For biggest slice of ad pie........ Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard / May 21, 2017

For biggest slice of ad pie, media places histrionics and sycophancy over credible news

The medium is now more malarkey than message; a conduit of discord, disorder and dementia. For the past few months, media mashers have been flinging more vitriol at Indian news organisations than at politicians, criminals and sundry lawbreakers. The “dog doesn’t bite dog” principle no longer holds. The disparaging monikers flying thick and fast can stupefy the most ardent synonym seeker—paid media, biased media, sponsored media, sycophantic media and agenda-driven media. The press is not facing the ire of just its traditional adversaries, it’s under siege from within.

As news organisations place bottom lines and valuations above bylines and validity of news in dictating the nature of content, media personalities are at war with one another. Last week, prominent English news channels were battling over the TRP ratings of a newly launched channel, which shook the smug supremacy of the high and mighty with disruptive marketing techniques. Their confrontation was not over the quality or credibility of content. The veterans accused the new arrival of manipulating viewership figures by violating established legal procedures. The histrionics, normally reserved by the brotherhood of bytes for lawbreakers, was unleashed against their own brethren. The battle for dominance is no longer between the press and politics, but is a series of skirmishes aimed at creating artificial readership and viewership to attract more revenue than creating credible news. This internecine war could demolish the myth that a good content is king.

Croesus colours content with prejudice and malice. News is no longer the illuminating dissemination of information sans indoctrination; it’s now a commercial quantity hawked using the tricks of the trade for selling other consumer products—faking numbers, hyping quality and manipulating the tools and techniques to eviscerate competition.

Numbers are the nemesis of net worth. The Armageddon of Airwaves began last week when the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) accused the upstart Republic TV of using unfair methods to grab TRPs. The NBA asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to intervene. It also approached the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) to hold the release of the new channel’s viewership data for illegally listing itself under multiple genres across cable distribution networks. But BARC defied the NBA, declaring the new kid on the block a clear winner by miles ahead of established news channels such as Times Now, NDTV, India Today, CNN-News18. If Republic TV’s figures are correct, it has created history in TV journalism by beating all its rivals in its first week of launch. Unnerved by its spectacular success, its rivals have decided to quit BARC.

However, the gruesome glove game is not confined to the electronic media. Earlier in 2014, the dispute over the findings of the Indian Readership Survey, by the Readership Studies Council of India and Media Research Users’ Council (MRUC), became serious when several Indian Newspaper Society members met in New Delhi to demand its withdrawal within 24 hours. Interestingly, both BARC and MRUC are owned by media companies and advertising agencies. Both stand accused of favouring some of their own powerful members by manipulating field research. In this tragedy of transparency, nobody’s linen is clean; Republic TV mysteriously acquired more viewership in Tamil Nadu by exceeding its distribution target. Manipulation fathers media mirages; a certain survey showed a particular newspaper had zero readership in a state where it publishes three editions.

It is evident that it’s not just news organisations, which are plagued with eroding credibility; so is content. Both BARC and MRUC have failed to offer plausible, fair methods of numerating viewership. The buzz in the industry circles is that the biased choices of advertising and marketing agencies, that collect data for BARC and MRUC, are responsible for the skewed findings. With a rising number of newspapers and TV channels flooding the market disproportionately to shrinking or static advertising budgets, the fight for the largest ad pie has blown the thermostat. Hence, a substantial part of news coverage is dictated by revenue considerations over quality parameters.

Until a couple of decades ago, trustworthy content grabbed the largest mindshare. Even newspapers and magazines with small circulations attracted ads inspired by their credibility. Readers were willing to pay for quality content. But once a media baron decided to offer newspapers almost free, the entire economics and ethics of journalism went into a sinister spiral.

For the past three decades, newspapers are being sold at less than one-tenth of their production costs. With the advent of over 300 news channels, the viewer gets free access to views and news. The current malaise in the media stems from the reality that the consumer is getting content at highly subsided rates or almost free. In their race for profit and burdened by a highly paid top-heavy management, India’s news outfits are dependent on the government and many dubious income sources to survive. Such revenue come with strings attached.

There were always holy cows in the news industry. Once owners and editors accepted short-term pain for long-term gain. Today the major threat to credibility is from media companies opting for short-term gain without realising that this perilous path will lead to long-term lethal pain. The desire for better access to the establishment or a horror of straining relations with advertisers is the driving principle behind choosing news for print or broadcast. Media owners and agents trot out fake numbers to impress and convince spenders and distributors about their reach without realising that genuine political leaders and credible corporates do not need them to expand their market share.

For example, Prime Minister Narendra Modi doesn’t need sycophantic debates, tilted news and craven columns to maintain his credibility. He is not a leader moved by the choice of panelists and columnists since he is the one dictating the news agenda with innovative governance. Yet, the media unabashedly engages in competitive sycophancy to attract his attention. The four ingredients of a healthy communication network are Content, Credibility, Conviction and Clarity. Unfortunately, in the indiscriminate pursuit of numbers, the media is composing its own elegy instead of scripting the obituary of those who threaten its independence and objectivity.  

prabhuchawla@ newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

As Messenger Becomes the Message ...... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ May 08, 2016

As Messenger Becomes the Message, Media Must Scrutinise Itself to Retain Reliability

The media is under threat from within. It is no longer seen as a credible medium. Its messages are massacred mercilessly. Never before has its credibility and dependability been under so much scrutiny. Profanities like crooks, paid media, sponsored news brokers, and ‘bhakts’ are heaped on journalists. As competitive and confrontationist politics, coupled with valuation and TRP-driven media organisations, dictates political engagement, the entire tribe has been tarred unilaterally with the black brush of scepticism. Numerous news outfits and prominent journalists are being exposed for their coloured ideological views instead of being lauded for earth-shattering news breaks. They are known for what they speak and not by what they write. Agenda-driven opinion and biased news peddled by some of us as ‘exclusive’ or explosive stories drive the print and electronic media. This has provided political parties and their promoters tactical tools to destroy the fourth pillar of democracy. Are newspersons the most preferred targets because they are asking too many inconvenient questions? Or because some of us do not mind our own business and meddle in someone else’s?

For the past few months, it is not political leaders but the media, which has been targeted by the social media and rampant rumour-mongers to tar and test the image of the journalists as a genre. Last week, over half a million references were made on myriad Internet platforms to unnamed scribes, who are suspected to be involved in defence deals in the past few years. According to media reports, one of the journalists was called for interrogation by investigative agencies. Another is under their scanner for receiving prodigious payoff from defence dealers. The agencies are yet to come to any conclusion. By not naming and shaming the journalists, the ruling establishment and power-seekers are shifting the blame from the real culprits to the fringe players. Journalists involved in shady criminal deals should be treated at par with other suspects. By revealing their names in public interest, the profession’s credibility as a whole will be rescued from ignominious insinuations. Jurists and legal luminaries are convinced that by going public with the names of those summoned for questioning on their role in the AgustaWestland and Rafale deals would only strengthen the case of the agencies and save various institutions from becoming victims of a sinister scheme.

Defence procurements are a major source of tainted money worldwide. Many global leaders have been named in scandals involving defence deals. It’s been proved that loot stashed in tax havens was from purchasing hardly required defence equipment. Over the past four decades, a multitude of dirty deals on Bofors guns, Scorpene submarines and fighter aircraft have been exposed. Since the Congress ruled India for over five decades, most such deals were signed on its watch; hence its leaders and followers have always been perceived as the suspects or beneficiaries. As India spends over $12 billion annually on importing defence hardware and software, this provides enough scope for middlemen, senior officials and their political masters to tailor specifications according to the highest bidder’s wishes. As the market for weapons, including fabulous flying machines, grows, multinationals hustling them use sophisticated skills to influence the decision-making process in the government. Some in the media and defence analysts and security experts have become the most sought-after influence peddlers. These corporations fund a multitude of well-funded think-tanks in the US, Europe and the UK to enrol prominent journalists, opinion writers and retired defence officials as faculty members or visitors. Many of these think-tanks have opened shop in India to camouflage their real mission. According to reliable sources, the government has already started the scrutiny of Indian frequent flyers, who spread their carbon footprint to participate in seminars dealing with defence and strategic issues. The inquiry is also aimed at unearthing the financial supporters of the think-tanks to discover if the defence industry is supporting any of the big fish. Some Indian civil servants, journalists and opinion-makers have been part of these institutions for short or long durations. 

Undoubtedly, there are some bad apples in the media basket. But that doesn’t give the enemies of freedom of expression the right to kill the medium through the massive and ominous use of state machinery, corporate muscle power and a malicious whisper campaign through the social media. With the rise of trolls as the most effective agents to counter propaganda-driven dissemination of views and news, the mainstream media is under pressure to mend the way it reports news. Some of us have gone cyber-active not to give news but unpalatable views against the established political and corporate order. Once journalism was an institution, which encouraged hard news rather than advertising the faces behind it. Young journalists were told to report facts and carry both sides of a story. Now many credible civil society leaders feel that numerous journalists draw conclusions first and use convenient facts to bolster their predetermined views. Many journalists express their opinions on the social media in a way that exposes their ideological or personal predilections. Some names are associated with a leader or a party. As journalists and media owners claim to be serving the  public cause, they are entitled to all the facilities and courtesies available to other institutions performing similar responsibilities. But if the media has to retain its reliability, it has to subject itself to robust scrutiny. All mediapersons should follow the same rules and regulations, which elected representatives do. The declaration of assets, contacts, corporate and political affiliations and sources of income by leading journos and editors would definitely help in restoring the people’s faith in the profession. So far, the media had the monopoly of seeking accountability in others. Times have changed. Now readers and viewers—the real patrons of the media—are asking it to be accountable or perish.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla