Hammer and Tongs
ALOKE THAKORE
Newspaper owners and managers have been intrigued and are unable to come to terms with the apparent paradox of increasing print runs and declining readership figures. They have settled for a tweaking of the survey questionnaire that delivers the readership data and they hope that with some changes in the method the new figures would overcome any validity issues that may have resulted in the paradox. Whether or not such a thing will happen will be seen. However, a campaign carried out by a newspaper and its lack of impact, as the term in favour with the editors goes, tells us a simpler and in non-advertising terms more important story of newspaper readership, especially of an English language newspaper.
First, here are the facts of the case. The Metro pullout of The Telegraph has been running a campaign about the awful condition of traffic on the streets of Kolkata. Buses and autos drive recklessly. Accidents have become a daily feature and most, if not all, the deaths can be attributed to rash driving, buses racing on the congested streets, autos plying on the roads as if they were only meant for them, and so on. The campaign is called "TT for City, Killer Wheels". The stories have been relentless. The tone has been accusatory, especially towards political leaders, bus unions, police departments, and bus and auto drivers. Some days later, the newspaper carried a letter by a citizen who is angry and perplexed that despite the campaign nothing seems to be happening (Mr Srikanta Bhattacharjee¿s letter to the editor on the Opinion Page, 05.09.07). Accidents have not stopped. If anything, the number of people dying is increasing and each death is more heart rending than the other.
One could take a number of views on the inability of the highest circulating English newspaper in the city to have any impact. The baseless one would be that what The Telegraph writes about does not matter. The second could be that those who are in authority, such as the police who could become more stringent, the transport department that can take action against bus operators, the ruling party that counts these bus drivers and conductors among its ranks, the opposition that could force some action do not really read the newspaper or take it seriously. Or one could point that the newspaper written as it is in English has little or no purchase among those who could actually make a difference. The Metro pullout carried a story on those who could directly make a difference to the state of the roads. It was clear that those who were directly responsible were people who were not the readers of the newspapers.
This example, which is by no means unique, is one that allows us to examine this business of impact that seems to be the way in which editorial departments measure their own efficacy as a public enterprise and also in the way that many newspapers try to distinguish themselves from their peers. Also, stings that are the clamour of the day thanks to the teacher episode have often been justified on the grounds of changes that they bring about. Let us ask the question directly: Do newspaper stories have an impact? And if so, what kind of impact do they have and in what manner does the impact takes places?
There are myths on this. None more potent than the Watergate one that tells people that the president of a country was forced out of office because of intrepid journalism. As scholars like Michael Schudson and others have pointed out, there could be nothing further from the truth. Without the efforts of the legislature, the Senate in this case, it would have been inconceivable to bring out the truth and Richard Nixon would not have waved his final goodbye as he stood on the presidential chopper for one last time.
Newspapers at home have also taken credit for exposing many wrong doings. There is a crucial difference between exposing an error and righting it. And the more widespread is the nature of the error the more attenuated becomes the ability of the newspaper or media to do anything about it. And when the language and means of communication about the problem are different from that of the readers, it is well nigh impossible to get even a marginal behavioural change. The response of the transport minister and the leader of the opposition in
But the response could not be anything but that. What we have in place among the bus drivers is an incentive structure that favours competing for custom on the roads and among auto drivers a political empowerment that makes them first ignorant of rules and then resolutely insolent in the way they treat these rules. These give rise to a behaviour that becomes habitual and may well remain even when incentives are withdrawn or political patronage taken away from them. The media, the newspaper in this case, is expecting them to change behaviour. And in this case is speaking in a language they do not care for.
The hope is that the pieces, or campaign, through a two-step process first converts the system, gets changes in the rules and then is able to ensure implementation of these changes and get the desired change in behaviour. The response is being expected from not those directly responsible, but those who may have a coercive or hortatory influence on the target group. And that is fine. But the degree to which it can be effective is only limited. When there is a wide scale behavioural change that is expected, communication, especially of the journalistic reporting kind, is at best just one among many parts of an entire strategy that needs to be followed. Social marketers have noted this for long.
Even the two-step flow of communication from the media is more like a multi-step process. The effectiveness of the media can only be in getting an executive step initiated. A probe ordered or an enquiry committee set up. On matters where the general will of the people has to be made or changed, there has to be a connection between the message that is sent, the language in which it is communicated, the presence of a constant pressure group that forces the initiatives through channels of governance and at the same time carries out a mass campaign.
All of these are not possible when an English language paper in
The chance still remains. If Ananda Bazar Patrika carries out a campaign and The Telegraph stops it, and then we see a change in driving behaviour, we may have a marginally better case for measuring, even if purely anecdotally, the impact of newspapers. Though if existing theories are to be believed, and yes despite all the evidence that theories offer by way of their ability to explain phenomenon there is always an element of belief attached to them, such change is unlikely to happen.
That is no reason for newspapers not to highlight wrong, run campaigns, have an oppositional fibre, and occasionally show that they indeed have a backbone. The mistake is to believe that they have the ability to engender impact. Impact belongs to the world of multivariate causality. Newspapers should leave effect and impact alone. Just get on with the business of reporting and reporting facts. The hope is always that the population through modes of representation adequately takes up causes that the media bring to our collective notice. But that is politics and that is another matter.