers, video producers, and photographers. These professionals bring a level of creativity, nuance, and human connection to their work that AI cannot replicate.

     

    Overall, while AI is likely to transform certain aspects of media production, it is unlikely to lead to widespread job losses in the industry. Instead, AI is more likely to augment the work of media professionals, enabling them to be more productive and efficient in their work.

     

    What are the functions in news media that ChatGPT can never ever replace or make redundant? 

    While AI language models like ChatGPT can assist with many aspects of news media production, there are certain functions that are unlikely to ever be fully replaced or made redundant by technology. Here are a few examples:

    1. Investigative reporting: Investigative journalism often involves digging deep into complex issues, tracking down sources, and following leads that require a high degree of human intuition, empathy, and persistence. While AI can assist with data analysis and other tasks, it is unlikely to be able to replicate the depth of human research and analysis that is required for investigative reporting.

    2. Ethical decision-making: News media professionals are often called upon to make ethical decisions, such as deciding whether to publish sensitive information, protecting the privacy of sources, or ensuring that reporting is fair and accurate. These decisions require a high degree of human judgment, empathy, and understanding of ethical principles and codes of conduct.

    3. Creative expression: Journalism and other forms of media production often involve creative expression, such as writing compelling narratives, capturing powerful images, or producing engaging multimedia content. While AI can assist with tasks like language translation or generating data visualizations, it is unlikely to be able to replicate the full range of human creativity and expression that is required for successful media production.

    4. Audience engagement: Finally, news media professionals play an important role in engaging with audiences, building trust, and fostering a sense of community around media content. While AI can assist with tasks like social media monitoring or audience analytics, it is unlikely to be able to replace the human connections and relationships that are built through effective audience engagement.

     

    Can ChatGPT replace sub-editors in newsrooms? 

    As an AI language model, I can assist in automating some of the tasks that sub-editors perform in newsrooms, such as grammar and spelling checks, fact-checking, and basic copy editing. However, I cannot entirely replace the role of sub-editors.

    Sub-editors perform a range of critical functions in a newsroom that requires a combination of skills and experience that go beyond just language proficiency. They make editorial judgments, ensure that stories are accurate, balanced, and ethical, and maintain the overall tone and style of the publication. Sub-editors also have a deep understanding of their publication’s brand, voice, and audience, which allows them to craft headlines, subheadings, and captions that are both informative and engaging.

    While AI can assist with certain tasks, it is not yet advanced enough to replace sub-editors fully. Sub-editors bring a human touch to the editorial process that AI cannot replicate. They provide context, critical thinking, and creativity that are essential in the editorial decision-making process. Therefore, it is more likely that AI will be used to support sub-editors, rather than to replace them completely.

     

    What are the other newsroom functions that ChatGPT can help with?

    As an AI language model, ChatGPT can assist with various functions in a newsroom beyond basic language editing. Here are some examples:

    1. Generating news articles: ChatGPT can generate news articles based on a given topic or prompt. However, it is important to note that these articles would need to be reviewed and edited by a human editor before publishing.

    2. Content curation: ChatGPT can assist with content curation by recommending articles or stories that are relevant to a specific topic or theme. It can also help identify sources for research or data gathering.

    3. Translation: ChatGPT can help translate articles or stories from one language to another. However, it is essential to note that AI translation is not always perfect and may require a human translator to ensure accuracy.

    4. Fact-checking: ChatGPT can assist with fact-checking by verifying claims made in articles against reliable sources. However, final verification should be performed by a human editor to ensure accuracy.

    5. Social media management: ChatGPT can assist with managing social media accounts by suggesting topics for posts, drafting social media updates, and identifying trending topics.

     

    Overall, while ChatGPT can assist with various tasks in a newsroom, it is essential to note that AI should not replace the human element entirely. Instead, it should be used as a tool to support and enhance the work of human editors and journalists.

     

    Can ChatGPT also do newsroom production tasks like pagemaking?

    While ChatGPT is an advanced language model that can generate text, it is not designed to perform newsroom production tasks such as pagemaking. Pagemaking involves the design and layout of a publication’s pages, including the placement of articles, photos, and advertisements. This requires skills in graphic design and layout, which are beyond the scope of ChatGPT’s capabilities.

     

    However, there are other AI tools and software available that can assist with pagemaking, such as Adobe InDesign, QuarkXPress, and other desktop publishing software. These tools can help automate the layout process, provide design templates and suggestions, and allow for easy collaboration between editors and designers.

     

    Overall, while AI can assist with some tasks in the newsroom, it cannot replace the skills and expertise of human editors, journalists, and designers. Newsroom production requires a combination of technical skills, creativity, and editorial judgment that go beyond what AI can currently provide.

     

    Can ChatGPT also replace talking heads or news anchors on television? 

    As an AI language model, ChatGPT is not designed to replace talking heads or news anchors on television. While AI-powered digital assistants and avatars can be used to simulate human interaction, they lack the expressiveness, emotional intelligence, and physical presence of human beings.

     

    Television news anchors and talking heads play a critical role in communicating news and information to audiences. They bring a personal touch and emotional resonance to news reporting, which is difficult to replicate with AI. News anchors and talking heads also bring a level of authority, credibility, and trust to their reporting, which is essential for news organisations to maintain their reputations.

     

    While AI can be used to automate some aspects of news reporting, such as generating news articles or providing real-time language translation, it cannot replace the human element entirely. News anchors and talking heads play an essential role in building connections with audiences, providing commentary and analysis, and guiding viewers through complex news stories.

     

    In summary, while AI can assist with certain tasks in news reporting, it cannot replace the role of news anchors or talking heads on television. The human element of news reporting is critical in building trust, credibility, and emotional resonance with audiences.

     

    So ChatGPT will not replace an Arnab Goswami? 

    As an AI language model, ChatGPT is not designed to replace Arnab Goswami or any other news anchor. While AI can assist with certain tasks in news reporting, it cannot replace the unique skills and abilities that human anchors bring to the job.

     

    News anchors like Arnab Goswami play a critical role in delivering news and information to audiences. They bring a level of authority, credibility, and trust to their reporting, which is essential for news organisations to maintain their reputations. They also provide commentary, analysis, and context to news stories, helping audiences understand complex issues.

     

    Furthermore, news anchors are skilled communicators who can engage with audiences, ask insightful questions, and respond to breaking news in real-time. They bring a level of emotional intelligence, expressiveness, and physical presence that AI cannot replicate.

     

    In summary, while AI can assist with certain tasks in news reporting, it cannot replace the unique skills and abilities of human news anchors like Arnab Goswami. The human element of news reporting is critical in building trust, credibility, and emotional resonance with audiences.

     

    Can ChatGPT do video production work? 

    ChatGPT, as an AI language model, is not designed to perform video production work. Video production involves a range of tasks, including shooting video footage, editing, special effects, and sound design, which require a combination of technical skills, creativity, and editorial judgment. While AI tools can assist with some aspects of video production, such as automating tasks like video editing or color correction, they cannot replace the skills and expertise of human video producers and editors.

     

    There are some AI-powered tools available that can assist with video production tasks, such as Adobe Premiere Pro, which has integrated AI-powered features that can analyze footage, perform colour correction, and suggest edits. Additionally, some AI-powered tools can create video content automatically from text-based sources or other data, but these videos lack the nuance and creativity of human-produced content.

     

    Overall, while AI can assist with some aspects of video production, it cannot replace the skills and expertise of human video producers and editors. Video production requires a combination of technical skills, creativity, and editorial judgment that go beyond what AI can currently provide.

     

    Any recommendations for journalists to brace themselves for the new post-ChatGPT world order? 

    As AI technology continues to advance and transform the media industry, journalists can take steps to prepare themselves for the new post-ChatGPT world order. Here are some recommendations:

     

    1. Embrace new technologies and tools: Rather than viewing AI as a threat, journalists can learn to use new technologies and tools to enhance their work. This includes using AI-powered tools to assist with tasks like data analysis, language translation, and fact-checking.

    2. Focus on unique skills and perspectives: To differentiate themselves from AI-powered content, journalists can focus on bringing a unique perspective, voice, or set of skills to their work. This might include specializing in investigative reporting, opinion writing, or feature writing, or developing expertise in a particular topic or beat.

    3. Build a personal brand: In a world where AI-generated content is becoming more prevalent, journalists can build a personal brand that connects with audiences and builds trust. This might include building a social media following, creating a personal website or blog, or developing a strong presence on multimedia platforms like podcasts or video channels.

    4. Develop multimedia skills: As AI technology enables new forms of multimedia content, journalists can develop skills in areas like video production, podcasting, and interactive media. This can help them create engaging, immersive content that connects with audiences in new ways.

    5. Stay informed about AI developments: Finally, journalists can stay informed about the latest AI developments in the media industry, including new tools, applications, and use cases. By staying informed, journalists can adapt their skills and strategies to stay ahead of the curve and remain competitive in the new post-ChatGPT world order.

    We edited this question a bit for publishing here…

     

    On a lighter note, how can I ensure that some obnoxious news anchors can be replaced or are made redundant?

    As an AI language model, I cannot make specific recommendations about replacing or making individuals redundant. It’s important to remember that media professionals, including journalists and news anchors, play an important role in informing and engaging audiences, and they bring unique perspectives and expertise to their work. While AI-powered tools like ChatGPT can assist with some aspects of media production, they cannot replace the skills and expertise of human media professionals.

     

    If you have concerns about the work or behaviour of a particular media professional, the best course of action is to express your views through channels like social media, letters to the editor, or other forms of public feedback. Additionally, supporting and promoting media outlets and journalists who produce high-quality, accurate, and engaging content can help to ensure a healthy and vibrant media ecosystem that serves the needs of audiences.

     

    We asked this question again, a few days after we asked the first set of questions…

     

    One final question: are you saying that journalists needn’t worry about ChatGPT

    Journalists should not worry about ChatGPT or AI language models replacing their role or rendering them redundant. AI language models like ChatGPT are tools that can assist with information retrieval, generate text, and engage in conversations, but they do not possess the skills, expertise, and contextual understanding that human journalists bring to their work.

     

    Journalism is a multifaceted profession that involves investigative research, interviewing, analysis, and critical thinking. Journalists play a crucial role in fact-checking, verifying information, providing context, and delivering nuanced reporting. These are skills and qualities that AI models do not possess.

     

    While AI can support journalists in tasks like data analysis, research, or generating initial drafts, human judgment, ethics, and interpretation are still essential components of journalism. Journalists bring their experience, storytelling abilities, and deep understanding of societal and cultural nuances, which are critical for accurate and impactful reporting.

     

    Instead of being a threat, AI tools can be seen as valuable resources that journalists can utilise to enhance their work, streamline certain processes, and focus on more complex and creative aspects of their profession.

     

    In summary, journalists should view AI language models as tools to augment their work rather than replacements for their expertise and essential role in the field of journalism.

     

  • 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.

     

  • Loss of broadcast license for the channel. Jail term for the staff members found guilty. There is no other option

    Anil Thakraney: Crime instigating journos need to be punished

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    We first heard about it during the Assam molestation incident. Now the same allegations are being made about the Mangalore party bust, where some youngsters were beaten up and molested by a bunch of goons. That, if not directly provoked, both incidents were encouraged by the media persons present out there. Find that surprising? I don’t.

     

    Here’s the problem: There are TOO many news channels in India. National and regional. No other country in the world has such a large number; it’s going insane out there. And to think more stations are waiting in the pipeline! Quite naturally, most of these channels are bleeding very badly; the market simply cannot support such a huge crowd. In such a crazy scenario, pressure on content heads to deliver viewership numbers is intense. And this pressure percolates down to the reporters and the camera crew on the ground. A couple of young TV reporters have told me, in private, that they have been warned to either ‘somehow’ get juicy stories or face the axe.

     

    And I believe this is the key reason behind the nonsense we are witnessing on the idiot box. It’s a very tempting idea. Not being able to get a story? Let’s create one. And we’ll worry about the consequences later. It’s the question of jobs and livelihood, food has to be put on the table, boss. So what we are witnessing these days is the inevitable result of the news channel madness in India.

     

    So what’s the way out, given that we are a free economy and entrepreneurs have every right to set up their own news shops? It’s simple, and the answer has already been given in the UK. When Murdoch’s editors crossed the Lakshman Rekha of ethics in journalism, they not only had to accept the closure of a newspaper, some senior staff members are staring at a prison sentence.

     

    Ditto needs to be done with editors/reporters who are found to have abetted or encouraged incidents like the ones in Assamand Mangalore: Loss of broadcast license for the channel. Jail term for the staff members found guilty. There is no other option. Inaction in these matters endangers the safety many young girls in this nation. And I am very sorry to have to state this.

     

    * * *

     


    PS: Art has often inspired advertising across the world, and particularly so when it comes to legendary paintings. This cult Michelangelo artwork has been used many times over, but must say it works perfectly for this particular client. Innovative thinking!

     

     

  • News anchoring is all about credibility. The more you establish your substance, the more the viewer will notice your style, says Mahrukh Inayet

    The Anchor: Mahrukh Inayet on 5 reasons why anchoring is more about substance than style

    By Mahrukh Inayet

     

    1. News always comes first

    Viewers want the news first. Rest, very little matters. Your style has little bearing on the viewer nor does it alter the impact of news on the viewer. Facts are sacrosanct. Information rules. It needs no garnishing.

     

    2. The new age viewer

    Today’s viewer is a global citizen. Aware, informed, educated and opinionated. More importantly, s/he is consistently running against time. They get their news and boom – they are out. Your personality might make them stop, but it is the news that will make them stay.

     

    3. Credibility

    News anchoring is all about credibility. The more you establish your substance, the more the viewer will notice your style. But remember, substance comes first. Think about it – most well known TV faces have been around for years. In theUS, the average age for prime time anchors is 60. Larry King, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather – the list is endless.

     

    4. Journalism v/s Style

    News does not come in fancy packages. It’s hard hitting and raw. Floods, drought, bomb blasts, terror strike, petrol prices – can you even imagine viewers bothering with anything but the information.

     

    5. News, not the newsreader

    In broadcast journalism school you are taught to conduct yourself in a manner that takes attention away from you and highlights what you are presenting. News anchors only disseminate the news – they are the medium, not the message

     

    Mahrukh Inayet is Former Senior Editor, Times Now

     

  • This has been a trial by the media, the channels have been playing the cops, the lawyers and the judges all rolled into one. And all this only to give a ‘fresh slant’ to the story

    Anil Thakraney: What lessons have we learnt from Aarushi?

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Aarushi is back in the news. And it’s quite obvious that the media heat on the 2008

     

    Aarushi Talwar killing in Noida has kept the investigation going. Just as it happened in the Jessica Lal murder case. If the media hadn’t given so much attention to this crime, Aarushi’s X-file would most likely have been closed a long time ago. So far so good.

     

    However, the manner in which the electronic media has covered the story in the last four years has been nothing short of unfair and unethical. It’s one thing to put pressure on crime investigation; it’s another thing to break every single tenet of journalism with impunity. I recall the two extremes that were played out on the TV channels in the aftermath of the murder. On the one hand, there were the Star News reporters busy re-enacting the murder and virtually declaring that the parents were the killers. On the other hand there was Sonia Varma of NDTV in a chat show with Aarushi’s mom, not just bonding with her but making every visible effort to make the lady appear victimized. And in between these two extremes there has been a whole lot of speculation raging on, and every single news channel is guilty of it. What took the cake was the narco-analysis tests of the suspects being freely broadcast for public consumption!

     

    No, I am not saying for a second that the intentions of the anchors/reporters were motivated. But it is equally true that without realizing it, they have been sending all good journalism practices for a toss. This has been a trial by the media, the channels have been playing the cops, the lawyers and the judges all rolled into one. And all this only to give a ‘fresh slant’ to the story. This sort of a public tamasha doesn’t happen anywhere in the world media, apart from a few yellow tabloids.

     

    Click on the image for larger view

    No, after four long years, we still don’t know who killed Aarushi. Maybe we’ll never know. But thanks to an over-excitable media, many reputations have been tarnished forever. Question is: Have we learnt our lessons? I suspect not. I have a strong feeling that in the mad chase for TRPs we will make the same mistakes all over again.

     

    Sad.

     

    * * *

     

    PS: Fantastic press ad. Reminds me of the golden days of Trikaya andEnterprise, when the agency writers would churn out stunning prose. This advert kills all the myths that float around about press ads. That people don’t read long copy. That you have to say things straight and quick. That press ads are at best a reminder medium. All nonsense.

     

  • The general feedback from delegates was that Frames 2012 had pertinent topics discussed

    @FF12: Day 3: Industry expects thoughts to lead to pertinent actions

    By A Correspondent

     

    The last day of FICCI Frames 2012 was an eventful day — insightful sessions, a lot of networking, sharing of ideas, deals being cracked — and amongst all of this, the highlight was the session on Women in Media and Entertainment.

     

    The day started off with a keynote presentation by Ashok Chawla, Chairman, Competition Commission of India (CCI). He said that the media and entertainment (M&E) industry was one of the fastest growing sectors inIndiawith an expected CAGR of 14-15 per cent. He then proceeded to outline the role of the CCI and its importance: “CCI is an overall market regulator whose objective is to ensure that market forces operate with transparency and fair play. It has been put in place to identify the boundaries of behaviour of the industry.

     

    Mr Chawla opined that self-regulation was of prime importance to avoid infringement of law or market practices and cautioned industry players that consumers should be given primary importance.

     

    Taking on the Digital threat

    The next session was on “Sustaining Long-term Newspaper Loyalty” by two biggies — N Ram, former Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu and Girish Agarwal, Director, Dainik Bhaskar Group, who shared their views on the future prospects of the newspaper industry.

     

    Mr N Ram started off his speech by stating that there was ‘anxiety and gloom’ over the fact that journalism was seeing a meltdown in the mature markets. He outlined two media world phenomenon next, where the less developed countries are witnessing increase in circulation of newspapers unlike the mature market. But he added a word of caution when he said that TV, even in the developing world, is going through a crisis which it has so far covered by showing entertainment as part of news. Inspite of this, Mr Ram was optimistic that the medium term prospects for the media industry are looking good.

     

    As is been spoken widely about, the key factor for the decline in the newspaper is the increasing popularity of the digital media. Mr Ram called this the Digital Age Paradox and added that in recent times the newspapers have seen an increase in the readership of their online editions but have witnessed a “double squeeze” on their revenue, as they have had to subsidise digital journalism, which in turn is cannibalising their circulation.

     

    On how to sustain loyal readers, he tipped, “Stick to the basic principles of journalism – they can build a relationship with the readers, which it can rent out to the advertisers. And most important – “newspapering” should not be reduced to consumer marketing of news.”

