Archive for November 16th, 2006

KALAM: Why is the Indian media so negative?

16 November 2006

By A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM

Why is the media in India so negative?

Why are we in India so embarrassed to recognize our own strengths, our achievements? We are such a great nation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why?

We are the first in milk production.

We are number one in Remote sensing satellites.

We are the second largest producer of wheat.

We are the second largest producer of rice.

Look at Dr. H Sudarshan, he has transferred a tribal village into a self-sustaining, self-driving unit. There are millions of such achievements but our media is only obsessed in the bad news and failures and disasters.

I was in Tel Aviv once and I was reading the Israeli newspaper. It was the day after a lot of attacks and bombardments and deaths had taken place. The Hamas had struck. But the front page of the newspaper had the picture of a Jewish gentleman who in five years had transformed his desert into an orchid and a granary. It was this inspiring picture that everyone woke up to. The gory details of killings, bombardments, deaths, were inside in the newspaper, buried among other news.

In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism, crime. Why are we so NEGATIVE…?

Three cheers to the land of freedom and liberty

16 November 2006

The good news is that English language channel of Al Jazeera is finally broadcasting. The bad news is major American cable and satellite service providers in that wonderful country have refused to carry the feed.

Now, that must really drive home to the “Eyeraqees” how much Uncle Sam treasures the freedom and liberty Dubya & Gang have been trying to sow on their soil.

Say hello to Clifford Kincaid, editor for a conservative press watchdog group, Accuracy in Media: “If Congress can review a foreign-owned company taking over American ports, they ought to take a look at the operation of a foreign-government sponsored television channel.”

Al Jazeera English may or may not become a global force like BBC and CNN. But here’s a thought: why is it that mammoth India with all its money and freedom has failed to fill the void while tiny Qatar has?

Anybody seen this very important item?

16 November 2006

We get a few weird calls every now and then. One came a while ago. A reader said he was really disappointed by the fact that we didn’t have an inch on the delimitation of constituencies today, although it was the lead story in our elder-sister newspaper.

“All the other papers had it, why didn’t you?” the man hollered down the line. Every one here–from “Critic” Roshan downwards to “Son of Srikantaiah”—has seen the day’s papers, and we are still trying to find out who else carried the VK exclusive.

CONTEST: Rs 500 and a book to be won

16 November 2006

So you think you are the smartest journalist in the City? Well, here is a chance to prove it without using Google.

“We are the best”, the editorial blog on the most buzzing newsroom in Bangalore, is pleased to announce its first contest. It is a set of 10 easy questions. Answer them by 5 pm (IST) on November 18, 2006, and post it here by way of a comment. The winner will be picked by a draw of lots, and will get Rs 500 in cash and a book of the kind you should really be reading.

(The judge’s decision will be final and non-negotiable; all disputes will be subject to Chamarajpet SLV jurisdiction)

**

1) How long did the Hundred Years War last?2) Which country makes Panama hats?

3) From which animal do we get catgut?

4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October revolution?

5) What is a camel’s hair brush made of?

6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after hat animal?

7) What was King George VI’s first name?

8) What color is a purple finch?

9) What country do Chinese gooseberries come from?

10) How long did the Thirty Years War last?

JOHN SIMPSON: Secrets of Great Reporting

16 November 2006

The fundamentals of great reporting

by John Simpson, political editor, BBC

(Courtesy: greatreporter.com)

So, what makes a good reporter? Well, there are a number of qualities that you’ll need and among them are a real sense of curiosity; a profound interest in details and that real instinct that makes you want to grab people by the lapels and tell them what you’re doing.

When I see someone who has those of qualities, I know they’re someone I’d want to work with and that they’re going to succeed.

Once you’ve on top of whatever it is you’re covering, I think the key is to stay with it. It’s easier sometimes to follow the temptation to leave, but I think the key thing is just to stick with it and not panic, despite what you hear or what all the other journalists do. Journalists in numbers are often like sheep and they panic easily when rumours sear through the system about what’s going to happen when a story breaks.

In my experience, it’s best to stay, hang on a little longer and keep going. I feel I’ve kept on going in my career when things were hard, when I didn’t see much of a future and it’s that endurance that gets you the prizes in the end.

For many, it’s getting in that is key. Most readers, I’m sure, are already all to aware that the doors are going to be closed. Journalism is a nasty, clubby little outfit which judges people on all the wrong sorts of judgements, like who they know, how old they are and what their background is as opposed to what they are themselves. But it’s one of those things you just have to accept and understand. If you can understand it and sort of accept it – not that that’s in any way an easy thing to do – then I think, very slowly, you tend to get there.

Journalism is very much a business where the problems lay early on. So ‘Don’t give up too soon!’ It does take bit of time to get yourself known and to get yourself respected and until that happens, you’re not going to get an awful lot of work in the mainstream – that’s why Greatreporter.com is a lovely idea because it has stepped in to bridge the gap, in part.

