Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Some things can but never do. Change. Take the producers of Krishi Darshan, Doordarshan8217;s gift to India8217;s 8216;8216;kissan bhai8217;8217;. They continue to sow as they have for the last 25-odd years and reap the same whirlwind. The only improved production techniques they8217;ve heard of relate to farming.
Last week: a presenter announces the topic. The expert seated in an office his answers in stentorian tones questions from a reporter with a microphone 10 times the size of his nose. One gentleman gives a detailed recipe for the creation of a compost heap for mushrooms, another 8216;8216;doctor-sahib8217;8217; delves into the exciting properties and possibilities of neem, and a third discusses rose cultivation. Between them is one ageing black and white photograph of mushroom racks, and one tree behind the rose bush, sorry rose expert.
Why can8217;t DD cultivate a little sophistication 8212; outdoor shoots, graphics and demonstrations of what the expert recommends? Merely because the programme is about farming why must DD employ what in cricket is charmingly called 8216;8216;agricultural shots8217;8217;?
However, change for the sake of change is not always advisable. Chitrahaar DD frequently transforms itself, often for the worse. The most popular film song show is now educating Rita, Sita and possibly Nita too. Using 8216;karioake8217;, the lyrics of each song appear in subtitles on the screen. The expectation is that those viewers who have recently acquired literacy skills will improve their reading abilities by matching the lyrics they hear with the words they read. Ambitious. And problematic. Often, the song is a snappy one where the words jive faster than Govinda8217;s hips and if you can8217;t read fluently, you may not keep up; usually, the songs are from recent films, unfamiliar to the viewer: why not employ the technique on well-known songs where viewers can easily match sound with words? Lastly, the pleasure of Chitrahaar lies in mindlessly watching the song 8217;n dance routines. When words appear on the screen, our eyes magnetically attach themselves to the words rather than the visuals: that may serve the aims of literacy but defeats the purpose of Chitrahaar.
In the competitive world of TV news, it8217;s all about being 8216;8216;sabse tez,8217;8217;, 8216;8216;sabse pehle8217;8217; but haste can make waste. Last Tuesday, DD and Aaj Tak announced in their evening news bulletins that the Indian cricketers had agreed to play in the ICC Champions trophy _ which was not the case. DD went so far as to discuss the matter in some detail with sports writer V. Krishnaswamy.
This absurd hurry to rush in is leading to heightened and questionable levels of voyeurism. In the last month, we have been playing out various versions of Sex and City, a highly successful HBO serial about women in New York. After the Shivani Bhatnagar murder case there has been the reported rape of women in Mumbai, the rape of a woman in Dehru Dun allegedly by another R.K. Sharma and last week, the confessed murder of Delhi Councillor, Atma Ram by a fellow Councillor, Sharda Jain.
The print and electronic media have revelled in these crimes, the latter often going beyond the boundary. Leave aside the Bhatnagar case: a feature on Star News after the alleged rape of a married woman in Mumbai, showed us where she lived and quoted neighbours claiming she was a woman of bad character and, therefore, deserving of rape? who couldn8217;t continue living there.
Aaj Tak8217;s coverage of the R.K. Sharma rape case, led them to Dehra Dun. The channel showed the alleged victim with her face partially covered, spoke to her and her husband, then shifted to Mr. Sharma being forcibly moved by the police. A scoop of sorts. Press Council norms for journalists suggest that in such cases the name, the photograph/visuals or other particulars which could lead to the identification of the victim should be withheld.
It8217;s got so, the police are baring all to TV. Last Tuesday, in the Atma Ram case, Deputy Commissioner of Police Chadda spoke separately to every single news channel and even to Aaj ki Baat, Star Plus, providing graphic details of the murder, the alleged amorous relationship between the Councillors and possible reasons for the murder. Such openness can lead to unnecessary speculation: one Aaj Tak reporter quoted police sources as saying that Mr. Ram had been shot dead and then chopped into several pieces. It might well be, but with Mr. Ram missing till Friday, such conclusions were premature on Tuesday.
And should the police have implicated Councillor Barwala publicly in the case, just so? Can the media simply allow any one to level accusations a la Madhu Sharma, commit character assassination without providing proof? Shouldn8217;t there be some corroborative evidence? Or is TV a witness box which gives people the dutch courage to speak up and reveal information/suspicions which might otherwise be suppressed? TV as a confessional is increasingly popular: we8217;ve had Madhu Sharma but we8217;ve also had former President K.R. Narayanan, J.M. Lyngdoh and last week P.C. Alexander Star News8217; Star Talk and Court Martial, Sabe TV airing their linen, clean or otherwise on the tube.
P.S. Need proof that India is the cricket king? India aren8217;t cricketing in Kenya but the TV ads are India-specific: Liril, Castrol, Airtel with A.R.Rehman, Tendulkar for ESPN.
