Shouldn't the Radia tapes open a wider debate not just on media ethics, but on ethics and values among all of us, journalists or otherwise? Or is it easier to rant and rave at Barkha Dutt et al than to face up to the bribes we pay, the taxes we evade, the crimes we wink at, the behaviour we both indulge in ourselves and condone?
Consider:
Did you drive the wrong way on a one-way street today?
Did you buy something and not insist on a bill for it today?
Did you use the services today of the local store that puts together kids' school projects?
Did you let another day pass today without being even slightly bothered that men who killed several hundred of your fellow Indians in 2002 have not been punished?
Did you think to yourself today that somebody you disagree with profoundly on something must therefore be a publicity-seeker, or corrupt, or a traitor?
Did you beat up someone today?
Did a child come home today to clean your floors?
Did you continue to think today that you "worship" some political leader, or cricketer, or film star?
Did you let another day pass today without stopping to let people on foot cross the road in front of your car?
Did you slip a cop a currency note when he stopped you as you drove through a red light today?
There's plenty more where those questions came from, but I'll leave them for you to think about. But here's my point (just mine): if you answered "yes" to one or more of those, please don't be shocked by Ms Radia's now public conversations.
Showing posts with label radia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radia. Show all posts
December 03, 2010
December 02, 2010
Radially speaking, take 2
I keep returning to thoughts about the tapes. THE tapes.
Yes, I think Barkha Dutt did a good job defending herself the other day on NDTV. No, I don't think the tapes show any evidence of corruption, in the sense of money exchanging hands, in the sense of paid news. Yes, as I said before in this space, ethics are sliding in every respect in every sphere, journalism no exception. When we wink at plagiarism, for example, when it is not even grounds to pull up a perpetrator, well, that's the slide I'm talking about.
Yet, despite what I said in that earlier post, something gnaws at me. What?
In the end, I think it is this. However political journalism works, however close you get to your sources, however influential and famous you become, in the end you are a journalist. Period. Your job is to sniff out what's news and report it. If you're not up for that, you should look for another career.
My own nose tells me that a PR professional making calls and negotiating political matters is news. It's something I would want to write about, if I found out about it.
Of course individual perceptions about what is and isn't newsworthy may vary. After all, I think that the marriage of two film stars is no kind of news. Yet clearly a lot of people think quite the opposite.
But I cannot imagine any journalist, seasoned or not, politically clued in or not, thinking that what Radia was doing -- from talking to journalists to discussing the use of the Shiv Sena to attack business rivals -- was not worth reporting. Sources must be protected, sure, so if that's the issue, report what she was doing while keeping her anonymous. But report it.
That's what's gnawing at me. That some eminent, experienced journalists apparently did not think this was a story worth reporting.
At least from where I look out on the world, this is the question the Sanghvis and Chawlas and Dutts must, at some point, answer. Because this is a question about ethical and professional standards, nothing less.
(A previous essay prompted by something Barkha Dutt did is here: The outrage-mongers).
***
Postscript: The more I think about this, the more tangled up I get. I've also been worried about the legality of this taping in the first place. Gautam Patel addresses that issue and continues into several other themes that are troubling too: All We Hear is Radia Gaga.
***
Postscript #2: Dammit I have to admit this is the most conflicted I've felt for a long time, about something in the news.
Is an error in judgement -- about what constitutes news, about who you speak to -- grounds for the loud campaign against Barkha Dutt? Because in the end, that's the substance of her involvement in this whole business. It may serve to underline your particular grievances against her, but the more I think about it, the surer I am that there's nothing more serious than this that these tapes say about her.
Why isn't there more of an uproar about the tape where Radia speaks about using the Shiv Sena against business rivals? (Let me remind you, she uses the phrase "go after"). Why doesn't this set off alarm bells among corporate types, among journalists, among bloggers/tweeters, even among the Sena's faithful? Is Dutt an easier target?
Yes, I think Barkha Dutt did a good job defending herself the other day on NDTV. No, I don't think the tapes show any evidence of corruption, in the sense of money exchanging hands, in the sense of paid news. Yes, as I said before in this space, ethics are sliding in every respect in every sphere, journalism no exception. When we wink at plagiarism, for example, when it is not even grounds to pull up a perpetrator, well, that's the slide I'm talking about.
Yet, despite what I said in that earlier post, something gnaws at me. What?
In the end, I think it is this. However political journalism works, however close you get to your sources, however influential and famous you become, in the end you are a journalist. Period. Your job is to sniff out what's news and report it. If you're not up for that, you should look for another career.
My own nose tells me that a PR professional making calls and negotiating political matters is news. It's something I would want to write about, if I found out about it.
Of course individual perceptions about what is and isn't newsworthy may vary. After all, I think that the marriage of two film stars is no kind of news. Yet clearly a lot of people think quite the opposite.
But I cannot imagine any journalist, seasoned or not, politically clued in or not, thinking that what Radia was doing -- from talking to journalists to discussing the use of the Shiv Sena to attack business rivals -- was not worth reporting. Sources must be protected, sure, so if that's the issue, report what she was doing while keeping her anonymous. But report it.
That's what's gnawing at me. That some eminent, experienced journalists apparently did not think this was a story worth reporting.
At least from where I look out on the world, this is the question the Sanghvis and Chawlas and Dutts must, at some point, answer. Because this is a question about ethical and professional standards, nothing less.
(A previous essay prompted by something Barkha Dutt did is here: The outrage-mongers).
Postscript: The more I think about this, the more tangled up I get. I've also been worried about the legality of this taping in the first place. Gautam Patel addresses that issue and continues into several other themes that are troubling too: All We Hear is Radia Gaga.
Postscript #2: Dammit I have to admit this is the most conflicted I've felt for a long time, about something in the news.
Is an error in judgement -- about what constitutes news, about who you speak to -- grounds for the loud campaign against Barkha Dutt? Because in the end, that's the substance of her involvement in this whole business. It may serve to underline your particular grievances against her, but the more I think about it, the surer I am that there's nothing more serious than this that these tapes say about her.
Why isn't there more of an uproar about the tape where Radia speaks about using the Shiv Sena against business rivals? (Let me remind you, she uses the phrase "go after"). Why doesn't this set off alarm bells among corporate types, among journalists, among bloggers/tweeters, even among the Sena's faithful? Is Dutt an easier target?
November 30, 2010
Radially speaking
Is it any surprise that the Radia tapes involve her speaking to such media stars as Prabhu Chawla, Vir Sanghvi and Barkha Dutt? Only if you cling to the somewhat benighted view that media folks are somehow removed from the rest of the country's impatience with ethics.
Why benighted? Because I know of people in the media who:
* use other journalists' writing, with or without massaging it slightly, and pass it off as their own.
* use other journalists' ideas in their writing without a qualm, and certainly without attribution.
* watch TV during a breaking news story, then write up a "first-person" account of the story.
* write about issues -- like the demolition of slums, for instance -- without once visiting the places where those issues play out.
* when asked by readers to clarify something they have said, angrily accuse the readers of being unable to read properly.
There's more, yes, including things I've done that I'm not proud of. (OK, none of the above).
Not only have the things I listed happened without much of a murmur, there have been plenty of others who have defended this behaviour. Not only that. Far from being punished, some of this behaviour has actually propelled people to stellar heights.
So I wonder, why are we so outraged by the Radia conversations?
***
Postscript 11pm Nov 30: I just watched part of the discussion on NDTV where Barkha Dutt was questioned by four journalists about what has happened. I think she made a strong case to say that yes, it was at best an error in judgement to have spoken to Nira Radia, but no, by no means was it corruption. So while I won't change the sentence above that mentions the word "ethics" -- there are ethical issues there too -- I will say this: I believe her.