An impressive portfolio is critical to your initial success in passing those doors. The quality of the stories you produce for that portfolio far outweigh the locations you are writing them from. If you’re based in England and you uncover criminal activity in Bradford and write it up well, it would be better than going off to Argentina and covering something everyone else had gone to cover.

However, once you have a sufficiently impressive portfolio of published work the market poses an additional problem in attaining work at the moment, and that is the state of the market.

From my own perspective, and I am involved in radio and television, I can say that both of these fields are still growth industries.

There are more television stations starting up and succeeding, with Bloomberg, the financial news channel being a prime example. Bloomberg was nothing just a few years ago before it came to London, which incidentally remains capital of the global news industry. Companies like Bloomberg that have made the right moves are on the way up and that means they need staff. The BBC too is going to be looking for younger people, because it’s younger people who give it the sort of enthusiasm and the staying power it needs.

So go to these organisations and bang on doors. Go in and see people, don’t be put off. Be prepared to stand around and be treated like dirt and all the other things that these characters often enjoy doing while you sit there with your head down giving it your all. “One day” may seem like a hell of a long time when you’re in your early twenties, but when you get to my age you realise what a short trip it was and how quickly your career progresses, whereas at the time, it seemed like an eternity of waiting.

In terms of studying to enter journalism, I think most of the related courses out there are reasonably good. There are some very serious courses and some very serious teachers like my former boss, Ian Hargreaves [Professor of Journalism at Cardiff University and former Editor of The Independent]. He is now the doyenne of all university journalism teachers.

It’s always going to be a temptation to continue studying rather than to begin your professional career in earnest because academia affords you another few years in which to think things over and try to find a way of making a living.

If the doors don’t open first time, you think: “Well I’ll go back and study for a few years and I’ll come back afterwards,” but of course, things aren’t necessarily going to be any easier if you do. You gain a great deal from academic courses but I think you gain more from getting a job first off. Well, good luck trying!

Once you get yourself in, you have to accustom yourself to the traditional working system wherever you end up. It’s not necessarily the right way to do it, but it’s the only way in the early stages that everyone will demand you do it. Keep a sense of your own individuality and when you see traditional methods of working are a lot of nonsense, just bide your time until such time as you can change it.

What key skills should you bring with you? Well, I think it’s difficult to do the job without being able to speak a few languages and without being able to write in shorthand, though personally, I never learnt it. I wish I had it because it could have come in quite handy, but in some ways not having it makes you quicker on your feet and more resourceful, according to my own prejudice. I wish I had studied languages at university but sadly languages are less important now that when I was starting out because English is so widely spoken.

Aside from specific skills, something that impresses me are self-starters who have gone and covered a story well using nothing but their nous and determination. These are very often not easy or safe things to do and I think you have to be more careful than your instinct suggests. People will do whatever comes to hand, and they’ll hopefully come back with the goods. Certainly big international stories are often far too cluttered up with people who don’t really know that they’re doing though, and unfortunately, can come a cropper as a result.

The last big example of this was the siege of Sarajevo between 1992-95. Because of its proximity to Western Europe and consequent cheap airfares it quickly filled up with slightly excitable people who were there for a cause. It used to be quite irritating for those of us who were there to report. Having said that, that doesn’t mean anything in the individual case and I think the thing to do is just to avoid the big and obvious examples and go and do something more interesting and harder to do. I would much rather have someone come to me who had just been to Tibet and had got some good material there, rather than someone who had gone to where everybody else was going.

I really do detest that whole business of “going off to war” and I urge young journalists to be careful of it. The term actually quiet offends me because it brings to mind all those kinds of people who think wars are exciting places to make their names. I have little more than contempt for that because wars are simply the nastiest and most dreadful things that happen and for anybody to rub their hands with glee and regard it as a good opportunity I must say I find absolutely despicable. It happens a great deal.

In 1994, during the South African election, when the ANC took power, vast numbers of people, including lots of young reporters who had gone there to make their names, turned up in the hope it was going to turn in to a civil war, as a lot of people said it was going to. They were deeply disappointed when it turned out to be one of the most remarkable political achievements of the 20th Century, and some left for home in disgust. I think to have left one of the most exciting and most remarkable moments in that fashion is its own punishment. As you can probably tell, I’m not very enthusiastic about the whole “gun-ho going off to war would-be war correspondent.”

Have such practices changed the way news works? Not since the middle of the 19th century. I used to talk to my friend, Martha Gellhorn, who was a reporter in the Spanish Civil War. She said it was the same back then with large numbers of enthusiasts who were half cheerleaders and half journalists trying to make a name for themselves, and how irritating she found it all.

Martha felt she had a job to do, rather than a name to make. The focus must be on what’s happening in the place and to the people and the most important thing is not: “I, John Simpson, am there to make a name for myself” this is real life and this is other people’s real lives and it’s not some sort of entertainment that’s been put up for one’s own benefit to make a name from. I don’t want anything to do with people like that.

