The triumph of views over news
The triumph of views over news
This week the Hoot begins a new column on the media
Hammer and Tongs
ALOKE THAKORE
It is an appalling underestimation that deems the reader/viewer unfit to understand and interpret, and an epic overestimation of their own selves that seems to have become part of the stock-in-trade of journalists. What else can explain the anchor ending her piece-to-camera (or stand-up) from Baroda with a homily on the deaths in the city and how for the families of those who were killed it would not matter whether they were Hindus or Muslims; or another anchor introducing his guest with a short narrative of his friendship with the analyst and the use of the superlative "best" to describe the analyst’s credentials. What else can explicate the newspaper report on Budhia Singh’s run that ends: Someone would have coached him to say that; or another newspaper report that begins: A crowd of furious parents…
What all these have in common is the triumph of views over news, opinions over facts, surmise over reportage, and adjectives over verbs.
It is not my contention that identities matter at the time of death. If, however, one has to appreciate the senselessness of violence based on ascriptive categories, listen to the fragility of human existence, or realize that death makes no distinctions then a perusal of Bhishma Sahani’s "Tamas", a reading of J. M. Synge’s "Riders to the Sea", or a visitation to the episode of the grieving mother who asks Buddha to revive the dead son would be salutary. Not a piece-to-camera regurgitating platitudes.
It is not my contention that superlatives should not be used to describe a guest. But the distinction that attends the analyst would have been more appropriately conveyed to the viewers by a listing of the number of books that the person has written, or the number of accurate political predictions the person has made. And one can even admit of the use of "best" if a quick bar chart with other television analysts would give the viewer a graphic of the number of times he has bested the others in the game of political punditry. As for citing personal friendship, one is a little skeptical about it being an exemplary case of openness in reporting to share with the viewers that only professional considerations brought the analyst to the studio. Grandiloquence is more like it.
It is not my contention that Budhia Singh was not tutored to utter those lines. One is aware of how set such pieces are. Recall the "Sare jahan se accha" reply of Rakesh Sharma when asked by Indira Gandhi on how India appeared from space. But the reporter does not know it. It may be a case of nationalism interpellating the consciousness of the young. Or may be the reporter betrays his belief about the intelligence of the readers when he tacks that last line to the quote to ensure readers do not get taken in by nationalist drivel. Or may be he believes that the reader is naïve and would not understand that kids are coached and tutored. Or may be the copy desk in their well-worn habit of not editing but rewriting and improving copy (or as subs say, making it readable) decided to give it a punchy ending. But one that was not based on facts.
Neither is my contention that parents protesting against fee hikes were not furious. But a narration of the protests would not have done. The reader had to be told with certainty that the parents were not angry, unhappy, outraged, enraged, dismayed, or disgusted. They were furious.
These cases are neither exemplary nor egregious. They are a random recollection of things seen or read. But they are the stuff of everyday newspaper and television journalism. The problem is the ease with which reporters conflate facts and opinions and the manner in which the desk are unaware of the uses of adjectives and adverbs.
It is the distinction between opinions and facts that forms the substance of journalism as a public practice, and it is the faith in this distinction that underlies the compact that readers and viewers have with a medium. Journalists, the readers believe in an ideal world, give us facts and we decide how to react. If one needs elaboration or analysis, then one seeks it from the opinion pages or the guests on a television show. The reporter is not assigned that job. Facts, one knows well, are never value-free or neutral. But the obvious insertion of opinion is one with the pulpit or the agitprop soap-box. In the mouths or pen of a journalist it is gratuitous, sententious, and at times, even deceitful.
Contact: hammerntongs@fastmail.in