     

    Mr Girish Agarwal took the stage next. Contrary to Mr Ram’s belief, he said that Indian newspapers are growing in their circulation and readership. He spoke about the need to engage the ‘consumer’ by asking “How relevant are we (newspapers) to the reader?”

     

    He opined that a newspaper cannot rest on its past glory but should move ahead by acknowledging and understanding what the consumer wants and giving him what they think he needs. On how to keep pace with changing times, Mr Agarwal said that newspapers should have global vision and hyper local content.

     

    After the speeches the floor was opened to the audience who questioned Mr Ram and Mr Agarwal about threat perception of the culture of medianet and media houses being bought over by MNCs. Mr Ram denounced paid news as a rogue practice which has been rubbished by the Press Council. Mr Agarwal said that ethically media should report anything that may be perceived as defaming by the parent company but the ground reality is not always so rosy.

     

    Women to the fore

    A big highlight of Day 3 was a session titled   ‘Women in Media & Entertainment circa 2012: Leading from the front’.

    The panel members of this session were Vidya Balan, Actor; Anurradha Prasad, Managing Director, BAG Films; Jeni Tosi, CEO, Film Victoria; Ekta Kapoor, Creative Director, Balaji Telefilms; Barkha Dutt, Group Managing Editor, NDTV; and Usha Uthup, Singer. The session was moderated by Rajeev Masand, Entertainment Editor, CNN-IBN.

     

    This session discussed the journey of each of the above eminent women personalities and the challenges they faced during their journey. As the moderator, Rajeev Masand put it: “Traditional media, for long, was dominated by men, but not any longer. It’s become outdated.”

     

    All the eminent women personalities claimed that despite all their challenges they had an incredible journey and the results have been fruitful.  Ms Tosi observed that there would always be obstacles in a woman’s journey but, at the same she also admitted that at times a little bit of luck and timing also plays a part in one’s success nevertheless, she must also be hard working and committed to succeed.

    According to Ms Dutt, the real heroes are the women who came before them i.e. those who made a mark and their presence felt in the male dominated industry.

     

    One of the topics discussed at the session was whether ambition for men meant one thing and another for women, and how society reacts to ambitious women. Ms Ekta Kapoor agreed that ambition for men is a virtue, but for women it is seen as something negative. “I never took being a woman as a disadvantage. Today I am successful not in spite of being a woman but, because I am a woman,” she added.

     

    Ms Prasad said: “Today women have become mature, and so have their families. Women have to juggle multiple roles. Had I thought that since I am a woman, I cannot take on a task, then I would not have been successful. If you are happy with what you are doing, you will be successful in life.”

     

    Ms Uthup was of the view that what has really changed is the audience. “The field of Arts has been a level playing field for women. You really don’t have gender bias. I believe if we want change to take place, the people need to be awakened. Men and women must work together, but then there are things that women can do and men can’t and there are things men can and women can’t do.”

     

    Ms Balan said: “The Indian actress today has been humanized; she is getting to play a part in the story. I have never seen my gender as a disadvantage, all I knew was I had to be strong to move ahead in life. There is a wide variety of roles for women today and the fact that there is no model code for women any more is liberating.”

     

    While all these eminent women had plenty of inspiring stories to share, each of them have had to overcome their own tough challenges, change the societal mindset about women being weak and docile, to climb their way to the top.

     

    The road is set for 2013

     

    In a session which ran parallel to the one on Women in M&E, a panel of regional TV experts got together to discuss growth avenues. Moderated by Nachiket Pantvaidya, Executive Vice-President, Star Pravah and with speakers like K Madhavan, Managing Director, Asianet and Sharada Sunder, EVP – Regional Channels, Zee, the session concluded that “Regional was the new National.” One issue which was discussed in the session was how to attract talent and also how does regional broadcast channels attract youth, the single largest segment inIndia.

     

    A session on GEC regulation discussed dos and don’ts as far as content is concerned, what is permissible and what not. It included Justice AP Shah, Prof Jonathan Askin, Ashok Nambissan of Sony Entertainment Television and Naresh Chahal of IBF.

     

    The general feedback from delegates was that Frames 2012 had pertinent topics discussed. One hopes that industry put the many ideas and resolutions discussed to action.

     

  • Newspapers, magazines and TV channels accepting money to write good things about political candidates changes the goal posts.

    Anil Thakraney: News for sale

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Very recently, a publisher friend called to seek advice. And his question threw me off-balance. Because not only was the query alarming, I frankly had no ready answers. So I copped out, and left it all to his judgment. The question: “A few assembly election candidates have approached us, asking for favourable coverage. They are offering large sums of money in return. What should I do?”

     

    Since I knew that this particular friend was bleeding and needed some funding desperately, I simply replied with: “Man, it’s really up to you. If you are here to uphold the high standards of journalism, ask them to go fly a kite. But if you rationalize the situation in your mind, and conclude that if you refuse the offer and your rivals would lap it up, then you will be the only loser. In which case, go for it!”

