Sunday, November 4, 2001		Lead Article

OF the many poison darts aimed at newspapers, an oft-repeated and consistent one is that they are full of depressing, negative news. Rape, murder, scam and violence … this is the stuff that they are packed with. Thriving on misery, they are guaranteed to spoil your morning. The development news or the so-called positive news is ignored. This charge is valid, and also not valid. The misunderstanding arises because of the confusion about the basic role of newspapers. Once we fully understand that fact, the reasons for this peculiarity become clear.

Newspapers fulfil several needs. But their primary duty has always been to be the watchdog of society. A watchdog is supposed to bark and even bite whenever it scents an intruder. One cannot expect it to extend a warm welcome to a stranger and ask him for a glass of water and quiz him about the welfare of his family. That job is better left to other agents. A watchdog is only meant to sniff out trouble and pounce on it the moment trouble is noticed.

Similarly, the raison d'etre of a newspaper lies in the ability of the newspaper to point out the shortcomings of the high and mighty that the common man cannot challenge. It is supposed to act as a sort of an ombudsman who can call a spade a spade. It cannot take any action against the wrongdoers, but can, at least, expose the Sticking to this role is all the more necessary in a country like India where the common man has very few agencies that are in a position to redress his grievances. There is the police. But you know how "independent", "honest" and "impartial" it is. Then there is the judiciary. Much more upright, but it is so hopelessly overburdened that getting justice without a long delay is a near impossibility. That leaves only the Press to highlight various irregularities and the plight of the wronged people. In such circumstances, newspapers have no option but to highlight all that is wrong and rotten in society. So, by their very nature, the newspapers are bound to give "pride of place" to the so-called negative news. If they don't, nobody else is going to highlight these problems. You very well know how keen government-controlled publications, radio and TV are to push all these under the carpet.

Opinions differ on what comprises news and what does not. As a result, different people have different views on whether certain items should have been carried by a newspaper or not. Since everyone has his own favourite definition, allow me to add to the confusion by chipping in with my own interpretation. I feel that news comprises all that which should not be happening but does happen and also all that which should be happening but does not happen. To my mind, this is wide and all-encompassing to include news of various kinds. Let me elaborate this unusual definition a little bit.

There are certain events which should not be taking place and yet do take place. You can count accidents, violence, wars, crime, etc. among them. Since these are undesirable, we lament their proliferation and whenever a news item about their occurrence is published, it is only to warn society that such a cancerous growth is on the rise and must be curbed. By no stretch of the imagination should it be thought that newspapers are prone to giving more publicity to bad people than to good ones. The inclusion of the names of the wrong people in the newspaper columns is to shame them; those of the right people is to encourage them to excel even further.

This is something like the now-forgotten custom of blackening the face of a wrongdoer in a village, putting him on a donkey and taking him around. His procession always attracted more onlookers than, say, the yatra of a holy man. That did not mean that the man on the donkey was being given greater publicity. It was only a warning to those having similar inclinations that their deeds would be widely condemned.

Then comes the news under the second category: all that should be happening but does not happen or happens all too rarely. Remember the news item about the bus conductor who returned a bag full of currency notes to its owner and the policeman who risked his own life to save a destitute girl? These are the sort of things that should be happening all the time but don't. That is why, whenever these do occur, these are highlighted, only to encourage others to emulate them.

Many lament that they put in hard work to achieve certain distinction, but it was not suitably highlighted in the Press. They should also realise why they could not make it to the newspaper columns. Newspaper space is always at a premium. With the revolution in information technology, there is a glut of news with every periodical. It is estimated that nearly 90 per cent of the news that comes to a publication from various sources has to be rejected, for no other reason except that there is not enough space for it.

Under such circumstances, there is always cutthroat competition for news space. You can understand the situation better by taking the analogy of a competitive examination. Supposing 20 students are competing for one seat. Nineteen of them get 35 per cent marks, while you get 40 per cent marks. That will be good enough to ensure that you get through. Now supposing in that very group one gets as high as 98 per cent marks, but all others get 99 per cent. In this case, you will not be able to make the grade, despite those 98 per cent.

Exactly the same thing happens in the case of media coverage. What one person is doing may be excellent, but if others are doing slightly better, his achievements may get "ignored". If you are the sufferer, the system may appear irrational to you, but there is no better alternative.

This cut-off line fluctuates every day. On a lean day, even a mediocre story may make it to the newspaper. On a busy day, even a good one may have to be spiked. You just cannot work on precedents when the situation is changing on an hourly basis.

Regarding the paucity of "constructive" news, it will be a sad day if newspapers have to highlight all positive "achievements". Just imagine how odd it will be if you find your morning paper mentioning that one shopkeeper gave someone all items in right measure, a government clerk remained in office right up to 5 pm and one hotel returned a bag to a passenger after he had checked out. Indeed, such courtesies are becoming rare, but if newspapers start writing about them, it will only be a left-handed compliment.