Saying that, I do condone the enthusiasm real young professionals show. I really wished I’d done more of it myself but when I was just staring out but I got married and briefly settled down: not the best thing in a sense for somebody who really had to make his way in the world.

My wife (now ex-wife) and I had two children and for quite some time – five or six years – I was a dutiful wage earner and husband. It was a mistake I never made again.

Putting my family and life in London first meant I didn’t go to Vietnam, which I really, really should have done. I didn’t go to the Prague spring of 1968, and I didn’t go to Paris for the student riots, all of which I would have done for the BBC or on my own account. It was only after 1970, when I’d been with the BBC for four years that I started to take real risks. I went to Northern Ireland for the first time, and everything proceeded from there. It was a slow start and I feel there were early years in my career that I really wasted. I really wish I’d had a bit more determination.

You have to be careful to get your priorities right.

Get it right and the awards and prizes come. Neither should be very important to reporters, but it is very nice to get them and very frustrating when you don’t.

I’ve sat in award ceremonies when I know how much hard work I’ve done, for instance, during the revolutions of 1989 and 90, when the Berlin Wall came down and all the different Eastern European countries collapsed. I was the only person on earth who covered all of those stories one after the other and did them moderately well. I sat at some big awards ceremony and heard the award go to somebody who had covered a quarter of it and had actually left most of the hard work to their producer to do.

Of course, you feel like saying: “Damn! That belonged to me,” but if that’s why you’re in it that’s the wrong motivation; so you smile when the camera’s on you, grin, clap enthusiastically and think to yourself: “Next year I’ll do better.”

What is interesting – and I have found this time and time again – is that people quickly forget your achievements. The reporting business in general is not about you but what you’ve gone to see. Of course, you want people to like everything you do, but that’s not the important thing. Telling everybody what’s going on is and if they remember you, they tend to remember the story if you’ve done a good enough job.

Can a real journalist ever retire? I don’t know. I’m not sure I count as a real journalist. Personally, I don’t want to.

Martha Gellhorn was still writing about street kids in Rio at the age of 88. But it depends on your health; it depends on your family. Martha was going blind and she was very poorly towards the end, but she managed to get there and did the job.

By the time I’m 88 I’m sure everybody will have long forgotten me and if I tried to do something I don’t suppose I would succeed. It’s just a question of luck really and the luck is mainly to do with physical endurance and sticking with it.

Is Bangalore made of exactly three and a half celebs?

16 November 2006

An issue which should bother all of us in the profession these days is how few new names modern day journalism is throwing into print. And how little we are doing to do so.
If it’s Bangalore and IT, all we can think of Narayana Murthy and Premji. If it’s IT companies, all we can think of is Infosys and Wipro. If it’s a theatre guy, it’s Mahesh Dattani. If it’s a painter, it’s Yusuf Arakkal. If it’s an author, it’s Anita Nair. If it’s a fashion designer, it’s Manoviraj Khosla.

Surely, there’s more to life than these three-and-a-half worthies?

These thoughts came to mind when proofs of Soumita Majumdar‘s BVT story were brought into the office. The story—again tomorrow’s news today, which other competing blogs will not give you, please note—is about glamourous mothers. But the only person we identify in the pictures is Malaika Arora, who can be identified even if her face is masked (that’s a “double meaning dialogue”).

But what about the rest? Are there no other glamourous mothers we should introduce to the world or at least to ourselves? Shouldn’t the reporter make the effort? Shouldn’t the photographer have taken notes? The role applies to this story and every other.

We must show that this wonderful city comprises a lot more people than we in the media would care to admit.

Haphazard or neat, take your pick

16 November 2006

Newspapers—at least not those who value their readers—do not conduct daily polls. The paper itself is the voters’ ballot; the day of bill-collection is the voting day.But if ever there was a poll for the most surprised reader of the newspaper this monring, it must have been Eapen Panicker. The man known as ‘Critic’ Roshan was guest editor of page one yesterday and went home after putting the first edition to bed. But the Slaughterers of Chamarajpet—B B Subhash, P S Ramesh & Co—turned it upside down for the city edition.

The single column D K Shiva Kumar story became the flyer as news came in of crowds doing vigil opposite his residence to prevent his arrest. The Sangram Singh story became a part of the broader Shivaraj Kumar movie story. The lead picture changed from one Chitradurga fire to the atheltic ammas running in the veterans meet. And, of course, there was the Mallika Sherawat bomb.

Eapen had warned us he would produce a traditional front page, and he did. But is the modern version necessarily better? It looks neat and compartmentalised all right, and we could put in the Rakesh Sharma story we discussed at the evening meeting but couldn’t.

But the question is: does a slightly haphazard front page, or any othr page for that matter, serve to convey the hustle and bustle of daily journalism better than a page that almost doesn’t seem to have touched by the human hand?

ps: why couldn’t we get a picture of DKS standing with his followers in front of his residence?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,523 other followers

%d bloggers like this: