One more opinion - MINE

With the Mumbai attacks, we seem to be forced to acquiesce that India is hardly the safe nation it used to be. And that militant attacks are no longer restricted to Jammu and Kashmir, or Northeast India. It is not only prudent but absolutely necessary to assess the gravity of the situation. We are reading so many things about what to do these days, I'd like to contemplate about what I could do as an individual.

In the meantime, I was just pondering on how the media covered the Mumbai story, since I am, for better or worse, a tiny part of this industry. Television, for obvious reasons, is the most powerful medium for covering and transmitting news. But the way Mumbai attacks were covered on most Indian TV channels was a bit of a let down. More often than not, it reeked of our obsession for sensationalism and the journalists' fetish for offering their opinions only. And I'm referring only to the English news channels. I think it's best to ignore the Hindi news channels.

A visual is much more scandalizing than prose can ever be. So it comes with that much more responsibility. Television has become so synonymous with sensationalism and entertainment that we have truly forgotten where to draw the line. It is extremely sad when a tragedy like Mumbai attacks is handled the way a tabloid would handle its latest scoop. Some TV journalists even hide behind their audiences and blame the sensationalism on them. The shield is that there's always an audience out there that wants to watch whatever is put out. Some even say, if they don't get the juicy details, somebody else will. So it's a question of competition and survival.

I have a few questions here. So, if all channels decided not to sensationalize news, stood by a mutually agreed upon code of ethics and conduct, would audiences raise a furore and cry for an explanation for not satisfying their demands?

So do competition and audience demand that these guys thrust their mics into people facing a loss or a private emotional moment, ask these victims and their families questions that are designed to stir their raw emotions? Have we really drifted so far away from a basic sense of decency? Have we altogether disconnected ourselves from responsibility?

Of course, I'm not saying all TV journalists indulged in this sort of sensationalism. There were quite a few out there who restored our faith in the 'trade.' But the supposed stalwarts of Indian television journalism who no doubt have the most number of viewers were the biggest disappointments.

A journalist like Barkha Dutt has far more clout than a novice who just happened to be at the right place at the right time and got the chance to cover a big story. So what does Barkha do? She occupies the entire television screen. Right from when the story broke out and there were reports that a fire had broken out at Taj, NDTV showed us footages - of Barkha, in front of the Taj. While I dont mind hearing what Barkha has to say, I'd much rather watch what exactly is happening at the Taj instead of peering at a face I have seen numerous times.

Arnab Goswami invites about 4 people from various walks of life to share their thoughts and debate about the attacks. Except that he shared HIS thoughts with them. There were so many instances where Arnab would just go on ranting for 15-20 minutes while the supposed dignitaries would just look on. One of the guests even reminded Arnab that he was present in the studio as well. Rajdeep Sardesai speaks at such a decibel that one would imagine he was trying to yell out the news to people, without the assistance of a camera or microphone. Rajdeep, funnily enough, never engages a guest in discussion, he just shouts questions at them and goes on to offer his own opinions on the matter. And much as journalists love digging up facts and telling the "real" story, asking perpetually inciteful questions is hardly a deal maker.

And these are people who changed what Indian television journalism was all about. These are people who inspired so many people who began considering an 'unconventional' career, so to say. And these are people who have become obsessed with their own voices.

While journalism demands that journalists be aware of all that goes on and form an intelligent opinion, it also demands that they use that intellect and knowledge to bring out a story by talking to people who are involved in the matter and are qualified to offer an opinion. You cannot have your own opinions aired ALL the time, and definitely not when you have guests in your studio. You cannot invite a set of people under the pretext of facilitating a debate and then insult their intelligence/expertise by throwing your opinions at them. One would imagine journalists would use all that knowledge to ask intelligent questions to probe deeper and not let anything sloppy pass. And all the while allow people to answer the questions they are asked instead of blatantly cutting them short because you have already assumed that they are going to say something useless, and believe that you have something more substantial and concrete to offer.

Also, asking questions like "How do you feel?" is cruel, to put it mildly. How do you think they feel after all that they have been through? I am in no way discounting the fact that a journalist covering an incident like the one in Mumbai is under a great amount of stress as he/she has to witness the trauma first hand and still be composed enough to share the news with an audience. It sure does require a lot of courage.

But that again is an occupational hazard - basic rules of the game. TV journalists (and other journalists too), in an ideal world, are required to mask their personal feelings/emotions and just tell the story. No histrionics. No drama.

In a world that is brimming with people so full of opinions on every issue, a regular journalist reporting just what s/he sees is, sadly, a rarity.

And so quoth the opinionated journalist.