I can never forget that morning, years back, very early in my journey as a journalist when at an editorial meeting,I found myself defending the then new heir to India's most illustrious business empire - Tata group. It was a room full of twenty odd seasoned journalists, including my now iconic boss at CNBC-India and I was alone in articulating my confidence in Ratan Tata. Despite the odd looks and the sneer that conveyed-"you upstart, you will soon be sorry for this assessment", I stood my ground.
At that time- I think it was 1993, there was very little to back my assessment of the man -in fact to the contrary. Ratan Tata had not been successful at NELCO and had to sit over the liquidation of a struggling textile mill. Fodder enough to bait me to change my opinion by those that were relentless in their allegiance to the then upcoming, upstart extremely successful business house-Reliance Industries. I never regretted my fierce defense of a man who most of the Indian media had at that time, dubbed as the trigger to the downfall of the Tata's. That was then.
I did not have to wait very long to stand vindicated.
I always defended the House of Tata's with the simple explanation- it was founded and continued to do business on ethical grounds.
Reliance despite all its success had its flamboyance to cope with. It was born at a time when red tapism and bureaucracy strangulated free economy and India was still leaning left. Success in building a colossal empire despite such odds, was their justification of their arrogance and belief that money trumps over everything, conquers individual morality.
The nineties was also the decade in Indian journalism, when PR companies and their briefs/press releases and propaganda war downplaying their client's competitors played a tug of war with the minds of journalists. I can never forget the ITC (Imperial Tobacco company of India) story- how two competing PR firms fought their wars in public, going as far as distributing pamphlets to journalists, every day, while a shareholders battle raged on in Calcutta. Since the Indian company was fighting its foreign holding -BAT, the nationalistic card was played to its emotional heights - never mind the Indian CEO of that company was not above board.
Perhaps that was the decade when journalism changed from in depth analysis and investigation to what it is today-"bite rich" (as we call it). Frenzied journalists waiting hours to get a bite of the guys outside Parliament house or any news breaking locale! Perhaps all the angst about authentic journalism loosing its bite can be traced back to the advent of television journalism. Just thrust the mike to the face of the important politician- who also knew the value of television sound bites and made symbolic gestures like running to his car amidst all his security guys, even as journalists ran after him- pausing eventually but only after the on camera dramatic scene, added to his stature and to the reality news breaking story!!. The poor newspaper guys just following suite- thrusting their tape recorders somewhere in the crowd of blaring television lights and mikes. As long as you got that sound bite from the guy who mattered in that day's breaking story!!!. If you did not get the guy - just do stand ups outside the scene of action- saying the meeting is still on etc etc.
It was also the time that India saw the infiltration of media companies- private media and the scramble to get the story first.
My disenchantment with sections of the media - whatever part of the world I have worked in continues. Coverage of issues that are of pertinence are taking the back seat. Often, journalists are up in arms about trivial issues but do not want to talk about issues that really impact the shaping and destiny of our world. Also we are quick to judge- trial by media is a major issue. Combined strength of the media- on issues that they decide to gang up on - has weakened the best of political intentions.
A recent example that comes to mind is the media trial of Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla. It's surprising that what happened last May is being thrown up in the media with such vividness now. The timing is what can be questioned.
Also I think it is common knowledge that tens if not hundreds of foreign temporary workers are unwittingly finding themselves working illegally in not just Canada but many other parts of the world. Talking to charities, as I have been I'm told about the pitiable conditions of these workers who are currently out of jobs- some not even receiving Employment Insurance. What many are asking is:"why is the media not questioning the employers who are forsaking these workers after signing contracts with them, just because they do not need them any more? Why is no one highlighting at least one story - one example of what is happening to these poeple.
I have (perhaps I'm not aware) not seen any story probing this aspect of the plight of temporary foreign workers. I was told that even the contracts of these foreign temporary workers are different depending on the country they are hired from. So, those from Asia may not get the same preferential treatment in their contracts as some one say from Europe.
No body should think that I am propagating that Ms. Ruby Dhalla be absolved for doing precisely what she is supposed to do-protecting the vulnerable from exploitation (if indeed she is guilty of that). Sensationalising a story- even before it's been verified is also not fair.
No comments:
Post a Comment