Is there a trial by media in the Tehelka case? Has the media conducted a witch hunt against Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhury after allegations of sexual assault bordering on rape were made public? As many in the media know and have pointed out, there are innumerable instances of sexual harassment within the media and in most cases justice has not been done to the victim. The Vishakha guidelines which everyone now quotes so freely are followed in only a few media offices.
Looking back, coverage of this case hinged on a few key points. The first was the verbose bombast of Tejpal’s various letters of apology. The second was the release of the victim’s email which detailed the very serious charges against Tejpal. The third was Chaudhury’s aggressive posturing in front of reporters, especially her comment, “Are you the aggrieved partyâ€.
The gauntlet had now been thrown down to the rest of the media. And yes, as has been said before, the media is the aggrieved party. Everyone is the aggrieved party. For a journalist to ask this of another, shows how easily we forget our professional compulsions when matters become personal.
There is another less savoury aspect to the reaction of the media. For all the sterling work that Tehelka did, many journalists were uncomfortable with sting operation journalism as well as with Tehelka’s very self-righteous approach. If there is anyone who knows that being self-righteous in the media is a sham, it is a journalist. We have to live on cynical pragmatism while following an idealistic principle. Being judge and jury is not our calling. Being the mirror is. To be sure, it’s a tightrope walk. So it is possible that many of us found Tehelka’s sanctimonious front a bid galling and that made this case a bit more intriguing.
However, at the bottom of it all, lies some unacceptable behaviour and that has nothing to do with the feelings of the viewer. The change of stance by Tejpal, the stonewalling by Shoma Chaudhury, the tenacity of the victim who did not let go and did not capitulate all increased the interest in the event.
And then came Tejpal’s bail application. Even if it was drafted by his lawyers, it contained every bit of misogynistic patriarchy that Tehelka itself has been fighting against. It blamed the victim, it questioned her behaviour after the alleged assault and it claimed that Tejpal was forced to write letters of apology by Chaudhury.
Given all this, it is hardly surprising that the media has been following this case so closely. Add to that the political sideshow with Tejpal somehow blaming the BJP for his predicament and you have a story that no media outlet would miss.
One could also argue that the level of media interest in gender stories has also increased since the December 2012 gangrape in Delhi. Also, while many are questioning why senior journalists are going after Tejpal and not protecting their own it is worth remembering that the victim is also one of our own.
**
The Tehelka case forced me to watch prime time news TV slugfests after almost six months. Most channels and anchors managed a few stimulating discussions on the subject mainly because they avoided inviting politicians: Karan Thapar (CNN-IBN), Nidhi Razdan (NDTV), Sagorika Ghose (CNN-IBN), Arnab Goswami (Times Now), Rajdeep Sardesai (CNN-IBN), various anchors on Headlines Today and NewsX.
Once the politicians entered the scene, it all went downhill of course. And once politicians start behaving badly, all the other guests apparently believe that open season for lack of etiquette has begun. Interrupting, shouting over each other, refusing to answer the question asked – all the fine elements of a “debate†on English news channels in India. And Arnab Goswami I see has only grown in stature and now his whole show is unashamedly about his own opinions. My advice: dump the guests and have a nightly chat with the nation about what needs to be done.
**
Wags on social media have been pointing out that Tarun Tejpal has achieved what the might of the Congress party could not: knocked Narendra Modi off national television. Having said that, Tehelka will peter out sooner rather than later and the Gujarat surveillance case will be back.
**
And Cobrapost and Gulail have now informed the rest of us how politicians – and anyone else – use trickery and cheating to manipulate the social media. Expect some more on that.
Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own
Inexcusable as it is, Tarun Tejpal was not the only person who made a shocking ‘error of judgement’. Clearly, the other really major error of judgement in responding to the sexual harassment charge by a young journalist during the magazine’s Thinkfest in Goa recently must lie with the Managing Editor of the magazine, Shoma Chaudhary.
In his email, Tejpal referred to what he termed a bad lapse of judgement and an awful misreading of a situation. He offered an unconditional apology and recused himself from the editorship of the magazine for six months. In her email to the staff, Chaudhury appears to accept both the apology as well as Tejpal’s decision to step down for six months:
“We have also believed that when there is a mistake or lapse of any kind, one can only respond with right thought and action. In keeping with this stated principle, and the collective values we live by, Tarun will be stepping down for the period mentioned”.
Unfortunately, this is simply not enough. And the outrage that followed on social media sites by journalists and editors is only some indication that the Tehelka management has fouled up in tackling what is a pretty straightforward issue.
When any complaint is lodged on a charge of sexual harassment, the law binds the management of a company to institute an inquiry with an independent member on a complaints committee. The Vishakha guidelines are clear on this.
Moreover, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, passed by both houses of Parliament in 2012, was gazette in April 2013. Rules under the Act are currently being enacted but the Vishakha guidelines are clear and, as a statement of the Network of Women in Media, India, said, “compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines is the very least that mediawomen expect of the media which are, after all, supposed to be the watchdogs of society.”
It is highly unlikely that the editor of Tehekla was unaware of these guidelines. Reports in various websites even attribute quotes to the aggrevied journalist seeking an inquiry under these guidelines. Was this done? Who constituted the committee? Was there an independent member as required by law? When were the hearings held?
In any complaint, an independent inquiry is important and crucial. Due process of law must be followed so that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.
In the present instance, a major aspect of the complaint: that of the guilt of the accused, is already established. Tejpal has not only not denied the charge, but tendered an unconditional apology. It’s possible that, given incontrovertible evidence and/or the admission of guilt, an independent inquiry would have arrived at the same conclusion – that the charge was proven.
The next step is the delivery of justice. Tejpal’s offer to recuse himself from editorship is all very well, but is this what the aggrieved journalist wanted or sought? What exactly did the journalist seek in terms of justice for the wrong done to her?
For Tejpal, the ‘punishment’ for his act, couched in vaguely religious terms of atonement, laceration or penance, is that of stepping down from a post he occupies. How does Tejpal’s self-imposed, self-denial of his position, that too for a limited period, make any difference to the charge? To whom will it make a difference, if at all?
But, while it may be part of a larger response of a man in a position of power and influence, it may not provide any succour to the individual concerned.
The determination of the relief that the journalist will seek – whatever it may be – can only be done in a transparent manner, with full accountability and clarity. Whatever decision is then taken in terms of dealing with a clearly criminal act – must be done with the consent of the journalist concerned. Only then can a complaint like this move towards closure.
The NIMBY phenomenon
Despite numerous articles, the media is simply unwilling to address sexual harassment when it happens in its own backyard. Media houses need to come clean and publicise whether they have instituted sexual harassment committees in the work place and whether any complaints have been lodged before these committees.
To date, the record of existing instances of sexual harassment in media houses is pathetic. The well-known instance of sexual harassment in Statesman, filed by journalist Rina Mukherjee in Kolkata, resulted in her dismissal in 2002, an order against which came in February 2013, a good 11 years later!
In March 2013, a journalist filed a sexual harassment case against a senior editor in Sun TV, and was again suspended from service. A complaints committee instituted by Sun TV did not follow the procedures as laid down by law and did not uphold her charge. In another instance in India Today, a complaints committee was set up but the independent committee member is yet to be appointed!
Geeta Seshu is a senior journalist and writes on free speech, women and representation and media ethics. She is Consulting Editor of the media watch site, The Hoot. She can be reached at @geetaseshu
Photograph:Â Department of Communication and Journalism, Mumbai University
At the recently held Think festival organized by Tehelka magazine, there was a session where rape survivors recounted their stories. The title of the session: The Beast in Our Midst.
As it has now emerged, even when the various delegates and ‘thinkers’ were deliberating on the ways of the world at the Goa event, there was a beastly act on elsewhere. Tarun Tejpal, Tehelka founder, celebrity journalist, author, mentor to budding writers and a beacon for those against all things wrong in the country, had indulged in what has until the time of writing been described as an act of molestation.
Mr Tejpal has confessed to his crime. Ah, well, remember he’s a writer. So the words he has used in a letter that appears at various places on the internet (including our favourite blog Sans Serif at http://wearethebest.wordpress.com/) to describe his acts is that it was a “bad lapse of judgment” and “an awful misreading of the situation”.
We weren’t present in the 2011 edition of the Thinkfest, but Mr Tejpal is reported to have made this controversial statement: “You’re in Goa, so eat, drink, make merry and sleep with whoever you want.” The writer-journalist has ostensibly taken his own words seriously.
The victim has said she’s a friend of his daughter. That her father and he were once colleagues. She tried to stop him from what he was doing. Not once, but twice over, over two days.
Mr Tejpal’s books (coincidentally titled ‘The Alchemy of Desire’ and ‘The Story of My Assassins’) have received rave reviews. “I have always held that Tehelka the institution, and its work, have always been infinitely more important than any of us individuals. It is tragic, therefore, that in a lapse of judgment I have hurt our own high principles,” he wrote to managing editor Shoma Chaudhury who will now be incharge of the magazine. The letter described “pompous in tenor” by the Mumbai Mirror diarist does appear to be pretentious. “I feel atonement cannot be just words. I must do the penance that lacerates me. I am therefore offering to recuse myself from the editorship of Tehelka, and from the Tehelka office, for the next six months.”