In any case, what some want to peddle as "constructive" use is nothing more than an unabashed attempt at self-glorification. I know of a club comprising filthy-rich people which would send a detailed Press note even if it distributed only balloons to slum children. There would be cribbing galore if their photo (showing less of the children and more of these smiling moneybags) was not published.

The same competitive format works in the case of negative news as well. A crime will have to be exceptional to make it to the news columns, because far too many petty crimes are already taking place and it is just not feasible to "accommodate" every incident. A theft, rape or even murder has to make way for a mass murder or a daylight molestation in the heart of the city. If the news of a pickpocketing incident is ignored, it is only because bigger crimes are taking place with uncanny regularity. Spiking it may be wrong but spiking a murder/rape/robbery report to make room for it would be a bigger mistake, won't it?

As a poet says:

Similarly, reports about the lack of civic amenities do not get the prominence they deserve because these emanate from here, there and everywhere. The absence of streetlights in a particular city does not get suitably highlighted only because there are other cities that have not had any power supply for ten days at all. It is not the media that is insensitive to the readers' problems but the administration that allows these problems to proliferate and multiply is certainly insensitive.

As said earlier, newspapers have no punitive powers. They can only expose a scandal. The idea is to shame the perpetrators so that they mend their ways and others do not emulate their wayward behaviour. But what do you do when the bad publicity is completely ignored by the officials? After highlighting a problem four or five times, those in the media also get disheartened. Those who have not read the previous reports feel that it is not being taken up properly.

Then there is the ethical question. Propriety demands that whenever you write a story, you should present both sides of it. It is very logical in theory but a near-impossibility in practice. The moment an influential person gets to know that an unflattering story about him is in the pipeline, he moves heaven and earth to either scuttle it or to make all evidence disappear. The reporter faces a Hobson's choice. Either he tells it and suffers the mortification of seeing every scrap of information tampered with or he goes to the Press without letting the influential person know and be called an "unethical" and "biased" journalist.

Government officials are very fond of taking potshots at the Press for allegedly introducing a "slant" to every story. The perpetual grouse is that "development" news is ignored while the slightest discrepancy is blown out of proportions. Actually, these worthies want to reduce every newspaper and periodical to the level of their own public relations agencies. They expect the newspapers and periodicals to report in the same reverential manner as does a government publication. If their recipe of balanced reporting has to be applied, a newspaper report about a train accident will read something like this:

"NEW DELHI: It was a golden day for Indian Railways today when it ran as many as 13,500 trains. These moved more than 13.6 million people from one place to another. The Railway Minister has congratulated the staff for this sterling achievement. The following is the text of his speech (if a newspaper deletes some paragraphs, the Editor is anti-establishment).

"Ninety per cent of these trains were on time. Five per cent were less than four hours late while only three were more than a day late. This record of punctuality is better than that of the corresponding period last year and is far far ahead of the achievement of the previous government headed by the rival party.

"Of the 13,500 trains, as many as 13,498 reached their destination safely. Only two, which is a negligible figure, collided on the way. Eighty per cent of the passengers are safe; 15 per cent are injured and barely 5 per cent (less than 200) are dead. The Minister has made an aerial survey of the accident site (see the accompanying photograph) and announced an ex gratia of Rs 15,000 for those killed and Rs 5,000 for those injured.

"For the statements of other ministers who have expressed sympathies for the victims, please see pages 3, 5, 6 and 12."

Is that really the way you want the newspapers to remove their negative "bias" in reporting, dear readers? Imagine reading this kind of reports day in and day out! It will please the ministers concerned no end, of course, but how about you?

It is not only the ministers who expect such reporting. Everyone in the public eye does. The head of a premier medical institution was fuming the other day that when his organisation conducts 10 successful operations, the Press has no kind words for it. But journalists pounced on him, the moment some patients contracted some infectious disease during their stay in the hospital. This, according, to him was a clear case of bias and partiality. One wonders how he would have reacted if he himself or one of his family members had died just because the wards of his hospital were dirty and infected!

Another complaint against newspapers is that they give excessive coverage to one subject and ignore others. What is completely forgotten is that by its very definition, mass media caters to millions of people whose taste may differ widely. One who is a sports enthusiast would think that a newspaper should have more pages for sports, while the science page is redundant. A science fan will have exactly the opposite view. A fine balance is attempted by every publication.

Then there is also the question of the leanings of a reader. I have received many letters for a particular article. Some said it was too harsh; others found it too docile. Obviously, both were being subjective without realising this.

Every newspaper tries to make a bouquet out of different flowers. If it does not use more of roses, it is not because it is trying to favour gladioli, but because in its considered opinion, that is what the composite plan demands. If you find that the film section of your paper is insufferable, kindly remember that your teenage son reads the paper only for that. And if the news about a brawl in your neighbourhood was not properly covered, it was only because worse things were taking place in the next lane.

I am not, even for a second, suggesting that everything is alright with Indian journalism, but only requesting you that before putting your Editor through the grinder, kindly take into consideration his limitations and the different demands of different readers.