Everything that has a beginning has an end. And this is the end of my lethargy to make a blog. For months now, I've seen and read a lot of blogs. Some get personal, some are simply travel itineraries, and yet there are some which discuss issues that matter globally. The really good ones, as someone recently told me, talk about issues, as against views. That way you're giving your readers more freedom to explore both sides of the coin, rather than do what the media does - shed light only on one side.
So that's strikes me as my first topic. As bloggers , we either contribute to the filth on the web (some would call that "SPAM"), or we make a difference. So we're now part of the 'over hyping' media. The same media that lifts sportspersons to seventh heaven when they perform, and brings them down when they face a stroke of bad luck. What must the media do, then? What mustn't it do? In fact, what would an ideal paper or website look like?
Having chosen the issue, let's for a short time put ourselves in the shoes of a reporter or an editor of a weekly / daily and explore. As the one who runs the business, your primary aim is the viewer. To increase the TRP rating of your channel, it is content and content alone that would matter. Global awareness is a must . For example, most regional channels are very informative when it comes to issues in their state, but are miserably behind time when it comes to international issues. At the same time we have channels like NDTV which are almost instantaneous when it comes to international news and even governmental activities, but nil when it comes to state based events, unless they assume gargantuan proportions. What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to content, it has to cater to all sections of your audience. Rather than spend an hour on the top story, just interviewing related people, one could spend at least 15 minutes on the regional news. After all there are people down south also.
Coming to the process of view gathering, it brings into picture the issue of free press and media. In fact, the whole purpose of free press is to avoid the occurrences of the Hitler era, like the popularization of Aryan superiority and the false aggrandizement of Nazism. A free press thus is ideally supposed to report events as precisely as possible, and present it as honestly as possible to the public, without any bias. At the same time a good medium would provide a much needed platform for public debate and an opportunity for junta to explore both sides of the coin. In fact, in a democracy like ours, a powerful media would actually bring the high and mighty down to the public platforms and ensure that they are made answerable for their actions.
Thus we surmise that the ideal medium would have to focus on the following: (a) collection of information (b) Delivery of this information to the public and (c) Ensuring that the public gets a good platform to discuss stuff on.
With reference to collection of information, one can say this for sure. The two qualities that one looks for are (i) plain and simple honesty and (ii) Extensive nature of the news. The media, by all standards needs to be unbiased while collecting information. How can a biased reporter present both sides of the coin to his audience if he himself hasn't explored one side? Of course, that is not to say that incompetence alone drives such behaviour. The hand of politics does manage to find its way into making the media elements their own mouthpieces. The media is driven by the desire to make personal gain by creating ripples in society on the one hand, and by political / other forces on the other hand. In the midst of all this is lost the requirement for unbiased information
Even if the information collected is unbiased, it has to be extensive. By extensive it has to be large in depth as well as breadth of coverage. As I have already said, a good media must cover issues spanning the entire country, however seemingly insignificant they may be. A fisherman in Kerala would more likely be affected by a water processing plant set up near the coast (which might drive the fish away) than by the 25-day fast of Mamata Banerjee, whatever the reasons. That is breadth. That having been accepted, the depth of coverage must be proportional to the significance / extent of influence of the issue as such, and also on the amount of information that has been collected.
Coming to delivery of information there is of course the need for clarity of information. With the excellent education that we have in place in the country this, at least seemingly, is no longer a problem. However one thing that can and will make a difference is the use of powerful visual / auditory aids to boost information. Tell a child about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and he will simply mug up the whole without a thought for the gravity of the situation. But show him one picture of the atomic bomb cloud that hung over the dead city, or the after-effects of radiation, and he becomes empathetic instantly ! Thus the point I'm trying to make is that most reporters miss out on crucial bits of information which are best conveyed as auditory or visual rather than conveyed in the third person.
The next thing, and I hope at least some of you agree with yours truly on this, is that a medium has to be selective in how much of the information it actually broadcasts. Granted that people have a right to know what our leaders have said. Granted that people should know the full and complete truth without any masala. But there are some issues that do harm/cause unrest by their very mention. A case in point is with reference to the hanging of Saddam Hussein recently. It was reported that he died with a Koran in his hand and was highly religious right up to the very end. No offense being meant to any religion, it is a fact that this piece of information makes him look a changed man, at least in the last moments of his life, and adds fuel to the fire of revolt up against his execution. In my view, it would have done no harm if this piece of information was in fact hidden by the media. (Yours truly acknowledges that there might be views on this radically different from his own and welcomes dissent. After all, a good medium is supposed to provide a public platform for debate)
Finally, there comes the issue of offering a public platform for debate and dissent. Though I must say that this has gone only as far as newspaper columns and TV shows like the Big Fight and others, they are indeed very effective. In fact, vis-a-vis my earlier babble about issues versus views, these are the only outlet for actual views to reach the public. They must therefore be used very effectively. The only regret of mine is that they do not have enough reach to the audience. How many people can really sit in on that TV show. The only way the non-invitees can participate is by calling and more recently, by sending emails / sms. Technology for one, and net for another can surely help in increasing this reach. One new fad I find fairly attractive is the one-to-many chats that I have seen on rediff.com, where public figures sit down for an hour or two and are open to relevant questions from anyone online.
And thus I see that a mild pondering of such an issue can yield so many aspects to it. That makes me wonder. The media face so many issues daily - do they really ponder over even a few of them. If they do, I'd love to have a peek into their heads.
PS: Please leave your comments. I would find them invaluable.