HT Media Group has launched two new print editions of Mint, its business and financial daily, in Chandigarh and Lucknow. This expands Mint’s reach to 65 cities with nine editions.
The Chandigarh edition will serve Mint’s readers in the tri-city area of Panchkula, Mohali, and Chandigarh, while also serving Ludhiana, Amritsar, Patiala, and Jalandhar. The Lucknow edition will be available to readers in Lucknow, Kanpur, and Gorakhpur (Eastern Uttar Pradesh). Towns across Western UP are already served by the Group’s Greater Noida printing centre.
Said Ravi Krishnan, Editor-in-Chief of Mint (he joined the newspaper recently): “Our signature brand of journalism, which includes exclusive news breaks, in-depth reportage and smart commentary, is finding newer audiences by the day. This is very encouraging. But it’s also unsurprising at some level. As more people seek financial literacy, upward social mobility and look to participate in the India growth story, they will need a trusted news partner in their journey,” he said, adding, “Mint has provided that consistently for over 16 years, so we’re a good bet for curious minds.”
Good to see the editor being quoted in a communique for the launch of a couple of editions of the newspaper.
Senior journalist Anto T Joseph is all set to join The New Indian Express as Resident Editor (Tamil Nadu), it is learnt. Based out of the paper’s headquarters in Chennai, Joseph will be in charge of all the half dozen editions in the state. He is likely to take charge on Monday, August 2, our sources tell us.
Joseph has worked with The Economic Times, Deccan Chronicle Group and DNA in various editorial roles including Editor (Infrastructure) at ET, Resident Editor of Financial Chronicle and Managing Editor of DNA. Recently, he flagged off a ‘much-viralled’ series of articles called ‘Who owns your Media’ at Newslaundry. He also wrote for Fortune, Mint, The Caravan and Money9, in the last two years.
A British Chevening scholar, Joseph has worked with The Guardian (UK) and La Vanguardia (Spain) in the past.
The winds of change are blowing at the Hindustan Times building at the capital’s Kasturba Gandhi Marg.
The newspaper is known to make smart choices for its top editorial decks, and it has now roped in one of the top Indian journalists working internationally as its next editor.
Sanjoy Narayan’s exit has been known for a while, purely for personal reasons. But his replacement in Aparisim Ghosh has been a surprise. Ghosh, better known as Bobby, has had a steady rise. We still remember him from his days at BusinessWorld magazine in the early 1990s where among other things he even worked on the fornightly’s advertising and magazine section. Many from adland may remember him from those days.
From BW, he moved to the Far Eastern Economic Review stable which also published Asiaweek. In the last two-odd decades, Ghosh has worked with CNN and Time magazine and is reported to have , who resigned from Quartz, the Atlantic Media web-site in New York where he initially joined as Managing Editor in June 2014 but was soon moved over to an Editor-at-Large role. Ghosh, who is an American citizen of Indian origin, is also a regular on CNN as a Global Affairs Analyst, and prior to that, he worked at Time magazine as World Editor. There are also reports that Nicholas ‘Nic’ Dawes who had moved in from South Africa to take charge as Chief Editorial and Content Officer has also quit.
Mint in collaboration with Massachusetts (MIT) Technology Review has announced the India chapter of EmTech – an iconic global platform that has been inspiring innovation in the field of technology through the years.
Mint announced the kick-off of this initiative by opening grounds for the Innovators under 35 -India competition – a search for the top 10 from India who exemplify the spirit of innovation in business and technology.
Organized by MIT Technology Review since 1999, the prestigious Innovators Under 35 Global competition has honoured some of the world’s most brilliant minds like Mark Zuckerberg, JB Straubel, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
The India chapter of this international platform will recognize innovators from India who carry the highest potential to lead the future of technology. The nomination window for Innovators under 35 -India competition is open from October 29ththrough Dec 31st 2015.Anyone who is under the age of 35 as on 1st October 2016 and has a brilliant idea on technological innovation and applied research can be nominated. Categories span across biomedicine, computing, communications, health, education, digital, energy, materials, cyber security, fintech, wearables, robotics, web and Internet, transportation, and more. The jury for this competition includes acclaimed names like Amit Phadnis, Brian Bergstein, R Sukumar, RaghavNarsalay, Rajesh Janey,Prof. Amitabha Chattopadhyay, Ravi Narayan and Deepti Doshi. The winners of this competition will also qualify as finalists for the Global Innovators Under 35.
Unveiling the launch of the Innovators Under 35 nominations, Rajan Bhalla, CMO, HT Media Group , said, “In keeping with Mint’s philosophy of providing cutting edge insights to its readers and being at the forefront of introducing the best of global practices to India, we are excited about leading this iconic technology platform in partnership with MIT Technology Review. Through EmTech India, we will unravel path-breaking technologies that are changing the face of business in India. The nominations are now open for the 1st leg of this initiative – Innovators under 35, and we are confident that this platform will showcase the most promising innovators who will lead this technological disruption in the country. It is our vision to evolve this into a one-of-a-kind marquee platform that will integrate the best of minds and companies to write the next chapter of technology transformation. The event is planned for early next year, and we are committed to making the India chapter a huge success.â€
The mission of MIT Technology Review is to equip audiences with the intelligence to understand a world shaped by technology,†states editor in chief and publisher, Jason Pontin. “Our goal is to extend this mission around the world, explaining the technologies that matter–those that will have lasting impact on our lives. We’re proud to work with Mint to identify young innovators and showcase their talents at EmTech India.â€
The final 10 winners will present at EmTech India– a platform where the world’s most influential leaders and innovators will come together to unravel cutting-edge technologies and take a glimpse at the future. This high profile event will be held on 18th and 19th March 2016 in New Delhi, bringing together a convergence of technology, business and culture. The event will be graced by the presence of business leaders, innovators, entrepreneurs, and change makers who are passionate about addressing major international issues by turning ideas into solutions. The India chapter promises to continue the legacy of this globally acclaimed platform, presenting a remarkable opportunity to get inspired from those who are driving the next generation of technological breakthroughs.
CNBC-TV18 and Mint have entered into a strategic content alliance enabling the two media entities to share content with each other on a daily basis and work together on various editorial initiatives through the year. Starting today (April 1, 2014), every issue of Mint will carry exclusive content from CNBC-TV18 while Mint’s news and analysis will be available on CNBC-TV18 regularly. The partnership will also allow regular content exchange between the two digital assets, livemint.com and moneycontrol.com.
Speaking about this development, R. Sukumar, Editor, Mint said, “At Mint, we have always focused on delivering clarity in business news and reaching our readers wherever they are. Our partnership with CNBC-TV18 will enhance our ability to do so.”
Commenting on the alliance, Shereen Bhan, Managing Editor, CNBC-TV18, said: “At CNBC-TV18 we have always been committed to creating compelling content, and bringing to our viewers credible news and analyses, presented incisively and consistently. We believe Mint will be a great partner for us in furthering this objective.”
Said Rajan Bhalla, CMO, HT Media on the Mint story said, “Before the inception of Mint all our efforts were in the direction of putting together a differentiated business daily which was fresh, clear-minded and straightforward while being extremely credible and well-rounded in its analysis of the business world. That’s how the product was born, exemplifying the concept of ‘innovation’. It is this line of thinking that provoked the name of the paper as well – ‘Mint’. Our readership numbers, and the loyalty of our readers over these past 7 years, validates that we have been successful in providing ‘Refreshing Clarity in Business’, which is what we aim to continue doing.”
The campaign will run in print, digital and radio.
The 6th edition of the Mint Luxury Conference brought together the stalwarts of the international luxury market to deliberate on the future of luxury in India. In view of the growing importance of the country in the global luxury industry, Mint, the business daily from the house of HT Media, initiated the conference to bring together stakeholders on a common platform to discuss the business of luxury. The theme of the conference was ‘Luxury in India: The Next Decade’.
The two-day conference took a hard look at the new world order of all things luxurious. The panelists debated, ideated and proffered solutions for the fast growing luxury market in Asia.
Fulvia Visconti Ferragamo, Vice President, Salvatore Ferragamo, shared her definitions of luxury. She said, “Luxury helps us feel special in every moment of our lives and helps us dream. High quality is the essential element of luxury products. High quality is the result of creativity, colours, shapes, craftsmanship and attention to detail.”
All luxury brands have made their way to India and luxury is finding a new home in Tier II cities. According to a recent AT Kearney Luxury in India Report, luxury products have grown the fastest at 29% to reach a size of $2.05 billion, well above expectations of 23%. Jewelry, electronics, cars and fine dining have grown exponentially, while apparel, accessories, wines and spirits have continued their strong growth.
Joydeep Bhattacharya, head of consumer products and retail practice for India at Bain and Co. spoke about the luxury retail environment in India – “At a minimum, there’s got to be a more favourable regulatory environment than one that is there right now. Secondly, there has to be far more availability of the right kind of infrastructure, but that’s more like a necessary and not a sufficient condition. What’s going to help realize the potential of the market is making sure the right luxury brands make the appropriate investments in retail, in awareness, in brand-building in order to generate demand.”
Sanjay Kapoor, CEO, Genesis Luxury, part of a panel debating the topic ‘The Luxury Market in India is Set to Explode’, expressed his views on FDI in multi-brand retail recently approved by Parliament. He said, “It is a positive development. It doesn’t really worry us whether a brand of ours will go single. It is good for the economy and the market. It is important for brands to do well in India. There has been so much negative PR around India and that needs to change.”
