The greatest editor since Gandhi
To make matters worse, of the editors who made the grade none were willing to appear on TV for the final countdown because they felt it was a "cheap gimmick."
AJITH PILLAI on a grand project which came to naught. Website for image: printsasia.com
Dipped in Witriol
AJITH PILLAI
Listings begat listings, razors a few nicks and speeding cars some close shaves. So, almost as if in continuation of this (should we prefix “cosmic” for gravitas?) cycle, a group of ten neo Gandhians (young Indians who returned home from the US after they burnt their fingers on Wall Street) embarked on an ambitious search last month for the “Greatest Living Editor After Gandhi.” The effort was admittedly inspired by the countdown on a popular TV news channel of the “Best Gandhian after Ben Kingsely” and “The most travelled food critic before Vir Sanghvi.”
Anyway, that apart, after the Group of Ten sat eight days before the idiot box wisdom dawned. The Nirvana moment was celebrated by a leap in the air by the pack’s leader— Non Violins Vijay (NVV). Yes, he’s the very same gent who acquired this name during his naïve days in the Big Apple when he tried to persuade street-side fiddlers to give up their instruments since he foolishly thought the Mahatma stood for non-violins. In fact, there was a point when this exercise pushed him into deep depression. But he bounced back and became an institution of sorts when he placed ads in papers announcing he had re-discovered gravity after a rotten NY apple fell on his head.
Ever since his return from New York three years ago NVV has been trying to figure out some event to honour the Father of the Nation. Then came the “Greatest Living Editor After Gandhi” project. (For those not in the know the Mahatma edited six journals and took his journalism rather seriously). What NVV & Co did was to distill the set of standards enunciated by Gandhi into contemporary commandments to serve as a touchstone for a panel set up to chose our best Eds. Here’s what, in the eyes of the Mahatma, would be the ideal journalist/editor:
- One who does not run the paper for advertisements.
- A journo who believes his profession is best when it’s unselfish and devotes its best for the service of the country (service not to be confused with excellence in tennis or plying guests with too much food at dinners).
- An Ed who has access to newsprint (not for selling it in the black market) or other media but who remembers that the press is a great power, “but just as an unchained torrent of water submerges whole countryside and devastates crops, even so an uncontrolled pen serves but to destroy.”
- A scribe who does not indulge in dangerous speculation since “all that appears in papers (and TV) is looked upon as God’s truth…That is bad.”
- Someone who uses his discretion, as to what to report and when to do so and “stick to facts alone” and who believes journalism is not the art of “intelligent anticipation of events.”
- An editor who, when he errs does not hesitate to confess his mistake…
Armed with these six guiding points, the jury, a wizened dozen from different walks
(those who discuss current affairs, Arvind Kejriwal and electricity bills while they navigate around Delhi’s Lodhi Garden included) began to scrutinize the 100 names to shortlist 20 from among them. They met at a five star, but in deference to the Gandhian spirit stuck to a minimalist daily diet of a litre of goat’s milk, 150 gms cereals, leafy vegetables, fruits, ghee and jaggery.
Despite this frugal intake, the panel completed its task in six days leaving the seventh as a day of rest. The final results showed that only 15 among the 100 editors even managed to fit the bill. And those who did were from non-descript papers or ran websites. They did not belong to the elite set who dish out their wisdom on prime time. In fact, the jury’s report was telling. “Going by the six point guideline given to us very few,” it said “could even qualify.”
According to the report, editors, perhaps journalists as well, fell into five categories:
FOG (friends of the government/Nehru-Gandhis); FOO (friends of the Opposition); FOK (friends of Kejriwal) FOC (friends of confusion) and SOM (slaves of marketing).The first lot justified every action of the government and any criticism of it was seen as anti-reforms and hence anti-national. The FOO put their weight behind the Opposition and scoffed even at any good that the government did. Those who fell into the third category backed India Against Corruption (IAC) and wanted all political parties disbanded except those willing to be audited and certified as taint free by Kejriwal. The confused bracket comprised those who were FOG on Monday, FOO on Tuesday, FOK on Wednesday and SOM on Thursday. And those beholden to marketing were editors who compromised news for advertising.
The neo-Gandhians and Non Violins Vijay (NVV) were naturally not too pleased with the fifteen names selected by the jury. To make matters worse, of the editors who made the grade none were willing to appear on TV for the final countdown because they felt it was a ”cheap gimmick.”. “Our entire project has come to naught,” a visibly upset NVV told his Group of Ten. “The gala show on TV, for which I had lined up scholars, eminent editors(!) and Gandhians, just cannot happen with these jokers refusing to participate.”
Someone suggested that they could perhaps rope in the services of a survey agency which conducts polls in a jiffy. NVV thought about it for a while and said, “I know those chaps who list best schools, colleges or anything for that matter-- even tea stalls. But now it’s too late. Moreover, someone from the jury might squeal and we will be left with egg on our face—which, incidentally, is not a good prospect for vegans and Gandhians like us.”
So, it was a quiet October 2 for the Group of Ten. But they resolved that next year on Gandhi Jayanti they would put up a great show. “It must be something extraordinary,” declared NVV “like the greatest trend setter after Gandhi and Amitabh Bachchan. But before we zero in on anything, let us decide once and for all that we will have no jury-vury and will leave it all to a market research agency. They are unbiased and deliver the results we want. And yes, let us not draw up any guidelines or commandments. It only creates confusion…”