I believe she demonstrated during this discussion a degree of integrity that few journalists achieve -- certainly none of those I alluded to in the bullets above.
And I think too that there's a case to be made for questioning the propriety of publishing material without asking the people involved for their explanations/reactions.
Why benighted? Because I know of people in the media who:
* use other journalists' writing, with or without massaging it slightly, and pass it off as their own.
* use other journalists' ideas in their writing without a qualm, and certainly without attribution.
* watch TV during a breaking news story, then write up a "first-person" account of the story.
* write about issues -- like the demolition of slums, for instance -- without once visiting the places where those issues play out.
* when asked by readers to clarify something they have said, angrily accuse the readers of being unable to read properly.
There's more, yes, including things I've done that I'm not proud of. (OK, none of the above).
Not only have the things I listed happened without much of a murmur, there have been plenty of others who have defended this behaviour. Not only that. Far from being punished, some of this behaviour has actually propelled people to stellar heights.
So I wonder, why are we so outraged by the Radia conversations?
Postscript 11pm Nov 30: I just watched part of the discussion on NDTV where Barkha Dutt was questioned by four journalists about what has happened. I think she made a strong case to say that yes, it was at best an error in judgement to have spoken to Nira Radia, but no, by no means was it corruption. So while I won't change the sentence above that mentions the word "ethics" -- there are ethical issues there too -- I will say this: I believe her.
I believe she demonstrated during this discussion a degree of integrity that few journalists achieve -- certainly none of those I alluded to in the bullets above.
And I think too that there's a case to be made for questioning the propriety of publishing material without asking the people involved for their explanations/reactions.
November 20, 2010
Go after them
Despite plenty of other things I need to do, I've been listening to a few of the famous tapes. Just a few so far, and I'm not sure I will listen to them all. Or want to, for that matter -- there's been a lot of fluff to wade through before getting to the more telltale nuggets.
Some initial reactions:
There's something unsettling about listening to conversations that the participants assumed were private. Something unsettling about the easy way so many people talk about the ways of power. It's not surprising. Because if you stop to think about it, like it or not this is how politics must always have proceeded -- and will always proceed -- in a vast diverse country. But it is unsettling nevertheless.
But for me, the most disturbing moment so far is the casual, almost throwaway way that two women speak about instigating the Shiv Sena to attack business rivals. Here's a part of their conversation:
"You're going to have the Shiv Sena after you next."
[Chuckling]
"That's what's going to happen, because they went after them, so you're going to have the same Shiv Sainiks coming after you saying you can't do that."
…
"I'll see how I can use the other group to get a message across to Uddhav, in order to say ke go after them instead."
[Chuckling]
"I'll tell them to tell Uddhav to go after them."
There's also a reference to how "both sides" have paid the Sena.
You have to listen for some ten minutes to get to it, but it's there in this tape. It's there all right, this exchange that is as clear a commentary on Indian democracy as you can get.
Some initial reactions:
There's something unsettling about listening to conversations that the participants assumed were private. Something unsettling about the easy way so many people talk about the ways of power. It's not surprising. Because if you stop to think about it, like it or not this is how politics must always have proceeded -- and will always proceed -- in a vast diverse country. But it is unsettling nevertheless.
But for me, the most disturbing moment so far is the casual, almost throwaway way that two women speak about instigating the Shiv Sena to attack business rivals. Here's a part of their conversation:
"You're going to have the Shiv Sena after you next."
[Chuckling]
"That's what's going to happen, because they went after them, so you're going to have the same Shiv Sainiks coming after you saying you can't do that."
…
"I'll see how I can use the other group to get a message across to Uddhav, in order to say ke go after them instead."
[Chuckling]
"I'll tell them to tell Uddhav to go after them."
There's also a reference to how "both sides" have paid the Sena.
You have to listen for some ten minutes to get to it, but it's there in this tape. It's there all right, this exchange that is as clear a commentary on Indian democracy as you can get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)