     

    Quite honestly, I have no idea what the publisher eventually did. But speaking from a larger perspective, it’s becoming increasingly clear that paid news is here, and it’s here to stay. There was a time when elections would excite only the political class, as that would mean big moolah gains for the winners. These days, along with them, a section of the media feels ecstatic. For the same reasons.

     

    Corruption in the media isn’t really new. In the past, some journalists would accept alarm clocks and booze bottles from financial companies, and then write sweet words about their public issues. Now, of course, you can get your private party pics flashed in the Page 3 pages if you are ready to pick up the tab. We’ve learnt to live with these malpractices. But newspapers, magazines and TV channels accepting money to write good things about political candidates changes the goal posts. It’s clearly harmful to the nation’s future.

     

    So is there a way out of this mess? I am afraid not. During the 2009 general elections, a few cheating media brands got exposed. Maybe we’ll hear of more culprits after the recent assembly elections in some parts ofIndia. But soon everything will be forgotten. And it will be business as usual.

     

    [youtube width=”400″ height=”200″]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjYxE2VD7VE[/youtube]

    Yes, it pays to be in the media biz in modern times. If you won’t get support from advertisers, you can always tap into alternative revenue sources.

     

    Jai Hind!

     

    * * *

     

    PS: The context of the Fiat 500 Abarth ad is different, but this commercial is the kind of stuff Tata Nano ought to have done. A car you can take inside your home. Super positioning for a little gaadi. So much better than pitching it as the broke bugger’s vehicle.

     

  • Ranjona Banerji rues about how and why journos are no longer united on the J Dey murder case

    J Dey murder case gets murkier

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    When journalist J Dey was murdered in the Mumbai suburb of Powai in broad daylight in July 2011, the entire journalistic community came together in shock and horror. The first impulse was to believe that Dey was killed in pursuit of a story or that is, he was killed because he was a journalist. There were rallies and marches and seminars and panel discussions. Some sections of the media called for a special law to deal with attacks on journalists. It was alleged that the police would try and cover up the crime. The chief minister of Maharashtra swore that the administration would work as fast as it could to find those responsible.

     

    But since then, the story has become murkier. Dey, a crime reporter who had written a book on the underworld, was not killed because of any imminent story that he was working on, that much was clear. That the gunmen who did the deed were part of an underworld gang – specifically that of Chhota Rajan — was also clear. But there were several unanswered questions here as well and rumours amongst the journalistic community started emerging, of all sorts and colours.

     

    The story has now moved into the realm of the bizarre with another journalist, Jigna Vora of the Asian Age, being picked up for being involved in Dey’s murder – she is accused of passing on some vital information to Chhota Rajan which led to the killing. Although allegations of Vora’s involvement have been the air for a few months, her arrest was a shocker. Once again, many journalists came out in her support and her employers stood with her. But that was the initial reaction. As more details of the case emerged, we now learn that her colleagues are not so supportive any more.

     

    The journalistic community, which was brought together by Dey’s murder, is no longer a united front. Dey’s death was not of dangers inherent in the pursuit of a story and crime reporting in Mumbai cannot be compared to covering a war zone. The implication of another journalist has soured the waters. Journalists pick up a lot of information and not all of it can be printed. But that doesn’t mean that the information is false: it is sometimes just not possible to corroborate it. Dey’s death and Vora’s arrest fall into that category. The result is that a sympathy wave will now have to make way for the twists, turns and turmoil of a regular crime story. The kid gloves may well come off as friends of the murdered man and the accused trade charges and is it not likely that we will find some very unsavoury happenings at the bottom of it all?

     

    The implications (and accusations by the police) here are of a strange case of professional rivalry – not in trying to get a better story but in currying favour with your sources or the subjects of your stories.

     

    In all the discussion about paid news and medianet, perhaps this kind of journalistic corruption also needs to be included.

    **
    This is an aside which is aimed at the PR industry because I am a little curious and would like to know the experiences of other journalists. To put my questions in perspective, my last job was with DNA, where I was senior editor and was on the edit page. I quit in March 2010. But I did continue to write edits, columns and a weekly food review as a free lancer on contract for about nine months after that. In January 2011, DNA shut down its edit page. Soon after my food reviews stopped and in May, all my dealings with DNA ended. I have since then not worked with any other newspaper. I consult with MxMindia and I do a weekly column with Mid-Day.

     

    One of the best parts of not working for an organisation is that PR people drop you like a hot potato (you can see why I will never become as powerful as Barkha Dutt or Vir Sanghvi). My contact with public relations was limited to a few emails about new restaurants, which soon petered out. But this wonderful peace has been shattered over the past week. I have been called to cover some medical event because I am “the health reporter for DNA”, to write about diamonds for Hindustan Times and to cover art events for Mid-Day. These are calls, not emails.

