The proceedings of the joint drafting committee of Jan Lokpal Bill have ended in the expected anti-climax. At a time when the government was under unprecedented pressure to bring in a tough law, a weak Opposition was two-timing the nation and the national media was more trusting of the government than “civil society”.

The result was that the government was allowed to wriggle out of a tight situation rather easily. Anna Hazare and his team were subjected to all kinds of scrutiny, which is as it should have been, but the government and the Congress got away scot-free. Little was being asked of them and nothing was answered.

More

Respected Dr Roy,

I am writing to apply for the post of Group Editor, English News, NDTV.

I am a journalist with 26 years experience. Throughout my career I have made innocent mistakes. I have been silly, I have been gullible and I have been prone to making errors of judgement. Frequently, when I am “desperate for khabar” I also fib to sources. I string them along so much that I have often tied myself up in knots.

In short, I’m just the right guy to lead the nation’s most reputed English news channel.

I am aware, Sir, that you already have a silly, innocent and gullible editor prone to making honest errors of judgement. Those credentials were so clearly established on national prime time news the other day. Only an extremely innocent, very silly and highly gullible editor can do it with such aplomb.

Admittedly, Dr Roy, that’s a tough record to beat. But the silly are never daunted by the odds…recall that stuff about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.

I take heart from two facts: One, that you are perhaps the only editor-in-chief to value such sterling qualities in a group editor, and two, while you might be pretty happy with your in-house options, there are some good alternatives in the market you might want to look at.

It is your faith in and commitment to the cause of the ISGs (innocent, silly and gullible), Dr Roy, that has emboldened me to give the job a shot. I want to convince you that when it comes to these sterling qualities, I dig a lonely furrow…it’s actually a deep trench because I have been at it for 26 years.

Sir, I suspect you will be extremely upset at the completely unconventional way in which this application is being framed. So, let me quickly give you three examples of the work I have done so far.  Please judge me only by my work, not what I say about it on tape.

1.       When I was just a few months into the profession,  Akali Dal leader Sant Longowal was assassinated. His assassination followed Indira Gandhi’s who was killed just a few months earlier. I had just subbed the copy when my chief sub asked me “what’s the headline?”  “Longowal calls on Indira Gandhi,” I read out loud and proud.

The chief sub leaped out of her chair in horror and grabbed the copy. She called me silly and stupid. She even proclaimed me “dangerous” and banished me from the news desk.

You see, Dr Roy, I was editor material even then. Just that I was in wrong hands. Where were you, Dr Roy? I can’t help wondering “why just Barkha, why is she so lucky”?

2.       Once when I was editor of a small Delhi afternoon paper, we ran an expose on upcoming illegal structures in Connaught Place. We illustrated the story with a big picture of a multi-storey building shot stealthily. Next morning it turned out the building belonged to the newspaper’s proprietor.

Error of judgement is passé, Dr Roy, I have monumental blunders on my hand.

3.       More recently, I was in the middle of writing Counterfeit, my most most-read weekly column on notional affairs. Two big corporate houses were warring over some goddamn national asset and I wanted to get to the bottom of things. Who better to get an insight from than the PR persons on both sides?  The first guy took me out to lunch and explained his client’s position. I was fully convinced he was right till the other PR took me out to lunch and explained her client’s position. I was convinced she was right too.

But I was two full, two convinced and too confused. So, I wrote about the food instead.

But then word got out. As you well know, our strict code of ethics lays down that a journalist can have only one free meal per topic. Fellow journalists were livid. But since nobody could prove quid pro quo, they pilloried me in public for being unethical and accused me in private of selling the profession cheap. I am however convinced most of them were just jealous of the extra meal I managed…but that’s beside the point, the pillorying continued because they said “joh pakda gaya wahi chor”.

I had to take matters into my hand because the cat seemed to have gotten my channel’s tongue. I agreed to be grilled by my peers in full public glare. Four white haired gents turned up. For the first time the channel made a departure from the policy of not putting out any raw material on air and played the full unedited tape.

On air I made a clean breast of things.  “I may have been greedy, I may have been hungry, but nobody dare accuse me of corruption,” I said, clearly setting the contours of the debate. “But of course, it’s been a learning experience. Looking back now with all that one now knows about dirty lobbyists,  I have no hesitation in saying that it’s perhaps best to carry one’s own lunch box to work. I have since bought a Milton electric lunch box.”

“No journalist is lily white,” the oldest and gentlest of them all began, “I don’t know of many journalists who carry their tiffin to office….” but I cut him short.  ”Nobody is lily white but all that you will discuss is one spot on my kurta? Why only me,” I thundered. I wanted to punch all of them in their holier-than-thou faces but for form’s sake I just bit my dry lips and somehow held my temper and my hand.

Many close friends upbraided me for appearing on the show. They told me I looked angry, sounded pompous and arrogant. They advised me not to mention the incident in this application because it would look rather silly trying to get an important job on the evidence of this show.

But that is the point I’m trying to make, Dr Roy. I am silly. And I did not stumble on silliness, innocence and gullibility “inadvertently” after 16 years of blemish-less journalism.   I worked at it for 26 long years.

In other qualifications, I must point out that I am a damn good political reporter, even if I say so myself. In the thick of things such as the UPA’s cabinet formation, all kinds of people call me to carry messages to the Congress party. Sometimes there are problems of non-delivery such as that message I did not give Ghulam Nabi Azad but I believe, because I’m a good journalist, even if this were about the NDA forming its cabinet, I would still be a busy courier boy.

I would have loved to attach copies of my work as a political reporter but sadly, Dr Roy, I have none. That is because I have never reported politics.

I know, I know…that is not consistent with my claim to being a good political journalist. I was just stringing you along, Dr Roy.

When can I join?

Yours sincerely,

B V Rao

More

Also see

I was always worried I would die without knowing enough about Arindam Chaudhuri. But last week, The Hindu and Tehelka put me at ease. Thanks to these two highly respected publications, I will leave this world armed with better information about the management mogul, his life and his works.

Arindam, the management guru turned academic turned author turned editor turned film producer has a way of staying in the news.  The latest is a 110-page “success book” titled “Discover the Diamond In You” that he wrote in five days flat on his mobile! That was provocation enough for these two publications to do lengthy articles followed, a few pages later, by paid advertisements from Arindam’s IIPM. (That’s another way of staying in the news.)

At 48, it’s a bit late for me to try to succeed at anything based on the wisdom of a book written in five days on SMS and, anyway, Arindam says he has written it for the young, in their language and idiom. If the diamond in me is destined to go to the grave without being discovered, so be it.

At least, I’m getting some serious insights into the life of a “discovered” diamond (more about that in a while). The Hindu wrote a glowing piece and aptly titled it “This gem’s aglow” (Metro Plus, Dec 10). “Anyone seen Arindam Chaudhuri without an impish grin on his face? Anyone? Well, chances are pretty bleak considering the man believes in turning every calamity into an opportunity,” the article began. The calamity in reference is the economic slowdown and the opportunity is the five days’ time that Arindam could afford as a result to tip-tap the book on his mobile (because he can’t still handle the desktop).

I quote him from the article: “I took five days for the book. Two days just to jot down the things I wanted in the book. Then I typed out the contents on my mobile for the next three days. I SMSed it to my designer.  Mobile is such an uncomplicated way of communication that I am not used to a computer even now. I prefer to speak the language of 140 characters than long mails.” (I can’t figure out why writing 110 pages of a book on the mobile is not the same as writing long mails…it takes a diamond to understand a diamond and I’m not one as I told you at the outset.)

The reporter now poses a profound question: Writing a book in times of economic recession makes perfect sense… but when did he (Arindam) realise he had the diamond in him? “The process of discovering the diamond in me started when I was a student. I aspired to be a teacher seeing a couple of my teachers. Then that unpolished diamond got exposed to good light and the urge to emulate only got stronger.” (Those damned 40W bulbs during my childhood… they destroyed the diamond in me.  Philips will pay this!)

The reporter is not done yet. Another profound question follows. With his quick read, is he (Arindam) not treading in the territory marked as his own by Chetan Bhagat who too speaks in the language of the young? Arindam is accommodative: “I have heard of that comparison but I have not read Chetan’s book.” (Chetan’s loss entirely.)

This glowing piece on Arindam appears as the cover story of Metro Plus and on the back page is a half-page ad of Arindam’s IIPM. The ad has nothing to do with the launch of the book, but it helps you understand the article better, if you know what I mean.

Luckily for people like me who strongly feel the media just doesn’t give us enough of Arindam, Tehelka also tried to address the need gap. On its Society and Lifestyle pages (Dec. 12 issue), it ran a two-page interview of Arindam with the launch of the book as the news peg. But Tehelka’s literary correspondent who did the piece — rather half-heartedly, I suspect — obviously did not think much of Arindam’s literary prowess.

The book is just one passing question in the two-page interview-biography that gives us critical, “you-can’t-die-without-knowing-this” kind of information about the author such as that Arindam:

• Lectures at IIPM campuses
• Writes the editorial for and oversees the cover story of “The Sunday Indian”
• Writes his books and reads potential scripts for films
• Gets his news primarily from print
• Doesn’t watch television except for the odd spurt of breaking news
• Is frank about his fear of addiction, particularly of the Internet
• A staffer operates his blog since he doesn’t know how to upload content
• Occasionally uses Facebook to interact with students but barely touches email
• Instead, claims to write mostly on SMS, including all of his latest book

Twelve pages later, on the inside back cover, is a full page IIPM ad. As with The Hindu, the ad has nothing to do with the book but helps us understand the report in better light.

It is quite possible that the editorial in both the publications did not know that the ad would appear in the same edition but the tone and tenor of the write-ups make one suspicious. While The Hindu is completely in awe of Arindam without once suggesting it has read the book (so forget about critiquing it), from the Tehelka piece it is clear that their literary correspondent did not even think it was worth commenting upon the book. Yet, there it is, the two-page piece.