All you wanted to know about plagiarism but didn’t know who to ask. We posed a few questions to Nandita Saikia and requested her for a response sans the legalese
1. Is plagiarism a crime? As in, does copying of substantial portion of a published work written by someone without attribution and without permission become a punishable offence? What exactly is the punishment?
Plagiarism alone involves copying another person’s ideas without attributing them, and is not a crime by itself although it is considered unethical.
If plagiarism involves copying not only ideas but also a substantial portion of a copyrighted work without attribution and without permission, it would amount to both copyright infringement and the violation of the ‘special right’ of the author to be credited.
Copyright infringement and the violation of an author’s right to be credited are both civil wrongs and criminal offences. A civil suit may be instituted, and criminal charges may also be filed.
In a civil suit, the remedies which may be obtained are: injunctions to restrain further infringement, damages, the rendition of accounts of profit, and the delivery up of both infringing copies of the work and the plates used to make them. If required, certain administrative orders may also be obtained to assess the extent of infringement.
If criminal charges are filed, a convicted infringer is liable to be imprisoned for between six months and three years and to be fined between Rs 50,000 and Rs 2 lakh, for the first offence. This punishment is enhanced for subsequent convictions.
2.Does attribution without permission for text or photographs or graphics (for instance: Photograph courtesy xyz) amount to an infringement of copyright? And if it is an offence, what is the punishment?
Assuming the work is protected by copyright, in most cases: It is infringement to publish a work without permission. It is both infringement and a violation of moral rights to publish a work without permission and without attribution. It is a violation of moral rights to publish a work with permission and without attribution — (possibly) unless the author has agreed not to be attributed. The remedies available to those authors whose right to claim authorship has been violated are similar to those available in cases of copyright infringement as described in response to question 1.
3.Assuming an article is written and has taken some vital research data or information from another article (and this information is not easily available or is not publicly accessible), but the information is presented in a different language and different from the one already published. Will this be considered plagiarism and is it infringement of intellectual property?
It would amount to plagiarism if the ideas of another author were used without credit. It is also likely that it would amount to plagiarism if the research of another author was used without credit.
However, if the language used in the later article was completely different from that used in the original article, it is unlikely that the subsequent article would infringe the copyright in the original article.
Depending on the circumstances, the later article may violate the moral right of the author of the original article to be credited for his work.
4.In a typical writer-publication relationship, who owns the copyright in the absence of any written contract on it… the publication or the writer/photographer/artist? What if the writer/photographer/artist are freelance? And what if he/she is an employee?
The employer generally owns copyright in the employee’s work for the purpose of dissemination through the employer’s publication and similar publications. For all other purposes, the employee owns the copyright.
However, a freelance journalist would ordinarily be the first owner of copyright in his work unless he signs an agreement to the contrary. Ownership may vary depending on whether or not the work is commissioned.
The commissioner generally owns the copyright in a commissioned photograph.
To a large extent, the ownership of copyright in a work is determined by contract. This area of the law contains a number of caveats and exceptions, and it is extremely difficult to make generalisations.
5.What about ideas and concepts? And page designs and headlines?
Ideas and concepts are not protected unless expressed and ‘fixed’. Original page designs may be protectable as artistic works if they are distinctive. Headlines are unlikely to be protectable, although it may be possible to argue that especially distinctive, original headlines are protectable.
6. And lastly, what is the legal standpoint on plagiarised advertising…Â visuals and copy? Also, television and films?
In broad strokes, the general principles relating to infringement apply across the board regardless of the nature of the work. If a work is protected by copyright, the permission of the copyright owner is usually required to do things like reproduce or adapt the work. Also, authors have the right to be claim authorship of their work.
Nandita Saikia
The terms ‘plagiarism’ and ‘infringement’ are often used interchangeably although they are different. Â Plagiarism itself is primarily an ethical issue, which involves using the work of another author without crediting them. The right not to be plagiarised is not recognised by statute, except to the extent mentioned in Section 57 of the Copyright Act (which gives authors the right to claim authorship of their works, among other things).
Plagiarism may occur independently of copyright infringement. This is because any use of a work without crediting its author would be plagiarism. However, copyright infringement can only occur if the earlier work copied from is protected by copyright. So, for example, copying from a very old work whose copyright has expired would be plagiarism but not infringement.
Also, plagiarism may involve merely copying the ideas which another person has expressed in their work either without crediting them or using their words. If plagiarism occurs without copying or adapting the actual words of the author of the earlier work, it is unlikely that the plagiarism would also amount to copyright infringement.
Further, it is worth bearing in mind that it works both ways. If the earlier work was protected by copyright, copying or adapting any substantial part of it without permission would infringe the copyright subsisting it even if its author was credited. In other words, the unauthorised, substantial reproduction or adaptation of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement even if its author is credited.
As such, copyright infringement and plagiarism generally occur simultaneously only if the words of an earlier work are copied or adapted without permission and without attribution, and the earlier work is protected by copyright.
Copyright itself subsists in certain works such as books, films and music. As a general rule, the initial owner of the copyright in a work is its author (although this is subject to several exceptions).
Copyright owners have the exclusive right to do things like reproduce, adapt, translate and publish their works, or to allow others to do so. These exclusive rights are collectively called copyright, and vary in their specifics depending on the kind of work.
In most cases, doing anything which is the exclusive right of the copyright owner without his or her permission amounts to copyright infringement, which is both a civil wrong and criminal offence. As such, a civil suit may be instituted (usually seeking to obtain damages and an injunction to restrain further infringement).
In addition to this, Section 63 of the Copyright Act states that convicted infringers are liable to be imprisoned for between six months and three years and to be fined between fifty thousand and two lakh rupees, while Section 63A stipulates an enhanced penalty for second and subsequent convictions.
Apart from copyright, the Copyright Act also recognises the right of an author to be credited for his work via Section 57 of the Copyright Act which, among other things, grants authors the ‘Special Right’ to claim authorship. If this right is violated, remedies similar to those obtainable for copyright infringement may be sought.
Widely referred to as a moral right, the Section 57 right to claim authorship is perpetual, is independent of copyright, and remains unaffected by transfers of copyright ownership. Thus, it could be considered to be similar to the right not to be plagiarised, although it is not identical to it.
Nandita Saikia is a media and technology lawyer practising in New Delhi
Plagiarism: No good word, this
While the reasons to plagiarise can be debated, and argued, what remains essential is editorial integrity to see it as a bad practice
By Ananya Saha
Fareed Zakaria has opened a Pandora box after being accused of plagiarism. Editorial sanctity is being now being questioned when it comes to using plagiarized content. With internet becoming a major source of stories filed by journalists, it has actually become difficult to keep a tab on plagiarized material. Indian media has been, time and again, put under scanner for plagiarism.
The business daily, Mint has addressed the issue of ‘plagiarism and fabrication’ in its ‘MintCode’ clearly: ‘We don’t copy the work of others. And we don’t make things up. We do not plagiarize, meaning that we do not take the work of others and pass it off as our own.’ In fact, Mint does not transmit news releases in their original form. “A story that appears in our paper and has plagiarized work from a press release is a serious violation of our Code of Conduct.” If any of its own journalists’ or columnists’ work is plagiarized, Mint asks them to notify the editor, deputy editor, and immediate editor. According to the code, any Mint reporter and writer have to use original content, language and phrasing.
While the ‘MintCode’ is clearly charted out on its website and The Economic Times too has a code of ethics on its website, not many newspapers have such a clear ‘code’ charted out.
What is also important to understand is that such code of ethics is also bypassed by journalists who succumb to pressures of deadline.
Deccan Chronicle uses software that alerts the desk when more than eight words are plagiarized. A T Jayanti, chief editor of Deccan Chronicle, said: “You do not need a policy on something so blatantly wrong! Our team is aware that they can be suspended, and can even lose their jobs.”
Chandan Mitra, editor and managing director of The Pioneer, has come across few columnists who have plagiarized content while writing for his paper: “The columnists were found guilty, and we stopped their columns as soon as we got to know. We take a hard line against such practice. If there is a complaint, we prefer to run our checks and if found guilty, we do not have to think twice before stopping their columns.”
Mr Mitra insisted that Fareed Zakaria’s case is an alarm bell, and the Indian newspaper industry needs to be more cautious, especially “when the laws of the land are not as stringent.” He also feels that because of the internet, it is easier to track down if the article or any written piece has been extracted as is from its original source.
While the reasons to plagiarize can be debated, and argued, what remains essential is editorial integrity to see it as a bad practice.
Vikas Mishra, Editor, Lokmat Samachar said: “Nobody in our newspaper is authorized to copy-paste from any article. Never in the history of Lokmat has anyone plagiarized. If there is an article worth mentioning, we always mention the source or attribute the quote in our write-ups.”
When asked if plagiarism is more rampant in the regional and vernacular newspapers, Mr Hari Mohan Mishra, news editor, Dainik Bhaskar said that it is actually the English newspapers that see more of plagiarism and that he has not come across any of his team plagiarizing ever. Even Mr Mitra of The Pioneer agreed with his viewpoint.