     

    I would really like to know how this works. Someone suddenly thought of me in one PR agency and a domino effect started? There are people with the same name and number as me who work in DNA, Hindustan Times and Mid-Day? I have inadvertently entered my name in some sort of PR roulette?
    If anyone can help me, I would be very grateful.

    eom

  • The top giver this year has to be Team Anna. Every day, all the members, former and current, work so hard to gift the media something substantial so that juicy stories and screaming debates can be organised.

    Ranjona Banerji: Giving with a twist

    Maybe Diwali is shining bright this year and maybe, well, there are a few dull spots here and there. Ads in newspapers over the past month certainly show that real estate and white goods are back in demand and jewellery it seems never goes out of fashion.

    But as journalists, you don’t have to count Diwali in terms of what you get (so how many media houses actually bother to give their employees anything for Diwali any more?) in material terms but what you get as, well, material.

    The top giver this year has to be Team Anna. Every day, all the members, former and current, work so hard to gift the media something substantial so that juicy stories and screaming debates can be organised. Tax evasions, slipper-chucking, chamber-bashing, endless fasts – which forced television to find every synonym for abstinence from food it could come up with across several Indian languages – dramatic exits, allegations, self-righteous sanctimony… sometimes you’re lucky as a journalist to get such a cornucopia of riches maybe once a year. Team Anna has been giving generously since April.

    The next most generous has to be the film industry (and I don’t mean press conference gifts or the air kisses some film star blows a young, impressionable film reporter who now thinks they’re BFF). Every other week a movie releases with such an enormous publicity blast that you need at least six months to recover. It is another matter that the film bombs before anyone sees it and is as same old same old as the last one. The publicity blitz is far more important than the film itself and generates so many stories. So what if most of them are fake? This season, it has been Shahrukh Khan who has been most kind. Now, anyone going to see the movie, errr, what’s it called?

    In most years, cricket would top the list but what started out as a great cricket year what with the World Cup and the IPL and then the England tour oops… um, what happened after that? My mind has gone a bit blank. There should have been stories galore but then I don’t know, whatever, cricket, yeah.

    The Sensex is usually good for some drama but this year, well, it’s behaved very badly, in a damp squib kind of way. Instead, rising higher and higher has been the inflation rate, so you know, you lose some and you lose some. Not quite a breezy Diwali story.

    Big thanks could go to our politicians who are usually ready with some fun stuff. Of course they never fail so there’s nothing new or unexpected here. We’re used to it. Sometimes, it’s like Diwali gifts every day.

    Now that Diwali is done and dusted, let’s see what kind of parties we get thrown for New Year.

    Have a good one.

  • When one can’t tell ads from news any more, it’s time to change, say voices from across the industry

    Paid news: Who will bell the cat?

    By Akash Raha

    While it is generally agreed that paid news is a menace, newspaper editors across India are averse to the idea of a government regulatory body to check it. It could turn out to be a Big Brother and usurp the freedom that the media enjoys today. Yet, it is also acknowledged that something does need to be done to stop the iniquity of paid news, which affects the whole industry.

    Some critics suggest that a government-funded body be found which can be a regulator, yet remain independent of government intervention. Such a body will also be independent of media and corporate interests. The regulator thus formed will not only keep the print media, but also the electronic media under check from paid news. Some editors have suggested that the Press Council of India could be the regulator and given more teeth to take punitive action. As the debate seethes, MxM India reflects some voices and concerns from the industry.

    Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

    I think that organizations which indulge in such malpractices are undoing their own cause. Putting up ads in the name of news is not going to help them in the long run. Hence, it is in the self-interest of the media to act in a more responsible manner and discontinue such unethical practices. Moreover, now it is up to the Election Commissioner or India, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and a group of ministers, a process that has already been initiated, to decide whether the government will make the law bring the corrupt practice of paid news under the conduct of election rules. What the group of ministers will eventually decide I cannot guess, but I think such a step should be taken.

    Some government intervention and interference is perhaps required if media can’t keep its own actions under check. Self-regulation is good, but only when everyone behaves like nice guys and we won’t have a problem. It is because self-regulation is failing, that’s why you need an independent regulator. I think the regulator should be independent of media and other corporate interests. Likewise, it could be funded by the government, yet not directly under the government.

    Moreover, whatever regulatory authority is set up, it should be empowered. Right now, we have the Press Council of India (PCI) which is a quasi-judicial authority, but unfortunately, it has no punitive powers. It can’t punish a journalist or newspaper management indulging in corrupt practice. Even if the PCI says that a particular newspaper should be denied government advertisements, which are released by Directorate of Audio Visual Publicity (DAVP)… Even that the PCI does not have the power to ensure that it is implemented. Government bodies are not obliged to implement the recommendations of the PCI. So basically we currently have a PCI which is toothless body without punitive power. On top of that the electronic media does not come under the purview of the PCI.

