A business of bias

Other than helping us waste time in fashion, Twitter's greatest achievement has to be its exposure of hypocrisy practised by political journos in our country. People who otherwise hide behind lengthy articles in newspapers end up showing their agenda-based journalism in their 140-character tweets. The least one can expect from politico-journos (given how much they help shape the conscience of the country, unlike say a sports journalist) is fairness.  Maybe that's too much to ask for. Nowadays, different journalists have different leanings and their reportage are laden with personal opinion instead of recorded facts. Of course, they have every right to voice their beliefs but shouldn't they be sensitive before making blatant statements that reeks of prejudice? Their political standings reflect heavily on their outlook, which is quite dangerous when they are meant to be the messengers of reality, not harbinger of imagination. Secondly, they have to ensure that they know what they are talking about, especially online. One week, you defend burqa saying it's a woman's choice to wear what she wants and the next, you mock Karwa Chauth citing its patriarchal leaning. One week, you find everything right with China and the next, you are wondering why India's democracy is hollow. Seriously? 

Fading away closely

I've been saying for the past two years (like an unqualified soothsayer) that print journalism is going to die in five years. As of today, i'm either stuck in a time warp or things are indeed moving slowly. Overall, readership has gone down steadily across the board. Not a single daily can claim that it's doing phenomenally well. Every player is more or less struggling in the market. Which might give us a peek into the forces behind falling journalistic standards. The only sliver of monetary hope comes from the corporate end who constantly pump in money for exposure, which ultimately translates into revenue for the concerned publication. On the other end of the spectrum, aam janta is spoilt for choice. Add to it the rising shadow of technology. Why would one spare change for buying a newspaper when they can easily get the same on their phone? However people conveniently forget that they might be paying more in internet charges to avail such finger-ticking services. Just imagine the bandwidth a person would be spending if he were to go through all the articles published in any given newspaper. Now, you might ask why would anyone do that? Why would you want to go through ALL the articles? Exactly. That's also one of the many excuses that's proving my prophecy wrong and keeping the print journalism from dying—for the time being.

Skipping from lesson to lesson

A journalist who works for a daily can't really afford a hangover. At least not during weekdays. However, the journo in our story learnt it the hard way. He got hammered the night before he was supposed to meet a top cop for a sensitive scoop. No surprise he barely woke up on time and somehow rushed to the venue. Having made his interviewee wait for about half an hour, the disheveled scribe's body language reeked of apology. Anyway, he put his hand into his bag to take out his dictaphone so as to get started. Much to his horror, instead of a silver-coloured recording device, a black-tinted remote control came out in his grip. A drunk man does a lot of things but replacing one electronic gadget with another was a revelation to him. Mr Journalist couldn't help musing whether it was possible to just click the red power button and get out of the extended nightmare. Desperate, he tried that too. Not happening. Thus, he was about to regret his decision to go drinking the previous night when a towering voice quipped, "I'm glad you didn't bring your TV along with it."

Woes of a lazy journo

This piece was supposed to be written by a former trade journalist but she's apparently too lazy to do the needful. What's intriguing though is the behavioral interpretation of whether she was/became lazy before/after she switched careers. However, what we expect of journos is that they are meant to be on their feet 24/7 with their eyes and ears wide open. But then there are exceptions too. Not all scribes are like Clark Kent (just so you know Superman has quit his job as a journalist and is currently vella!). If that weren't the case, the present standards in media wouldn't have been in love with gravity. There are people who take things for granted and it has more to do with their personalities and less to do with their profession. So what makes a mediaperson complacent? Is it the rigorous call of duty? Or are there other reasons? For instance, transcribing is considered a bane in print media. Conducting interviews is not half as cumbersome as the task that lays ahead. Typing while listening to the dictaphone lets a journalist acknowledge how indolent s/he can truly be. Media often abuses its right to speak out of turn but it's funny how you can't transcribe out of turn. You've got to wait for the interviewee to finish the sentence and then you can go ahead and twist the quotes! This is just one example of how the sinful sloth works against you. There are many more. Besides, journalism is where you get more things done out of laziness than not. And the trick is to put the know in journo and the media in immediately.

Naam ke liye kaam!

The worst part about being a two-bit wannabe film journo is you have to keep reminding yourself that you're a two-bit wannabe film journo. Though you can choose to be sincere about your job, one of the drawbacks of being an honest journalist is not many acknowledge your integrity. Furthermore, irresponsible citizenry is forgiven but irresponsible journos aren't. In the end, it all boils down to two genuine matters: byline and money. Now, byline is a word we use for credit but nobody actually cares about it except that guy who wrote the article. To common readers, it doesn't matter who wrote what. They don't bother with the lonely name stated at the beginning or the end of the printed piece. Talking of money, there's a reason why a journalist's job involves constantly changing jobs—apart from being a journalist! Money is always THE issue with any given publication. No wonder journalism, at present, somewhat lacks the urge in resurgence and ideal journalism is nothing more than an oxymoron. Nonetheless, writing shouldn't be confused with reporting. A writer doesn't have to tell you the way things are. Some tasks are better left to journalists. Khushwant Singh knows this perfectly well as he might be older than journalism. Notwithstanding the facts, my experience as a wannabe film journo has taught me one rhyming lesson: Your views aren't necessarily the news readers can use. And coming back to my financial status, I'm a poor man's journalist who wants to die rich. But at the same time, i also realize that the trick is to avoid trading one's invisible soul for visible bylines.

Yes Saar, K?

Not that anyone is complaining but I haven’t updated my lousy blog in quite a long time. The reason behind this era-distorting act lies in my changing of priorities. In other words, I’ve got priorities now. Like beauty queens from India who think becoming a Hindi actress will save the world, I too am an entertainment journo now. Sorry, I forgot to add the word ‘wannabe’ in my previous sentence. But for all it’s worth, I’m busy chasing Bollywoodians nowadays and I’ve somehow convinced myself that this will ultimately save the world.

So far, so rude? Well, not exactly.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been meeting people from B-Town and I’ve got to admit I’m amazed and perplexed at the same time. Amazed by some big stars’ down-to-earthness and perplexed by some not-so-big-stars’ defiance of gravity. For instance, I met King Khan last week and passive-smoked three cigarettes within 16 minutes. I didn’t mind it since he came across as someone who knows what he’s talking about and answered all my queries. He was sharp, philosophical, witty and seemed very well-read. And by well-read, I mean he appeared to have read my conjectural article that got published in January!

I met other Bolly A-listers too but it’d be better if I don’t disclose them now. Maybe I should wait until I figure out where exactly to use ‘wannabe’ in a sentence.

Know news is good news!

Disclaimer : No journalist or media-person was harmed during the making of this blog post.

You wake up everyday. I’m sure you woke up today, too. Once you are done with that, you get started with your routine. And one of the commonest human rituals is to read newspaper or to switch on the TV for news. (Unless you are one of those lucky people who are illiterate but content with their mundane ignorance!) Now, if your day begins with news, what does it say about you as a person? You are curious? Yup, always been. Want to stay abreast of current affairs? Great!

But what exactly do you do with all that you read and learn and watch presented under the garb of news? Nothing, in most cases. Following news is just another evolutionary practice inculcated into our daily life for knowledge’s sake. There is not much one can do about a majority of stuff out there on the paper or screen. So why are we so fond of news, be it good or bad? Because we are an entertainment-loving species and news is gossip presented in a very refined manner. As elementary as that.

On a personal scale, I relish half-baked truths. I have them for breakfast daily. The French in me calls it biscuit. They call it news. To add to the misery, I read something or the other every morning which tells me I should quit reading them. But I never do. In fact, the recent events revolving around Rupert Murdoch made me realize that even some of the oldest media giant might go down for news. Meanwhile, I’ve got no doubt that the world would miraculously change for the better the day we stopped reading newspapers. But then, even if I switched to TV, I’d still be hopeless. After all, in India, the thin line separating TV news from TV soaps is almost invisible now. And this has been the case long before Arnab decided to put the media in comedian.

You see, there might be absolutely nothing out there to report but our media will beautifully turn it into news for gab-hungry masses. Anyone can create news out of thin air. If nothing else works, the media can report on the thinness of the air. [No, wait, the weather bureau is already doing that, aren’t they?] Moreover, watching news destroys a few of those newsworthy moments that could have been ours. Being the minions that we are, we’ll never know what is true and what is being reported as true. Unfortunately, rumours won't give up on news at any cost and vice versa. Fortunately, the spread of fire will never catch up with the spread of its news.

One lesson newspaper teaches us every single day – better not believe every crap you read. Times changes, perceptions changes and of course, news changes. Remember when they got Osama (at last) and how he got killed by breaking news? No one was allowed to see his face nor his dead body but we somehow managed to gulp the shoddy information of his demise. At that moment, the less you looked out for news, the more you’re convinced of the sheer wastage of time and energy.

And the hard part is when they collect too many viewpoints at once and make you look confused than a newborn dinosaur. Goes without saying, the plural of news is nuisance. As a part of social experiment, we should read last week's newspapers and ascertain its relevance in present day, if at all. Or not check news, at all.

You’ll never come across a channel which will go “We’ve got breaking news for you! Damn. We just broke it!” That’s the whole point. There’s hardly anything sacred about truth or news or journalism at large. I don’t mean to sound cynical but everything is commerce now-a-minutes. And the day each one of us is happy is the day news dies.