M. Kesava Menon, editor, Mathrubhumi – the Malayalam language newspaper – also believes in attributing the original author in articles, and sees plagiarism as serious offence. Even though the editors are quite sure the copying a work is an offence, it is actually not unknown that plagiarism sometimes goes unregistered.
In a rapidly changing newsroom set-up, influenced vastly by ‘research’, it is important that writers and columnists create original work. And only strong and stringent measures can curb such a practice.
Hardly had the news of the acquisition of English news channel NewsX by ITV Media Group and Hindi news channel Live India by Prosperity Agro filterd in, there were murmurs on whether it was vital for the government to impose entry barriers for the news media. ITV of course has been in the news for around five years and Live India already had a sizeable stake by a property developer HDIL.
As part of MxM Mondays, we spoke to a cross-section of news media practitioners to offer their views on the issue.
This issue of media ownership has been debated on in the past, and more so recently, because of the entry of corporate groups into the news media. Earlier this year we saw two big corporates enter the media domain, when Reliance Industries bought a stake in Raghav Behl-led Network18 and Aditya Birla Group invested in the Aroon Purie-led Living Media India.
While big business owning media is not a new phenomenon, there are numerous instance of politicians owning and controlling sections of the media, especially in Southern India.
Hence the question arises: Is it a cause for worry when people with non-media interests start owning the mass news media?
Here are a cross-section of views from captains of the industry (in alphabetical order of their last names):
Tariq Ansari, Chairman and Managing Director, Next Mediaworks Ltd
Tariq Ansari
The worry is not around who owns the media but whether they act in a way that is consistent with journalistic standards of integrity and fair play. We seem to have forgotten simple journalistic conventions like a declaration of interest from the owner of the publication/channel on stories in which there is a substantial commercial interest.
Media, much like steel or fertilisers or communications, will eventually belong to those who have the means and desire to invest in it. The point about it being the preserve of a few is inexplicable. Nobody is stopping anyone from raising the capital to start a newspaper/magazine/TV station/radio station/website. We live in a free country. Anyone who has the ability to own media should be able to do so, without limitation. Clearly my preference would be that criminals or those with clear vested interest should not own media, but I am not sure if the law of the land can prevent this from happening.
Vinod Mehta
Vinod Mehta, Former Editor-in-Chief, Outlook magazine
I am worried. Media diversity is very important for freedom of the press. I don’t want Media in the hands of a few owners. It should be open to all.
And here’s what MxMIndia’s regular columnists say:
Ranjona Banerji, senior journalist, columnist and Contributing Editor, MxMIndia
Media ownership is a worry to the extent that journalists are not able to withstand corporate pressure. For instance, the Birlas started Hindustan Times and the Tatas has a stake in The Statesman (to name just two) and the battle between marketing and editorial is as old as the profession. The problem comes when senior editors capitulate and reader interest is surrendered or sacrificed. I would turn the spotlight back on journalists: are we fighting the good fight?
Many years back when I asked a leading industrialist why he was keen on starting a news channel he replied with the famed Deewar dialogue (some alcohol in the system did the trick): Aaj mere paas buildingey hai, gaadi hai, bank balance hai, but even then these guys owning newspapers and channels are ruling the world. We were in the late 1990s, and journalists and news media owners were indeed much sought after. That may have waned over the years, but the desire to own news media stays. What hasn’t changed is that the intent of owning the news media goes far beyond returns on investments.
When the British ruled India, it was the desire to mobilize public opinion that led to several national leaders and even businessmen to embrace news. Post-Independence, with the birth of a new economy, it was a mix of nationalistic sentiment and also to use it as an ally in a tightly controlled business environment. The ’60s and ’70s saw the media taking off with magazines like the Illustrated Weekly of India, later India Today and several others in regional languages. The imposition of the Emergency got people to realize the importance of the news media as the liberalization of the economy and and the airwaves ensured that there is no looking back.
Being a democracy, there are no entry barriers to the media. And rightly so. However, when a few years back a few real estate and assorted players jumped into news television there were representations to the information and broadcasting ministry that there ought to be tighter controls.
The current murmurs are being heard because NewsX has been acquired by businessman Kartikeya Sharma. ITV, his media company, also runs the newspaper Aaj Samaj and regional and Hindi news network India News. And the reason for the concern: it was feared that being the brother of Manu Sharma who has been convicted in the Jessica Lallmurder case, he could misuse his position to influence the executive and the judiciary. Well, the Supreme Court upheld its sentence of life imprisonment in 2010, so evidently he didn’t achieve much. To be fair to Sharma, a senior editorial and business executive who has worked with him, told me that he saw no interference on content, especially on the Manu Sharma front.