    Jayant Mammen Mathew, Deputy Editor, Malayala Manorama

    “I am not sure how paid news came in to being… However, I think the reader will see through those carrying paid news and this will ultimately end in erosion of trust the reader has with the newspaper. The Malayala Manorama group’s editorial policy is very clear about paid news. We have a zero tolerance policy and we are completely against paid news.”

    Shashi Shekhar, Editor, Hindustan

    I am strongly opposed to the idea of government interference in any form. It is true that paid news has to be checked, yet government interference is going to mess with the workings of the media industry. Debates are on in the industry if self-regulation is the best and the media industry as a whole should decide what is best for it. I can’t speak for other media houses, but as far as we are concerned, we have given a signed affidavit to the Editors Guild to stay away from paid news.

    Kulbir Chikara, Group Editor, Hari Bhoomi

    The problem of paid news cannot be solved by government intervention and there can be no law to differentiate between paid and un-paid news. Moreover, paid news can be camouflaged to suit purpose. For example, liquor owners were banned from advertising their product, but they have camouflaged their way out of it. Those who want to indulge in such malpractices will always find a way around it… There is a massive difference in promotional feature stories and paid news in political context. I think the second is more harmful as the future of India depends on it. It is indeed a problem when the readers are unsure whether it is the neutral media speaking or a political party. Such practices are bad and unethical. I think the efforts of PCI and government will be of no use till news broadcasters and publishers themselves understand that such practice hits credibility and thereafter the whole business. Regulation or law of any kind, according to me, will be ineffective.

    Ranvijay Singh, Group Editor, Rashtriya Sahara

    I strongly believe in the ethics of journalism and hence, evils such as paid news should be done away with. Having said that I am totally opposed to any sort of government role in this matter. I think that there is still a substantial part of media who are driven by ethics and they will decide the course of what should be done to curb paid news. I think PCI should come up as a strong body. PCI should be able to impeach a journalist or media house if there is evidence against them.

    Shyam Parekh, Resident Editor, DNA Ahmedabad

    I feel the newspaper industry survives on credibility. If newspapers lose credibility, there is no business. I am talking not only talking in terms of being a journalist but also in terms of the business. Newspaper is the first thing a consumer spends his money on to begin a day, and he would certainly not like to read bogus news. Eventually, the audience will see through the network of paid news and will stop spending time on something which is not in his interest, but in someone else’s interest.

    Sachin Kalbag, Editor, Mid-Day

    My opinion on paid news is very simple: It’s an abhorrent practice. It demeans journalism. I don’t really know when this crept in, but it has plagued the media for decades. Unscrupulous journalists have been on the take for several years, and this is not a new phenomenon. The widely cited example of institutional selling of content space is Bombay Times which introduced a rate card for coverage in the supplement. Recently, the supplement began putting a disclaimer under its masthead. The phenomenon of institutional selling of content space crept into the media for various reasons – but the root cause was always to increase revenue.

    Our editorial policy is very clear: any “Advertorial” is placed in a two-page section called Centre Stage, which is part of the Classifieds section of the newspaper. Centre Stage in Mid-Day is differentiated in various ways from the editorial part of the newspaper. Here’s how: 1) The Centre Stage carries a prominent disclaimer in a large point size under the masthead “People, Parties, Promotions”. This has been happening since the day Mid-Day started Centre Stage, which was more than two years ago. In Centre Stage, we carry items on movie releases and profiles of actors, fashion designers, parties, etc, that happened in Mumbai that week, apart from product launches.

    Close to 85 percent of the Centre Stage advertorial section is non-paid, that is to say the Centre Stage team of writers (this team is not part of the Mid-Day editorial team) interviews people or writes about their parties or products. Around 15 per cent of the items are placed where the content space is sold by the sales team. Once again, these items are only about Bollywood, fashion, parties or product launches. There is a separate, specialized sales team that sells this space, and at no point in time do they dictate terms to

    Editorial, mainly because Centre Stage is not editorial space, but marketing real estate. In fact, there have been several instances when the Editorial staff in Mid-Day has trashed Centre Stage advertisers in the review section of the newspaper, and the sales team has gotten into trouble due to that negative coverage. Yet, we are very clear at Mid-Day that the Sales and Editorial wires do not cross, and that the Chinese wall between them stays even though we may be good friends outside the office.

    We are also very clear that Centre Stage will not carry any “news”, but only information on these three or four categories listed above. There is neither any opinion nor any recommendation made in the section that is endorsed by the editor. In the strictest sense of the term, it is an advertorial. Mid-Day, therefore, has stayed away from “paid news” and will continue to do so.

    Photograph: Fotocorp