An Apology for Paid News

The supposed blame for the problem here cannot and should not be squarely put on the media.

Reason 1: HOW IS THE SHOW RUN?

We need to understand that news channels and publishing houses no longer run on the patronage of good minded philanthropists as they used to during the coinage of the term 'fourth estate'. Today it's a business and money needs to be minted in order to survive and to pay the journalists their exorbitant six figured salaries. And lets face it 300 crore for a 3 column article is at par with a half page page-1 ad.

Secondly: WHO RUN THE SHOW?

Now that it's been established the money rules the roost we need to look at the journalist institutions differently: to begin with remove the halo. During the non-election times they go around bashing politicians left right and center over developmental issues, environmental concerns, security issues et al but do we ever stop to think "Where the hell are the pvt players?" "Why is Buddhadeb being bashed and Ratan Tata not?" "Why is Ms Meena being slit to pieces and not the owners of POSCO?" The reason is simple. During the non election season its the corporates who are clandestinely funding different media concerns (many partly owning them too). Now the media concerns are mere pressure groups who like any other in a pluralist capitalist economy are pushing their vested interests. Like any other pressure group they have to take sides. They need to keep the funding magnates as well the policy makers in good humour. If we need to haul up the politicos we need to haul up the bigwigs of the corporate world too. Can we do that?

Reason 3: CAN THE BAD BOYS BE DONE AWAY WITH?

No we can't. The possibility of bashing the richies and the neta sounds good; a bit too good, tethering on being romantically utopic. If we try to amputate all the so called corrupt-ors the snow ball would turn in to an avalanche. Let me explain how. The average technical maintenance of a news channel is anything between 10 crores to 100 crores per month. Without the flow of dough the technology would necessarily have to be scaled down thereby say hello once again to bad reception, glaring backgrounds and hello ugly old haggards who should be sitting at home and not anchoring prime time news and good bye to on spot reportage and covergae of the back of the beyond zones. Next the rise in salaries has given a competitive edge to the quality of entrants. Earlier in the day (say about a decade or two ago), for the majority (I am not denying the presence of the Barkha Dutts and the Rajdeeps but they are not running the show alone) journalism was for people who could not crack the civil services. It was a second hand profession. "I could not do anything in life. No problem I will become a journalist." Therefore remove the dough and hardworking set of intelligent buggers shall stop taking journalism as their first career option. Are you or I willing to make that compromise in quality. I am not.

Reason 4: THERE ISN'T A SINGLE PRISTINE PAPER/CHANNEL!

The absence of even a single neutral channel or newspaper is phenomenon the cause of which is not just the absence of ethics/values. Let's see which organisations can we term the most ethical (chuck neutrality). I'd say The Hindu and Tehelka. Mr Ram's political allegiances our more than evident and his take on neutrality went down the drain when not even one anti CPM article was published during the famous Nandigram/Singur days. Tehelka; lets put it this way Mr Tejpal was drowning and his life support tubes had been mangled by the BJP. Instead of fading away, the website went on to become a national magazine. Reason! The Congress bailed him out and since then he has survived on the pleasure of the INC. Technically with the low circulation as is of the Magazine, Tehelka should have ceased to exist long ago. Hence proved that 100pc ethics and neutrality is utopian and is not practically possible. Why? Because no money, no honey!

Reason 5: ARE ADVERTORIALS FACTUALLY INCORRECT?

Coming now to the issue of printing advertorials during elections. I have read many such advertorials and I am sure even you have. There is indeed a free flow of adjectives but tell me how many of them are factually incorrect (the point in consideration here is veracity not partial or incomplete truths). None! So journalistically speaking what's wrong. You might pick up my last ending parenthesis and say half truth is a lie too but in defense of the journalists I'd say that the topic of coverage for the party or neta is chosen wisely enough to ensure that there's nothing but positive but of course we know that there is a second side too. Well coming to that, articles like this very topic which we are discussing can have many opinions so why cant a journalist have his or her own opinion driving a story?

Reason 6: JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE JOURNALISTS DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE ETHICS OVER SURVIVAL!

The same way a Doctor is meant to be selfless and treat all patients alike but does not in the same way there is a gap between the expected and the practicable in the field of the journalism too. I remember; one of my closest friends who used to cover Business in the same organization where I worked, came up with an earth shattering news against Mukesh Ambani. The management clearly told him: Sorry we cant carry this story because they (RIL and co.) are our investors (euphemism for masters). 

Therefore giving teeth to paper tigers like the Press Council of India or amending People's Representation Act is not going to help. There's no panacea for this. Like everything else it's a matter of compromise. This is bad (ethically speaking) but for God's sake this is survival and its the fittest who shall survive. As long as the media continues to raise issues of day to day concerns, as long as the Barkhas and the Goswamis bash our politicians for their ill doings, as long as we are informed, as long as the Parthsarthys tell us about the woes of rural India, I see no harm in making this compromise. 

P.S. Not to forget there's one channel which has no advertorials/paid news whatsoever - DD NEWS - Is it your favorite channel or option for news? Is it the best media group according to you? 

Spare the rod, kill the child...

Offspring are different between the same set of parents. One responds to love the other to hate. Can't possibly treat them all similarly, in fact none with the intention of breaking bones or leaving indelible scars or bleeding faces. An occasional  thwack on justified grounds are more potent. But why am I talking about this.