Clearly, the money power of rich businessmen and politicians cannot bring in readers or viewers, as the case may be or make a success of the media enterprise. In the late’80s, the Ambanis acquired Commerce Weekly and converted it into a business daily. They also acquired The Sunday Observer that was once edited by Vinod Mehta and was exceedingly popular.  The Ambani indulgence in the media failed despite hiring top journalists and publishing executives. They could only use the papers to fight a few minor battles, and even those without much success.
Mehta worked and fell out with industrialists Vijaypat Singhani and L M Thapar as both found news too hot to handle and counter-productive to their primary businesses (and revenues). One had assumed he would meet the same fate when Rajan Raheja, a then-emerging industrialist with some interests in real estate, set up the Outlook magazine group. Mehta has led many battles with the mighty and powerful in his magazine and both Raheja and Mehta have survived each other.
Save the Outlook example which is a good indicator of business interests and independent journalism co-existing, clearly big money is not enough to drive consumption of news media. My worry though lies elsewhere:
1. Lack of transparency in the ownership of media.
2. Creation of a monopolistic scenario with business groups investing in multiple and similar vehicles
3. Level playing field for competition in case of vertical and/or horizontal cross-ownership, and
4. Diversification of media companies into entities beyond news
1 & 2. Transparency requirements in media ownership are critical. When the government announced recently that a certain conglomerate doesn’t not have interests in the media, is it really the case, or is that what is on paper and hence deemed correct? While doubts have been raised about how the acquisition of a sizeable chunk of Network 18 via an independent trust would impact the editorial independence of the group, the real worry is the rumoured interests of the group in other media ventures too.
Could we have a situation that a genre of channels or newspapers or the media entities in particular region of the country be owned – directly or indirectly – by one group? How do we tackle a monopolistic scenario such as this?
3. The PR head of a radio station in Delhi once complained that she could never hope to get her press release into the two main English dailies in the city because both had their own FM stations. So, while the most inane event from the group’s radio station gets covered, the lady’s FM frequency never got a mention even for a big activity. So rampant is this blacking out of a rival group’s activities that it’s now considered standard practice. In many countries there are strict rules for horizontal and vertical cross-ownership. While the TRAI has suggested restrictions in vertical ownership (a TV channel can’t fully own a DTH or cable platform etc), horizontal ownership is fine (so a TV channel can also run a newspaper, radio station etc).
4. The last of my worry areas can be a bigger concern, and, if misused, even graver than big business or a political party getting into the media. Many news media groups have invested in sectors outside of news and doubts have been expressed if there is any connect between the relationships with governments via the news media and the winning of such contracts.
Even though the government at the Centre is weak, and we can be sure it will flex its muscles often enough in the run-up to various elections until 2014, I don’t see any immediate solution to the problem. But what can play a deterrent for those who abuse the media will be public opinion via social media.
Sevanti Ninan, Editor, thehoot.org and Columnist, Mint
Sevanti Ninan
Yes, it is a cause for worry when people with vested interests start owning the mass media because political ownership of the media is increasing, and there are no transparency requirements on media ownership.
Readers and viewers are unable to discern ownership-related biases. There is also a renewed trend of corporate investment in media increasing. Media companies are supposed to file ownership details with the registrar of companies, but one, it is not properly done, and two it is very difficult for lay people to access the correct and latest data.
On the issue of media being a preserve of only a certain groups, even now it is fairly widely owned.
Maheshwar Peri, Chairman, Pathfinder Publishing India Pvt ltd
Maheshwar Peri
In my opinion there is no cause for worry. I think, increasingly, the cause for worry comes from a few industrialists who’ve gotten into media. But if you go back to the flag bearers of Indian journalism in the 1980s, Indian Express was owned by RNG, an industrial group. So, to say that ownership by industrialists would hurt media is a slightly wrong way of looking at it.
There is definitely a cause for worry when people get into media for reasons other than running it as a professional empire. If you look at some of the politicians who’ve come into media or political parties that are launching their own channels, that’s a cause for worry because they have a reason to dish out news which suit their needs and opinions.
So there is a problem when people in public office get into media, but it’s not so much of a problem if industrialists or venture capitalists or any others moneybag get into it because they want to make it a commercially viable operation. And they know they can make it commercially viable only when the reader/viewer respects them. In case of politicians, they are not interested in making it commercially viable; they just want to ensure that their point of view finds a space in the public domain.
I think unless a reader or consumer respects you, you won’t be able to sell beyond a point. So all of us, whether or not owned by corporates, are always trying to ensure that we give unbiased and credible information so that the reader continues to respect us as well as the advertiser continues to invest in us.
And what makes one think that they have a better opinion about media than a fruit vendor? I don’t think there can be a classification of who has a better opinion about certain things in this country – we are a democracy. So the worse thing is to say that ‘these’ kind of people can get into media and ‘those’ kind cannot.