In a letter to the Tehelka staff, Ms Chaudhury has forwarded Mr Tejpal’s letter and said: “This is a hard time for all of us, and I hope all of you will stand by the institution” She is quoted to have to have told an Indian Express journalist that the journalist has not filed a criminal complaint and that she (the victim) and other staffers were satisfied with the action taken. “It is an internal problem and we are not setting up any enquiry into the matter,” Ms Chaudhary told Business Standard. “The matter was taken up internally, and has been addressed and redressed,” she told the Express. However, a confidante of the victim told NDTV that the victim was not satisfied with the action taken.
Is a six-month ‘penance’ of being away from the top job at Tehelka enough? Is staying at home, in the hills for half a year enough?
In many ways what Tarun Tejpal is being subjected to on Twitter and Facebook is worse than a dozen lashings in the Middle East? He’s being ridiculed, humiliated and mocked at so much that even some of the most universally lampooned Indians on Twitter – N D Tiwari would appear to have done nothing wrong.
But the law is clear on the subject. Sexual harassment cases need to be handled in a certain way, and this one could be called an assault. According to a set of Twitter messages, the victim is said to have written the following to Ms Chaudhury: “As of Saturday evening, he sent me text messages insinuating that I misconstrued “a drunken banter”. That is not what happened. Banter does not involve forcing yourself on someone, trying to disrobe them, and penetrate them with your fingers despite them pleading for you to stop.” Note: this is an unverified version. MxMIndia has in its possession a copy of the letter the victim is said to have written.
The victim we are told has retained copies of Mr Tejpal’s text messages and it is said that the video footage from the elevators is also available as proof of Mr Tejpal’s acts.
Journalists and activists believe the apology offered by Tarun Tejpal is half-baked and the case should be handled in a legally tenable way.
In many ways, Tarun Tejpal’s act is a blow to the world of news media. Especially when we have an assortment of law-makers and influencers wanting tighter controls on the craft. The question now is: will the law-enforcers from Delhi or Goa act against the editor?
Tehelka has announced the ‘Tarun Sehrawat Award For Journalism Of Courage And Conscience’. The award is named in the memory a young journo who died on duty last year, at the age of 23, in the Naxal heartland. I think such an award is needed, and it’s a timely idea.
Because, with the massive media explosion in India and the resultant cut-throat competition, real journalism seems to have been relegated to the back seat. Proprietors and marketing directors are calling the shots in most organizations; the editor’s role has become secondary. Profitability is now the name of the game, and this is what leads to ugly, completely unethical practices like paid news. Naturally, this is terrible news for India. For the nation’s good health, we have to encourage journalists to push the boundaries, and within the restrictions they find themselves in today, find a way to unearth the hard truths. There are plenty of awards given away to the members of the media each year, but I find them meaningless. Because they appear to reward style more than substance. Tehelka’s effort therefore is very welcome.
And what I find most interesting is that the award is meant only for young journos, those under the age of 30 years. Terrific. We need to motivate the youngsters, we need to remind them why are journalists, we need to make sure they don’t get lost in the world of materialism and puffery. And if these dudes taste blood at a young age, chances are high they will retain the same passion for journalism throughout their careers.
Of course, Tehelka is trying to build its own brand, and that’s fine. The important thing is this: Such an award will help shift the focus back to real journalism. The reason why many of us opted for this profession in the first place. But got disillusioned along the way when we discovered that a healthy financial bottom-line seems to matter more than a healthy nation in the corporatized Indian media.
***
PS: Crazy. A totally harmless commercial has invited a dirty backlash on the YouTube video. All because it features a mixed-race family. As a matter of fact, I think such ads should be encouraged, they are important for the plural societies we live in. And a pat on the back to the advertiser for refusing to pull the commercial. Cheers to Cheerios!
Anil Thakraney is a senior journalist and commentator. He is also Editor-at-Large, MxMIndia. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached via Twitter at @anilthakraney
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’
Most Indian newspapers stayed up late to bring readers the results of the Euro semi-final between Germany and Italy. The Times of India also managed to check up the Wimbledon scores and had a front page snippet on Rafael Nadal’s shocker of a second round exit. This is unusual because TOI usually does much less for tennis than other newspapers.
(But CNN tennis reporter, I have a question for you: Is Rafael Nadal’s second round exit bigger than Pete Sampras’s fourth round exit in 2001, since you said that Nadal’s upset was the biggest in tennis history and no one could remember another? Nadal has two Wimbledon titles, Sampras at the time had seven Wimbledon titles – a record he holds with William Renshaw – and would never win another. The man Sampras lost to: Roger Federer. It was only 11 years ago, a little history is not a bad thing for a sports reporter. Or even, a good memory!)