My intention is to see whether the Principal of French traitor's school is to be held responsible for the death of 13-year-old boy.


His teachers say that he was a naughty boy just like any other boy his age. He was caned by the Principal over disciplinary grounds. Twelve days later he committed suicide.


Read this way and there seems to be just one plausible reason for suicide with a clear list of suspects. The child was suffering mental trauma because of the treatment meted out to him in school. He tried to run away from it but seeing his imminent return to school he took his own life.


There is a lot of speculation on the topic of Suicide. A fool proof theory is still awaited. Nonetheless there a few substantial theories discussing different probable causes.


Physiological: When a person grows old they opt for euthanasia. For obvious reasons this can ruled out in the boy's case right at the onset.


Psychological: Depression induced suicide tops the chart. People, more often than not, carry strains of depression in their genes. The other depressants develop these traits over time stimuli provided externally. In such cases there are obvious traits. Insomnia, avoiding social gatherings, bipolarity, erratic mood swings et al. Going by the Father's words and the word of his schoolmates, the boy was anything but a depressed soul.


Drug abuse: Not applicable on an a priori assumption given the age of the deceased


Sociological: Anomie caused due to sudden changes in lifestyles. The sudden change needs to be drastic too. One example would be the farmers committing suicide due to sudden weather anomalies rendering them incapable of feeding their loved ones. Nothing as drastic took place.


Then it could be a display of defiance and requirement for avoidance. This seems most plausible.


Defiance and avoidance need to be seen in the light of various social institutions the boy was participating in. The social institution of school was a big part of his life but wouldn't the love for friends be a stronger cohesive force than the respect for teachers and authority. According to reports and parents' version, he had no dearth of friends and he was a socially amicable chap. So if we try to look at the school the way he did, we might a see an institution where I have a lot of friends...I have a lot of fun with them...my teachers keep stopping me...I am a defiant boy so I pay little or no heed to warnings, which inevitably lands me in trouble (according to one of the teachers he came to school three days after being canned by his Principal with stink bombs). But according to the evidence collected (after the death that is) by his parents he stopped going to school altogether because he didn't wish to face his teachers.


There is a view that defiance coupled with fear might have been the reason. I wouldn't mind buying this theory but then I have one question. How come his parents didn't arbitrate?


They didn't get an inkling about their son's stress. If he was being caned in school which caused existential issues due to it and he didn't share his woes with his parents who is to be blamed? Should the parents be blamed if he couldn't take the stress of being publicly punished (something which many in my school took lightly enough to be again at the receiving end soon)?


If a child can't tolerate public punishment in school its obvious that the parents never reprimanded their son so he never developed the adequate resistance. Social sanctions are a strong part of socialization. A child is taught what is right and what is wrong. A role to be played essentially by parents, the absence of which can have pernicious repercussions. Punishment of any order makes the child psychologically resistant to censure and castigation elsewhere. The possibility of being disgraced gets institutionalized. In the absence of which a child  grows up into a man who can never take the loud rantings of his boss casually, or worse a man who becomes intolerant to criticism. I know that despite improper socialization, a child may be grow up to be a normal individual. But then this lack of concern can be compared to smoking. There's a strong chance of getting cancer but a smoker might just not.


Icing on the cake: The boy gave his mother at least three call on her mobile on that fateful day. Mom was busy learning golf and the caddy was given clear instructions of not taking any calls. This boy was a different version of Jeremy. Heard by none but loved by all.


I am not saying the Principal and teachers are faultless. All I have done is I have tried to interpret an extremely convoluted and complicated event. And as per my interpretation, the parents need to be sharing the cell along with the Principal.

Arushi! Where art thou ?!!

A desperate scream out to the heavens!


Dear Arushi
We need you to come back and tell us what happened that April night. There are stories which had been in circulation amidst circumspecting busy bees. I know them all by-heart I am still confused.


Its been over 2 years and the more I think the deeper I get stuck in the quagmire that is you. I believe you had a good life. You were living the dream life of a 14-year-old girl from metropolitan India. But Arushi there's one things which pricks my intellect. Were you really happy or was it an apparent-facade.


They say that your loved ones did it...I am sorry about it but this is the most appealing theory. I too believe this the most amidst the rest. But again what went wrong? What pushed you against the wall?


I don't want to bore you with the theories because you know it all. I just wanted to seek an appointment with you to know the conclusion. Somebody tore the last chapter from the book and I need to know what happened. How come you had a concussion though there were no signs of struggle? Was your throat cut, with surgical precision, post-mortem? Did you know something that for worth killing for? Where does the dead butler fit in? What did your daddy's friend know...no no not Mr Durrani I am talking about the one who led the cops to open the roof next day? What were you doing 24 hours before you died? Fingerprint, DNA, Forensic evidence none?


You must have been a happy 14-year-old a day before. Thinking about things girls your age think about. (I wouldn't dare list them at the fear of being tagged a sexist) Worried about things adults would pass off as inconsequential. Dreams of becoming a famous personality someday. Chasing the clouds on a gold hooved pony with Prince Charming.




Nobody wants to own up but the fact is that it's elevated from the cess pit of sensory and intellectual investigations and to the lofty height of the perfect murder.


Motive Unknown. Weapon used Unknown. Murderer Unknown.


Please consider my request seriously.

end of chapter

___________________________________________________