Tarun Tejpal, Editor-in-Chief, Tehelka magazine
Tarun Tejpal
To some extent, there is cause to worry about media ownership. We have to air, discuss and examine issues of monopolies, cross media ownerships, and of cross business ownerships. And to try and build in some structural safeguards that both help ensure the financial viability of honest, robust media, and deter media owners from using their media instruments for unfair advantage in their other businesses.
Theoretically, it (media) should be open to all. But we must build in safeguards that minimize the misuse of public discourse and public instruments of media. This is not easy, but a discussion must start on this issue at all levels.
Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Senior Journalist
Paranjoy Guha Thakurta
The growing corporatization of the Indian media is manifest in the manner in which large industrial conglomerates are acquiring direct and indirect interest in media groups. There is also a growing convergence between creators/producers of media content and those who distribute/disseminate the content.
In India’s unique ‘mediascape’, it is often contended that the proliferation of publications, radio stations, television channels, and internet websites is a sure-fire guarantor for plurality, diversity, and consumer choice. There were over 82,000 publications registered with the Registrar of Newspapers. There are over 250 FM radio stations in the country. Despite these impressive numbers of publications, radio stations and television channels, the mass media in India is possibly dominated by less than a hundred large groups or conglomerates, which exercise considerable influence on what is read, heard, and watched.
One example will illustrate this contention. Delhi is the only urban area in the world with 16 English daily newspapers; the top three publications, the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, and the Economic Times, would account for over three-fourths of the total market for all English dailies.
However, what is unacceptable is media barons using news outlets as tools to further their business interests. In this country, as in the world over, large media corporations are clearly playing a bigger role in the political economy that they report on. Though a free media is fundamental to the existence of a liberal democracy, concerns about the accountability and transparency of media companies remain. For instance, the RIL deal has enabled Network 18, Eenadu, and the merged group to expand its offerings to benefit its stakeholders and its advertising target audiences. What remains to be seen is whether clear boundaries can be etched between the boardroom and the newsroom.
There’s absolutely no doubt about the fact that if it’s truly going to be a responsive media, then the media should reflect the views, the interests, the aspirations of a larger section of population as possible. The problem with much of our media is that they are too busy trying to ‘reach’ consumers to potential advertisers than providing information to citizens.
Next Week:
Why do we all like to damn TAM?
The Sectoral Innovation Council recommendations last week said that there was need for an alternative to TAM, short for the media research company formed by a jv of two international research biggies: Nielsen and Kantar. This is a view that has been expressed several times over the years.
One of the main peeves against TAM is the number of Peoplemeter boxes present to collect data. Can 8000+ boxes effectively poll a populace of 1.2 billion, is what many broadcasters keep asking in public. In private though, not many are ready to pay up by increasing their subscription fee to enable the installation of more boxes across the country.
Also, what’s happening to BARC, the joint industry body that was to provide an alternative?
MxMIndia will speak to a cross-section of the industry to get answers. Meanwhile, if you have a view, email it to us at editor@mxmindia.com with the subject ‘MxM Mondays #2’
There is a need perhaps for news channels to rethink their positions as far as prime time studio discussions are concerned. One might be so bold as to suggest that they are running out of steam. Sadly, not everyday brings up a topic so incendiary that the nation’s hackles rise one way or another and as has happened over the past few weeks. If panel discussions (debates, fights, yelling matches, whatever you want to call them) are about subjects like India’s team selection for the World T20 Championships (NDTV) or one more interminable inquiry into Air India (Times Now), then who’s really watching?
Times Now however seems to be setting itself up as an alternative government when it comes to Pakistan. Night after night it badgers various Pakistanis (not members of the government) and tries to get them to confess that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism in India. There appears to be some sort of strange naivete at play here. No one in India doubts Pakistan’s involvement. But it is hard to imagine that this kind of TV assault is going to make the situation any better.
* * *
Are newspapers alive or dead? Two takes on the debate are in the links pasted below. Well, the first is certain that death is imminent. The second is one of those “India rah rah” stories which foreign news agencies alternate with ‘India boo hoo” stories. Sadly, the reasons given in these links on why newspapers are dying are as pedestrians as the reasons why newspapers in India are booming.
I have another take: news is not dying. Conventional methods of dispersal are. Any other ideas?
Senior journalist Sevanti Ninan of The Hoot writes a scathing piece in Mint on the collapse of newsgathering in newsrooms and the replacement of reporting with hectoring on TV channels. She also lifts the lid of newsroom practices and the ruthless retrenchment policies followed by newspaper managements.
Meanwhile excerpts from veteran journalist Kuldip Nayyar’s autobiography show the former editor to be in vicious form as he eviscerates former colleagues young and old. There is lesson here: refuse a former editor a column or suddenly cancel the column and you will pay the price later by being exposed in print.
