Image: 

Last week I attended a book launch – Haryana cadre IAS officer, Vivek Atray’s maiden attempt at writing a light-hearted fictitious account of the adventures of an average Joe struggling with life and love in the big city called Move On Bunny. Though I admit to not having finished reading the copy I picked up – and despite the author admitting to the tale being inspired randomly by his own life – it’s interesting to note that the novel is neither a diary of a civil servant, nor a take on the trials and tribulations of life as one. It is simply an artistic expression of someone whose thoughts are not merely an extension of a responsibility he is entrusted with – governing. Which brings me to the point the Chief Guest at the event made: must people with serious day jobs always take themselves seriously?

Though Chief Election Commissioner, S.Y. Quraishi’s self-deprecating humour had the audience in splits, he did leave me with a few key thoughts including the importance of being able to laugh at yourself. Most memorably, he spoke about how as a young SDM on one of his initial postings, he had taken the gardener to task about his duties, only to have the man turn around, fold his hands and say” “Sahab, aap mere 28vein SDM hain” (Sir, you are the 28th incumbent to hold the post while I have been here). Mr. Quraishi thought it was a wonderful reminder of the impermanence of power – a lesson that those enjoying it tend to forget ever so often.

At the same time I was reminded of another event I had attended last month: an open discussion organised by the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP), on the reporting of corruption by the Indian media. The conference followed the crescendo of the Anna-Hazare-led agitation, and panelists included activist Aruna Roy, lawyer Prashant Bhushan, TV journalists Rahul Kanwal from Headlines Today, IBN 7’s Ashutosh, Outlook reporter Saikat Datta, sociologist Yogendra Yadav and others. Now take a room full of journalists of every shade, throw in the day’s top newsmakers and you can imagine that the discussion was little short of a riot.

One question that was thrown up repeatedly was: whether the media should stick to only reporting facts, or was it also its duty to provoke? Now, every time I am flitting restlessly between news channels every evening, I am constantly struck by the difference in the reporting styles of channels like the BBC and our very own 24-hour news juggernauts. As the BBC’s correspondents go about their job of asking uncomfortable questions and reporting disturbing events, there is rarely a hint of emotion or subjectivity to their reportage or style of questioning.

On the other hand, Indian primetime news shows take up from a point located somewhere between the hysterical drama of daytime soaps and the urgency I presume would mark the run-up to Judgement Day. They not only provoke, but often slice and dice half-baked opinions masked as facts, badger guests and experts, use bizarre sound and light shows to re-enact souped-up versions of an event, all the while basking in the warmth of their power to do all of the above.

While I was at the Hindustan Times, a lot of people would ask me why the media always gave top billing to bad news. My answer was simple: in a newspaper full of reports and opinions, what do you like to read first? The fact that most of us spend a lot of time watching TV replays of news and poring over the City and Metro pages, listing the various evils of the past 24 hours, should be answer enough: the media, like any other industry, gives its consumers what they like. It is the same morbid curiosity that makes us read on about horrific accidents and murders, which makes me tune in to various news shows, night after night, to watch certain anchors run over their guests like speed trains. I agree with those of you who must be thinking 'but this is only one side of the story!'

It is. Like with most things, more grey areas exist than we usually account for, and so it is with the media. The balance between reportage and provocation is easier to appreciate when we realise the two are often not mutually exclusive. They often exist hand in hand, ready to prop up the other when required. The key is to remember the difference between the two. Information may be power but it is here that I am reminded not just of the impermanence of power but also of its judicious use.

As always, we would love to hear your views on the role that the media plays in shaping public opinion, even as it acts as a disseminator of information. Do write in to us with your comments, views, disagreements or even stories that perhaps make my point more clearly.

preeti.singh@9dot9.in