There are two reasons to worry here. One, The Hindu and Tehelka (especially the latter) are two institutions that still revere honest journalism. So this kind of surrogate advertising (or is it surrogate editorial?) appearing in them is not good news for news.

Two, Arindam has just about started on his 22-city publicity binge for the book so you know there’s a lot more to come in the near future…

The Hindu is right. It’s hard to find Arindam without his impish grin. If you had the nation’s media eating out of your hands, you would grin too.

From the way CEOs and editors keep defending the brain-dead programming on Hindi channels, you would think that the population of morons is galloping in the country.

Thankfully, the contrary is true.

Every time we question their stupid content decisions, the channels come out with facts and figures to silence us. They tell us how their cut-and-paste coverage of Rakhi Sawant’s “swayamvar” walloped Manmohan Singh’s second coming in the TRPs.

That argument settles it. The viewer is responsible for the puerile news content. We are the perverts, they are our benefactors who give us our daily fix without which we will wilt and die.

The channels have used this twisted logic to not just absolve themselves of the falling standards of news on TV but to give an impression that the only way to protect or grow their business in the Hindi news genre is to cater to this growing tribe of perverts.

Well then, here’s the breaking news. The perverts are not growing, they are dwindling. Let’s grab this rare chance to throw some figure in their face, for a change:

Year                 Share

2006                 7.61% (9 channels)

2007                 8.03% (11 channels)

2008                 7.89% (11 channels)

2009                 5.85% (11 channels)

(Source: TAM, HSM CS 15+)

These are the year-wise market share figures for the news genre. The TV viewership universe consists of various genres such as general entertainment, infotainment, movies, sports, news, etc.

The stats above show that in 2006, the news genre (nine Hindi “national” news channels) had an average share of 7.61% of the overall TV viewership. That is, 7.61 out of every 100 viewers watched news then. The figure rose to 8.03% for 11 channels in 2007, dropped a little to 7.89% in 2008 and dived to a pitiful 5.85% in 2009.

From the highest (in 2007) to the lowest (in 2009), it is a sharp fall of 27 per cent. In other words, in the last two years alone, the Hindi news universe has shrunk by more than one-fourth. Any other industry would consider such a steep fall in market share as catastrophic, but not the Hindi news industry. The Hindi industry assumes that there will always be a good number of masochists to help it survive.

If there is one crisis that is facing the Hindi news industry, it is this. Much as the industry tries to paint a picture of the viewer as a willing consumer of pulp, the ground is slipping under its feet. It is clear that the average viewer has had enough of nonsense and is turning off. And yet, I have never heard any CEO or editor talk about this looming danger at any industry meet or interview. Talk of living in denial.

But that’s so typical of the channel-wallahs. They will just shut out the inconvenient truths. They will never tell you that sensible programming also brings in the numbers as often as popcorn journalism and that they do more of the latter just because it is easier and cheaper to cut-paste content from entertainment channels than to create their own.

Let me illustrate this with just the example of one channel, Star News, which has over the last few months tried to correct the balance between sense and nonsense. The pains it took to create some special programmes paid off with ratings way above the channel average, sometimes turning in double or nearly three times that (Star News’ channel TRPs average around 14/15).

Here’s a quick list:

• Uttradhakari, a special show on Rahul Gandhi, turned in 21% share.
• Tiranga, their I-Day special gave an astounding 33%
• Vansh, on the Thackeray family, 26%
• Vansh, on the Mahajan family, 19%
• Raj Ka Uday, on Raj Thackeray, 22%
• Mere Khoon Ka Ek Ek Katra, on Indira Gandhi’s death anniv, 32%

If that is not indication that the viewer is more than willing to spend his time on good content, what is? The difficulty is that such content needs a lot of planning, travelling, spending and ideating and the other content (of the Rakhi Swayamvar type) comes easy, packaged, and free. The former content takes time and effort to build a brand and bring in the TRPs and the latter brings instant gratification.

Most CEOs and editors have resolved this stand-off between instant gratification and long-term returns in favour of the former. It is beyond their capacity and vision to change the game now and play for the future. That is a call only the owners can take because it could mean taking a hit for a bit and the possibility of failure is real, too.

That’s the crucial difference between News 24 and Zee News. The owners of News 24 started with the “news is back” proposition but quickly abandoned it. They did not have enough faith in news and took the silly route within no time. That has not given them any great business advantage. The proprietors of Zee News gave a clear diktat to return to sensible news and stay with it. They risked falling ratings and business. That clarity and patience has helped Zee News gain respectability without hurting its profitability.

If tomorrow all Hindi news channels were to suddenly pull the plug on stupid content, what would the viewer do, stop watching news? Nah, even if it is true that the viewers hate sensible content (the channels keep telling us that all the time) they would still have no choice but to watch the channels.

So, the burden of change is on the channels, not the viewers. If only more owners had Subhash Chandra’s guts.