* * *
The Houston Chronicle has fired a reporter for working as an exotic dancer (sometimes known as stripper) as a second job. The woman was exposed by a rival publication. Snitching on your competitors is a trend in Western journalism which is yet to reach India and one wonders whether that is not a good thing. The Guardian’s exposes of phone-hacking and other dubious practices by rival newspapers, especially those owned by Rupert Murdoch, perhaps fall in the realm of both public service and dogged investigative journalism. (The Hindu comes the closest in India, as it occasionally pulls up lesser media houses for journalistic and marketing transgressions.) But “investigating†fellow journalists of media houses and their personal lives to inform readers? Am not sure what category of journalism this falls into.
* * *
A minor storm in Indian journalism has been over the death of a photographer who worked with Tehelka, was sent into the hinterland to do a story on Naxals, got malaria there and died. The newspaper is at fault for apparently not factoring malaria into the threat element of this assignment.
Newspapers in India are notorious for not being bothered about the dangers of newsgathering – mainly because most newspapers have dispensed with most kinds of dangerous reporting. (I could I suppose say the same thing about TV, in that they hardly started.) Gone are the days when even gossip columnists – like Devyani Chaubal being slapped by Dharmendra – faced physical dangers while working. I am being facetious I know but bullet-proof vests are hardly part of a reporter’s must-haves in India. There should be no room for callousness. But I am still unconvinced what Tehelka could have done about a mosquito. If they did not help the photographer or his family later, then there is cause for criticism.
Still, it would not hurt media houses to take a closer look at employee welfare (this does not mean a box of mithai at Diwali) and on-the-job dangers.
* * *
Interesting that the anniversary of the Emergency came and went with little media attention. Are we moving on or did we just, like, forget?
* * *
The case of Abu Jundal or Jindal or Zaby or whatever his name is – the Lashkar handler of the 26/11 attacks sent to India by Saudi Arabia – is exciting but it is still in its early stages. Rather than focus their hysterics only on Pakistan, the Indian television media might like to look at it as a story first and probe all angles rather than jump into jingoistic propaganda.
* * *
The Indian media – particularly TV – got itself into a bit of a bind over Pakistan’s flip-flop over the release of Sarabjit Singh. Sarabjit is a celebrity prisoner whose family has ceaselessly campaigned for his release. Pakistan announced Sarabjit’s name and then changed it the next day to Surjeet Singh. Now the dilemma: should the media show happiness for Surjeet, rage against the machine for Sarabjit, damn Pakistan or blame Pakistan? Is one Indian equal to another or are famous Indians more equal? It is not known how hard Surjeet Singh’s family worked the media to get him released, so perhaps there’s an answer. Also Surjeet Singh walked across the Wagah border and claimed he was a RAW agent, a tag Sarabjit and his family have consistently denied!
* * *
Congratulations to Mid-Day on its 33rd anniversary and a whopping anniversary issue of 200 pages which I haven’t had the time to read yet. Might take me all week!.
Very good sting operation by Tehelka. Totally in public interest, and their findings are pretty frightening. They have carried out a sting on some Delhi cops to find their sensitivity (or the lack of it, as it turns out) to rape victims. And as we all might have suspected, yes, the stung cops’ attitude is medieval. They do believe women often ‘ask for it’. And this in turn leads to lackadaisical investigation process.
This particular sting operation reminds me of the kickass way Tarun Tejpal started out his Tehelka. It used to a bomb factory, the sensational website carried out many stinging exposes, and each one shook the nation. Subsequently the portal faced the wrath of the then government and went through horrible financial difficulties. All this is well documented and discussed so I shan’t go into the sordid details.
However, some years down the line Tehelka was relaunched as a rather serious magazine. Tarun seems to have left the edit room, and now the stings are few and far between. I don’t know the mag’s exact readership figures, but am quite certain they aren’t earth shattering. And that’s because the brand has lost its edge, its USP; it shut down the bomb factory.
The latest expose on the cops is a reminder that Tehelka must do many more sting operations. They can continue to do the intellectual stuff, but what will get them serious readership is if the bombs get dropped on a regular basis. And the team doesn’t need to worry anymore. The Indian media has grown real mighty in the last decade, and if Tehelka were to get persecuted by the government circa 2012, the entire Indian media’s weight will fall on the ruling party like a tonne of bricks. Surely Tehelka needs to forget about the past. It will never repeat itself.
And most importantly, I do believe that with the sort of mess that goes around in this nation in all walks of life, there is an urgent need for many intelligently done sting operations. Obviously those that serve a larger public purpose, like their sting on cops. And Tehelka is good at this game, no one does it as smartly as they have been known to do.
By Ranjona Banerji
By Geeta Seshu
By Anil Thakraney
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.