The link is from the blog sans serif:Â http://wearethebest.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/kuldip-nayar-on-shekhar-gupta-n-ram-co/
Read and enjoy. And may there be a lesson for all those who have refused to give this writer columns…
Given the continual struggle of advertisers to grab attention of consumers, Hindustan Times has launched an initiative to engage its readers with the advertisements appearing in the newspaper daily.
Called ‘Spot the Dot”, Readers have to find a mnemonic dot that appears in two advertisements in the Hindustan Times every day and message the brand names to a shortcode. Respondents stand to win attractive daily and weekly prizes such as watches and laptops.
“As leaders in our field, we have always strived to innovate and set new benchmarks. We believe the advertisements are an important part of the newspaper, and a reader looks forward to the combined package every morning. This contest further increases engagement with the ads, and the response has been quite remarkable,” said Shantanu Bhanja, VP Marketing, HT Media.
Dinesh Jain, CEO, Hover Automotive India, an advertiser with HT, added: “Spot the Dot is a unique initiative undertaken by HT, which helps in building brand recall and creating buzz around the brand. We applaud HT for this initiative.” Promoted every day in the paper through innovative ads, the promo has generated buzz amongst the readers as well as the advertiser fraternity.
HT Media Limited is one of India’s foremost media companies, and home to three leading newspapers in the country in the English, Hindi and Business news segments – ‘Hindustan Times’ (English daily), ‘Hindustan’ (Hindi daily, through a subsidiary)Â and ‘Mint’ (business daily). ‘Hindustan Times’ was started in 1924 and has a more than an 85-year history as one of India’s leading newspapers. The Company also has four FM radio stations – Fever 104 FM inDelhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Kolkata.
The Company has also made a foray into the Internet space through its subsidiary Firefly e-Ventures Limited and has launched successful portals, www.Shine.com, www.HTCampus.com, www.Desimartini.com. These are in addition to the existing websites livemint.com, livehindustan.com and hindustantimes.com.
The 5th edition of Mint Luxury Conference will take place in Mumbai on March 23 and 24. The theme for the conference is “Luxury inIndia: At the Tipping Point”
Over the last few years,India’s luxury industry has witnessed significant transformation. The ever-growing Indian market has drawn a lot of attention from across the globe in recent years.Indiahas been a production outsourcing destination for a long time, but now due to a steadily growing economy and globalized businesses environment,Indiahas rapidly transformed into a large market for luxury goods.
In view of the growing importance of the country in the global luxury industry, Mint, from the house of HT Media, has initiated a conference to bring together stakeholders to a common platform.
The Mint Luxury Conference is the largest event of its kind in this sector. Industry experts, designers, marketers and owners of prestigious international luxury brands will come together for multiple sessions spread across 2 days of the conference.
This year marks the fifth anniversary of the Mint Luxury Conference. Among the speakers this year are legendary designers Diane von Furstenberg and Christian Louboutin; Indian design star Manish Malhotra; expert in luxury retail, Michael Ward – MD Harrods; Michael Perschke, Head of Audi India and Anoop Prakash, MD of Harley-Davidson India. The sessions range from the intricacies of design and creativity to the minutiae of the luxury market inIndia. A much anticipated session is the very topical “The Impact of 100% FDI on Luxury” which will see Ajay Dua, former Secretary, DIPP, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Peter Beckingham, Deputy British High Commissioner to India, and Armando Branchini, Executive Director, Fondazione Altagamma, butting heads on the issue of FDI.
Senior journalist Anto T Joseph is all set to join The New Indian Express as Resident Editor (Tamil Nadu), it is learnt. Based out of the paper’s headquarters in Chennai, Joseph will be in charge of all the half dozen editions in the state. He is likely to take charge on Monday, August 2, our sources tell us.
By A Correspondent
Media ownership is a worry to the extent that journalists are not able to withstand corporate pressure. For instance, the Birlas started Hindustan Times and the Tatas has a stake in The Statesman (to name just two) and the battle between marketing and editorial is as old as the profession. The problem comes when senior editors capitulate and reader interest is surrendered or sacrificed. I would turn the spotlight back on journalists: are we fighting the good fight?
Many years back when I asked a leading industrialist why he was keen on starting a news channel he replied with the famed Deewar dialogue (some alcohol in the system did the trick): Aaj mere paas buildingey hai, gaadi hai, bank balance hai, but even then these guys owning newspapers and channels are ruling the world. We were in the late 1990s, and journalists and news media owners were indeed much sought after. That may have waned over the years, but the desire to own news media stays. What hasn’t changed is that the intent of owning the news media goes far beyond returns on investments.
