I stumbled upon an article/Tweet of an acclaimed journalist whose articles I read for the past 25 years. In the past, she was very clear in her approach, thought process and lucid in her writings. She was informative seldom colouring her feelings on the topic she was making a viewpoint. To sum up she was giving direction to readers' thought process with shades of opinions.
I had one of the articles of her stored accidentally. She wrote it for a political magazine. I archived the magazine for a different reason. I pulled out the magazine and read it in comparison to what she writes today. There is a sea change in her approach. I see the writings completely in contempt, highly coloured and slipping into personal abuse at times. She has become highly opinionated. It is difficult to digest her style of writing now for someone who would like to know the facts of an issue from an unbiased viewpoint. There is no ideology, source of inspiration to which she is guiding readers to understand her viewpoint from.
My first reaction after comparing the articles was to condemn and highlight to her as to how her writings and viewpoints started moving from issues to personal opinion. I wondered what made her change. Is it the age? Fame? Arrogance? Societal position? Or is it that the senior journalists have right to be personalised in their opinions.
Newspapers is a great way to reach out to large set of audience. The audience base their knowledge on these articles, editorials and notes written in the Newspapers and spoken out in the channels are well researched and the journalist/Editor takes an unbiased view to position the news and let the reader take a stance on the issue. Based on these viewpoints the people opinions are formed. The Journalists thus became popular for their ability to research a topic thoroughly and give a viewpoint and influence the opinion of the audience. They were the conduits of knowledge transfer. Therefore the journalists have a great responsibility to balance their opinions and act as a critique to the issues they are raising without any personal animosity or attachment to the point in discussion. That will make a common man sit back and understand a topic and frame a logical and may be a sensible opinion.
Many of the journalists have written various articles and books. In all these books there is mention of the incidences and instances of meeting people in high society, bureaucrats, film personalities, businessmen and women and not to forget the ministers both at state and central level. They even mention as to how people from these walks of life beg them to cover them in better light. Some journalists have gone to the extent of personally advertising/campaigning for the candidates seeking to get elected and taking a position on such personalities. Some have taken stances for and against the stars.
Once I asked a journalist as to how he escaped a situation where he should ideally was supposed to be fined severely. He boasted of his links due to his journalist career. He says people will be scared if they have to fight him due to the "Press" sticker that is stuck on his vehicle. He went on to say that they become mutually dependent over period and thus give and take need to be there.
With age comes name and fame as journalists would have built their career on reasonable hardwork. At ripe age they end up feeling that their opinions are superior and the young journalists should emulate them. They are in preaching mode and thus age brings not only enough knowledge but also enough ego and arrogance as for any human being. If the journalists' position in the society is better off, then it is a deadly cocktail.
At first the name of the journalist will be mentioned just above the news he/she is covering. But as they become a name in the area of their coverage the name of the journalist is prominently displayed. May be, this emboldens them to take sides and form patterns of opinions which they may bother or not to update or upgrade. A world that is not in conformity with their views may not exist for them. By this age they have their name, fame, connections, wealth and growth in place. So taking bold stances does not affect their career oath of unbiased journalist.
There is also dilution of basic traits of hard work, referencing, updating one's own knowledge and thus banking on views that they framed some time back. This dilution of ideology and questioning of what they don't know makes them response everything with a question bordering on arrogance. This does not help the writer nor the reader as there is no takeaway.
To summarise, nobody can escape the reality of name, fame, wealth, connections and societal positions. As the landscape of politics, economy, urban strata, wealth distribution changes it is all the more difficult to become relevant day in and day out. Easiest way is to cling on to the personal opinions that were formed over a period of their career and rub them on to the audience which they readily have. Else, with none of the influences the world would be more quieter without incitement from this corner of journalists. As every rolling stone gains mass, these opinion makers are no different. Few can be unaffected by the ground they are rolling on. No viewpoint is authentic and devoid of bias as long as it does not quote an ideology, source of information and backed by statistical analysis.
Newspapers is a great way to reach out to large set of audience. The audience base their knowledge on these articles, editorials and notes written in the Newspapers and spoken out in the channels are well researched and the journalist/Editor takes an unbiased view to position the news and let the reader take a stance on the issue. Based on these viewpoints the people opinions are formed. The Journalists thus became popular for their ability to research a topic thoroughly and give a viewpoint and influence the opinion of the audience. They were the conduits of knowledge transfer. Therefore the journalists have a great responsibility to balance their opinions and act as a critique to the issues they are raising without any personal animosity or attachment to the point in discussion. That will make a common man sit back and understand a topic and frame a logical and may be a sensible opinion.
Many of the journalists have written various articles and books. In all these books there is mention of the incidences and instances of meeting people in high society, bureaucrats, film personalities, businessmen and women and not to forget the ministers both at state and central level. They even mention as to how people from these walks of life beg them to cover them in better light. Some journalists have gone to the extent of personally advertising/campaigning for the candidates seeking to get elected and taking a position on such personalities. Some have taken stances for and against the stars.
Once I asked a journalist as to how he escaped a situation where he should ideally was supposed to be fined severely. He boasted of his links due to his journalist career. He says people will be scared if they have to fight him due to the "Press" sticker that is stuck on his vehicle. He went on to say that they become mutually dependent over period and thus give and take need to be there.
With age comes name and fame as journalists would have built their career on reasonable hardwork. At ripe age they end up feeling that their opinions are superior and the young journalists should emulate them. They are in preaching mode and thus age brings not only enough knowledge but also enough ego and arrogance as for any human being. If the journalists' position in the society is better off, then it is a deadly cocktail.
At first the name of the journalist will be mentioned just above the news he/she is covering. But as they become a name in the area of their coverage the name of the journalist is prominently displayed. May be, this emboldens them to take sides and form patterns of opinions which they may bother or not to update or upgrade. A world that is not in conformity with their views may not exist for them. By this age they have their name, fame, connections, wealth and growth in place. So taking bold stances does not affect their career oath of unbiased journalist.
There is also dilution of basic traits of hard work, referencing, updating one's own knowledge and thus banking on views that they framed some time back. This dilution of ideology and questioning of what they don't know makes them response everything with a question bordering on arrogance. This does not help the writer nor the reader as there is no takeaway.
To summarise, nobody can escape the reality of name, fame, wealth, connections and societal positions. As the landscape of politics, economy, urban strata, wealth distribution changes it is all the more difficult to become relevant day in and day out. Easiest way is to cling on to the personal opinions that were formed over a period of their career and rub them on to the audience which they readily have. Else, with none of the influences the world would be more quieter without incitement from this corner of journalists. As every rolling stone gains mass, these opinion makers are no different. Few can be unaffected by the ground they are rolling on. No viewpoint is authentic and devoid of bias as long as it does not quote an ideology, source of information and backed by statistical analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment