With changing times and changing patterns of content consumption, journalism itself has undergone major changes and journalists have had to adapt to the new ways of doing things
I have no formal education in journalism, haven’t studied journalism in a college
and do not have a degree or a diploma in journalism. And yet, I’ve worked as a
journalist for close to three decades and have been fortunate enough to have
written for leading newspapers, magazines and websites across the country. I
started in the mid-1990s, when there was only print and television. Over the
years, with the rise of the Internet, I saw the Web become the dominant medium,
what with thousands of websites, blogs, YouTube channels, along with social
media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram vying for people’s
attention and diminishing the power that print and TV once had.
The rise of smartphones has also changed the way in which people access news
and features, and video as a format for storytelling has outpaced text. Today,
few people want to sit down and read long-format stories – they’d much rather
just log on to YouTube and watch a video instead. I’m 51 years old and have
read print-edition newspapers for most of my adult life. My son, who is 16
years old, gets all his news on his smartphone – he doesn’t read newspapers, or
magazines for that matter. It’s the same for most young people of his
generation, all of whom only ‘read’ on their digital devices.
Two or three decades ago, when I started as a journalist, we only had to write our stories for whatever print publication – whether newspaper or magazine – we happened to be working for. Today, print journalists have to write their stories and also, often, produce different variations of their stories for the Web, video and various social media platforms. It’s hard work, with a lot of pressure to be the first one to break a story or do a feature. In all of this, writing quality and factual accuracy often can, and do, take a hit.
So, what is the future of journalism? What kind of changes has the profession seen in the last 15-20 years and where is journalism headed? Over the last 18 months, as part of some stories I did for BooksFirst, I had the opportunity to speak to writers, journalists, educators and book authors and ask them for their views on journalism. They were happy to share their views with me, and these make for interesting reading. Here are some excerpts from what they had to say about journalism.
Two or three decades ago, when I started as a journalist, we only had to write our stories for whatever print publication – whether newspaper or magazine – we happened to be working for. Today, print journalists have to write their stories and also, often, produce different variations of their stories for the Web, video and various social media platforms. It’s hard work, with a lot of pressure to be the first one to break a story or do a feature. In all of this, writing quality and factual accuracy often can, and do, take a hit.
So, what is the future of journalism? What kind of changes has the profession seen in the last 15-20 years and where is journalism headed? Over the last 18 months, as part of some stories I did for BooksFirst, I had the opportunity to speak to writers, journalists, educators and book authors and ask them for their views on journalism. They were happy to share their views with me, and these make for interesting reading. Here are some excerpts from what they had to say about journalism.
Tamal
Bandyopadhyay:
I entered into the profession by accident. As a post-graduate of English Literature in the 1980s, there were not many choices. After a series of written tests and interviews, when I got into the Old Lady of Bori Bunder, as The Times of India is called, in Mumbai, as a trainee Journalist, I saw in a large hall many people were typing furiously. I wondered why there were so many typists in the newsroom! I used to write short stories and essays but I had absolutely no knowledge of journalism. It was a one-year training on the job. To be honest, I quite enjoyed the stint even though life was tough in Mumbai, managing a month at Rs 1,050 stipend (Rs 1,050 minus Rs 35 contribution towards the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme) was not easy.
I started my training in the Sunday Review, the Sunday supplement of The Times of India and got confirmed there after a year. I was doing book reviews and other sundry writings besides writing features in The Illustrated Weekly and The Evening News, the afternoon paper of the house. My entry into bank reporting was also an accident – sometime in the mid-1990s, when the Reserve Bank of India started deregulating the industry in a big way. It was love at first sight. Since then I have been covering the financial system first as a reporter, then as an editor and now as a columnist and author.
Things have changed over the years. From typewriters, we graduated to computers in the early-1990s and now the use of technology has radically changed the face of journalism. Social media is another contributing factor. From lazy days of attending a press conference or two in the morning or over lunch or high tea in the afternoon and writing a report in the evening at leisurely pace, now we are in the age of ‘fastest fingers first.’ Stories are broken every minute, as the print media fiercely competes with TV channels and social media platforms. In the process, the due diligence – the hallmark of breaking a story – often gets diluted. But at the same time, there is a parallel stream where the focus is on deep analysis and long form stories, based on extensive research.
It’s an evolving scenario. A few years back, the print media was written off, but it’s still there – not just surviving, but hale and hearty. I think all forms will co-exist in India and readers will have many choices. Print will not die soon.
People talk about editorial freedom being compromised and other stories. I have not experienced this first-hand. I left active journalism eight years ago. Since then, the landscape has changed. It is up to the readers to reject such media houses [where editorial freedom is allegedly compromised].
One of the most respected business journalists in India, Tamal Bandyopadhyay has worked with Business Standard, Financial Express, Mint and The Economic Times. He has written seven bestselling books on banking and finance and is a recipient of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism in the Commentary and Interpretative Writing category for 2017. Tamal is currently a Consulting Editor with Business Standard and a Senior Adviser for Jana Small Finance Bank.
I entered into the profession by accident. As a post-graduate of English Literature in the 1980s, there were not many choices. After a series of written tests and interviews, when I got into the Old Lady of Bori Bunder, as The Times of India is called, in Mumbai, as a trainee Journalist, I saw in a large hall many people were typing furiously. I wondered why there were so many typists in the newsroom! I used to write short stories and essays but I had absolutely no knowledge of journalism. It was a one-year training on the job. To be honest, I quite enjoyed the stint even though life was tough in Mumbai, managing a month at Rs 1,050 stipend (Rs 1,050 minus Rs 35 contribution towards the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme) was not easy.
I started my training in the Sunday Review, the Sunday supplement of The Times of India and got confirmed there after a year. I was doing book reviews and other sundry writings besides writing features in The Illustrated Weekly and The Evening News, the afternoon paper of the house. My entry into bank reporting was also an accident – sometime in the mid-1990s, when the Reserve Bank of India started deregulating the industry in a big way. It was love at first sight. Since then I have been covering the financial system first as a reporter, then as an editor and now as a columnist and author.
Things have changed over the years. From typewriters, we graduated to computers in the early-1990s and now the use of technology has radically changed the face of journalism. Social media is another contributing factor. From lazy days of attending a press conference or two in the morning or over lunch or high tea in the afternoon and writing a report in the evening at leisurely pace, now we are in the age of ‘fastest fingers first.’ Stories are broken every minute, as the print media fiercely competes with TV channels and social media platforms. In the process, the due diligence – the hallmark of breaking a story – often gets diluted. But at the same time, there is a parallel stream where the focus is on deep analysis and long form stories, based on extensive research.
It’s an evolving scenario. A few years back, the print media was written off, but it’s still there – not just surviving, but hale and hearty. I think all forms will co-exist in India and readers will have many choices. Print will not die soon.
People talk about editorial freedom being compromised and other stories. I have not experienced this first-hand. I left active journalism eight years ago. Since then, the landscape has changed. It is up to the readers to reject such media houses [where editorial freedom is allegedly compromised].
One of the most respected business journalists in India, Tamal Bandyopadhyay has worked with Business Standard, Financial Express, Mint and The Economic Times. He has written seven bestselling books on banking and finance and is a recipient of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism in the Commentary and Interpretative Writing category for 2017. Tamal is currently a Consulting Editor with Business Standard and a Senior Adviser for Jana Small Finance Bank.
Mihir
Dalal:
I became a reporter right around the time of the global financial crisis. As a business journalist you couldn’t have chosen a better time to enter the profession. It was especially instructive because journalists, as a group, had failed in their duty to scrutinise the big banks. People had no idea about the dangers of the financial system that had been built after deregulation. The experience of watching all this unfold was formative for me.
As for the rise of the Internet – it has definitely hit journalism in India. Even though journalism here, as a business, hasn’t suffered as much as in the US and some other Western countries, its power and influence are diminished. The government has no tolerance for scrutiny and media houses have fallen in line. Financially, they’re not in the best of shape. All this has hit newsroom cultures and working conditions. Many of the journalists I’ve known over the years have either left or are considering quitting or are disenchanted with journalism. You’d struggle to find many journalists who are optimistic about the profession.
My interest in journalism, however, has only deepened over the past few years. It’s because I’m now working on subjects that really excite me. I’m only doing long-form journalism, and reading modern Indian history, which has no connection with the kind of business journalism I was doing earlier.
A seasoned business journalist, Mihir Dalal has worked with CNBC TV 18, Reuters News and Mint, and has written extensively on startups and ecommerce companies. His first book, Big Billion Startup, which charted the rise of India’s own ecommerce behemoth, was a smash hit when it was released in 2019 and won prestigious awards including the Gaja Capital Business Book Prize 2020 and CK Prahalad Best Business Book Award 2020.
I became a reporter right around the time of the global financial crisis. As a business journalist you couldn’t have chosen a better time to enter the profession. It was especially instructive because journalists, as a group, had failed in their duty to scrutinise the big banks. People had no idea about the dangers of the financial system that had been built after deregulation. The experience of watching all this unfold was formative for me.
As for the rise of the Internet – it has definitely hit journalism in India. Even though journalism here, as a business, hasn’t suffered as much as in the US and some other Western countries, its power and influence are diminished. The government has no tolerance for scrutiny and media houses have fallen in line. Financially, they’re not in the best of shape. All this has hit newsroom cultures and working conditions. Many of the journalists I’ve known over the years have either left or are considering quitting or are disenchanted with journalism. You’d struggle to find many journalists who are optimistic about the profession.
My interest in journalism, however, has only deepened over the past few years. It’s because I’m now working on subjects that really excite me. I’m only doing long-form journalism, and reading modern Indian history, which has no connection with the kind of business journalism I was doing earlier.
A seasoned business journalist, Mihir Dalal has worked with CNBC TV 18, Reuters News and Mint, and has written extensively on startups and ecommerce companies. His first book, Big Billion Startup, which charted the rise of India’s own ecommerce behemoth, was a smash hit when it was released in 2019 and won prestigious awards including the Gaja Capital Business Book Prize 2020 and CK Prahalad Best Business Book Award 2020.
Annie
Zaidi:
It is true that the rise of social media as a dominant source of information has brought immense and daunting changes [to journalism]. However, I think the Web poses more of a challenge to TV or traditional broadcast journalists than it does to print. Print journalists have evolved, and in many ways, the Web and social media lends them additional flexibility. For instance, when I started out as a city beat reporter, I was writing reports of 250 to 500 words on a daily basis. Sometimes this would be expanded to 1,000 words, if a story merited a double spread but that was very rare. This was good training, of course. I learnt to edit my own work down, paring away phrase upon phrase until meaning could be communicated without excess, without flourish or self-indulgence. I also had to learn how to write longer stories when I began reporting for a magazine where the minimum word count was 1,000 words. Today, I could write the same story in 250, 1,000, or 3,000 words, or a combination of image, video and text. Most young journalists have to do this nowadays. They reach readers beyond the subscriber base of the newspaper / magazine, and even if the text is beyond a paywall, at least the core news – which can be expressed as a tweet – still reaches people. However, the main challenge is not speed or competition from non-journalistic media-creators. The relationship can be symbiotic with YouTubers basing their commentary on reportage and journalists reporting on the activities of social media influencers.
The main challenge is content packaged as reportage but which is actually disinformation or propaganda. Journalists nowadays must learn to verify content, and double-check ‘evidence’ in the form of images or documents when it appears, lest they are being deliberately misled. This builds upon old skills, but also requires special training in new techniques, and active collaborations with digital forensic experts. There’s no way of predicting success in terms of reach and public consumption, but as far as success as journalists goes, this is going to be a vital skill.
Annie Zaidi is a well-known writer and journalist who has won all-around acclaim for her work. Her essays, poems and short stories have appeared in multiple anthologies and, as a journalist, she has also written for leading national newspapers and magazines. Her memoir, Bread, Cement, Cactus, won The Nine Dots Prize in 2019 and her non-fiction debut publication, Known Turf: Bantering with Bandits and Other True Tales, which was published in 2010, was short-listed for the Vodafone Crossword Book Award.
It is true that the rise of social media as a dominant source of information has brought immense and daunting changes [to journalism]. However, I think the Web poses more of a challenge to TV or traditional broadcast journalists than it does to print. Print journalists have evolved, and in many ways, the Web and social media lends them additional flexibility. For instance, when I started out as a city beat reporter, I was writing reports of 250 to 500 words on a daily basis. Sometimes this would be expanded to 1,000 words, if a story merited a double spread but that was very rare. This was good training, of course. I learnt to edit my own work down, paring away phrase upon phrase until meaning could be communicated without excess, without flourish or self-indulgence. I also had to learn how to write longer stories when I began reporting for a magazine where the minimum word count was 1,000 words. Today, I could write the same story in 250, 1,000, or 3,000 words, or a combination of image, video and text. Most young journalists have to do this nowadays. They reach readers beyond the subscriber base of the newspaper / magazine, and even if the text is beyond a paywall, at least the core news – which can be expressed as a tweet – still reaches people. However, the main challenge is not speed or competition from non-journalistic media-creators. The relationship can be symbiotic with YouTubers basing their commentary on reportage and journalists reporting on the activities of social media influencers.
The main challenge is content packaged as reportage but which is actually disinformation or propaganda. Journalists nowadays must learn to verify content, and double-check ‘evidence’ in the form of images or documents when it appears, lest they are being deliberately misled. This builds upon old skills, but also requires special training in new techniques, and active collaborations with digital forensic experts. There’s no way of predicting success in terms of reach and public consumption, but as far as success as journalists goes, this is going to be a vital skill.
Annie Zaidi is a well-known writer and journalist who has won all-around acclaim for her work. Her essays, poems and short stories have appeared in multiple anthologies and, as a journalist, she has also written for leading national newspapers and magazines. Her memoir, Bread, Cement, Cactus, won The Nine Dots Prize in 2019 and her non-fiction debut publication, Known Turf: Bantering with Bandits and Other True Tales, which was published in 2010, was short-listed for the Vodafone Crossword Book Award.
M
Rajshekhar:
How has journalism changed? I cut my teeth on business reporting and so, if I was to compare the nineties and now, what would be the biggest changes I would see? I am not sure I see any large improvement/decay in aggregate output. We continue to be mediocre. Back then, there were some good publications/editors/reporters and lots which were pedestrian. Which is how things are even now. To be snide, that lot missed the Satyam story. This lot missed the IL&FS story.
The business dailies have weakened (I hold Business Standard as an exception to the general decay), the magazines are entirely irrelevant, but they have been supplanted by online startups like The Ken, Morning Context, ET Prime etc. This shift means critical stories keep getting done but there are significant accompanying costs.
One, with the startups following the subscription model, access to business reports – even investigative ones, which are written as a form of public good – has fallen. Sans reach, the outcome is a kind of defanged journalism. Two, almost every online newsroom in the country has a problem with office culture. The result? After a couple of years in these, young reporters end up burnt out or cynical. This comes with long-term costs – if they leave the profession, it has to replace the expertise they had built up; if they become cynical, it shows in their capacity to work through stories.
These processes of journalistic weakening are not playing out in a vacuum. Processes of expropriation and dispossession continue to evolve – like colonialism and neocolonialism, where the trade relations stayed the same but were just hidden better. Journalism, which has to keep an eye on these processes, has to keep pace. But the suboptimalities of our mainstream and alternative newsrooms kick in there. This point, of course, applies to all beats.
Will magazines/papers be around ten years later? That is simple, isn’t it? If they figure out a way to be relevant, they will survive. That is not a hard question to figure out, by the way. If magazines start solving real problems, they will be fine. At this time, however, they are too disconnected.
With an MA from the University of Sussex, UK, M Rajshekhar is a senior journalist who has, over the last 25 years, worked with Business Standard, BW Businessworld, The Economic Times and Scroll. He’s also been a consultant for The World Bank and a researcher for ITC Ltd. Rajshekhar is currently based in Bangalore, where he reports for CarbonCopy, tracking India’s energy transition away from coal. His interests lie in energy, environment, political corruption and oligarchy. Rajshekhar is also a published author and his book, Despite theState, was released to wide acclaim in January 2021.
How has journalism changed? I cut my teeth on business reporting and so, if I was to compare the nineties and now, what would be the biggest changes I would see? I am not sure I see any large improvement/decay in aggregate output. We continue to be mediocre. Back then, there were some good publications/editors/reporters and lots which were pedestrian. Which is how things are even now. To be snide, that lot missed the Satyam story. This lot missed the IL&FS story.
The business dailies have weakened (I hold Business Standard as an exception to the general decay), the magazines are entirely irrelevant, but they have been supplanted by online startups like The Ken, Morning Context, ET Prime etc. This shift means critical stories keep getting done but there are significant accompanying costs.
One, with the startups following the subscription model, access to business reports – even investigative ones, which are written as a form of public good – has fallen. Sans reach, the outcome is a kind of defanged journalism. Two, almost every online newsroom in the country has a problem with office culture. The result? After a couple of years in these, young reporters end up burnt out or cynical. This comes with long-term costs – if they leave the profession, it has to replace the expertise they had built up; if they become cynical, it shows in their capacity to work through stories.
These processes of journalistic weakening are not playing out in a vacuum. Processes of expropriation and dispossession continue to evolve – like colonialism and neocolonialism, where the trade relations stayed the same but were just hidden better. Journalism, which has to keep an eye on these processes, has to keep pace. But the suboptimalities of our mainstream and alternative newsrooms kick in there. This point, of course, applies to all beats.
Will magazines/papers be around ten years later? That is simple, isn’t it? If they figure out a way to be relevant, they will survive. That is not a hard question to figure out, by the way. If magazines start solving real problems, they will be fine. At this time, however, they are too disconnected.
With an MA from the University of Sussex, UK, M Rajshekhar is a senior journalist who has, over the last 25 years, worked with Business Standard, BW Businessworld, The Economic Times and Scroll. He’s also been a consultant for The World Bank and a researcher for ITC Ltd. Rajshekhar is currently based in Bangalore, where he reports for CarbonCopy, tracking India’s energy transition away from coal. His interests lie in energy, environment, political corruption and oligarchy. Rajshekhar is also a published author and his book, Despite theState, was released to wide acclaim in January 2021.
Monika
Halan:
I was a business journalist since 1991 and then stepped into personal finance in 1998. The Outlook Group was launching a new magazine called Intelligent Investor and I was a part of the founding team. While business journalism is more focused on the CEO and the business part of the story, personal finance puts the individual at the heart of the story and looks at the world from that point of view. This is a big shift in focus and I can say that this helped me understand the business part and the macro economy part much better. When you have to explain to an average person who does not understand finance or economics, you need to simplify it and for that you need deep knowledge about the subject. I can only say that my chance choice of this genre of journalism has defined my entire work since.
Business journalism has changed in many ways. We do not see the kind of investigative stories we used to see even a decade ago. There has been a large movement away from media towards PR – media jobs remain underpaid and with very few benefits. Ideology can only fund a family person that far – at some point I have seen young fiery reporters lose that steam as the job had very long hours and very little compensation as compared to the corporate sector or the government jobs that come with benefits.
The great development has been the democratisation of the media with the new technology that makes anybody with a social media account, a story to tell and enough money to buy data and a laptop or phone to become a journalist. This has its good and bad points, of course. The checks and balances that a team of editors could provide is gone, but if the personal credibility of the journalist is high enough, it is not difficult for him or her to do well on their own. The new tech is a tool, it is up to the users to define who they are and what value they bring to the consumers of their content.
Journalism has changed for ever. The stranglehold of opinion and information that mainstream media enjoyed is history.
Monika Halan is the bestselling author of Let’s Talk Money and Let’s TalkMutual Funds. With a Master’s in Economics from the Delhi School of Economics and a second Master’s in Journalism Studies from the University of Wales, UK, Monika has written for leading publications, including Mint, The Economic Times and The Indian Express, and was the Editor at Outlook Money. She has also run multiple TV shows focused on personal finance, on NDTV, Zee and Bloomberg India.
I was a business journalist since 1991 and then stepped into personal finance in 1998. The Outlook Group was launching a new magazine called Intelligent Investor and I was a part of the founding team. While business journalism is more focused on the CEO and the business part of the story, personal finance puts the individual at the heart of the story and looks at the world from that point of view. This is a big shift in focus and I can say that this helped me understand the business part and the macro economy part much better. When you have to explain to an average person who does not understand finance or economics, you need to simplify it and for that you need deep knowledge about the subject. I can only say that my chance choice of this genre of journalism has defined my entire work since.
Business journalism has changed in many ways. We do not see the kind of investigative stories we used to see even a decade ago. There has been a large movement away from media towards PR – media jobs remain underpaid and with very few benefits. Ideology can only fund a family person that far – at some point I have seen young fiery reporters lose that steam as the job had very long hours and very little compensation as compared to the corporate sector or the government jobs that come with benefits.
The great development has been the democratisation of the media with the new technology that makes anybody with a social media account, a story to tell and enough money to buy data and a laptop or phone to become a journalist. This has its good and bad points, of course. The checks and balances that a team of editors could provide is gone, but if the personal credibility of the journalist is high enough, it is not difficult for him or her to do well on their own. The new tech is a tool, it is up to the users to define who they are and what value they bring to the consumers of their content.
Journalism has changed for ever. The stranglehold of opinion and information that mainstream media enjoyed is history.
Monika Halan is the bestselling author of Let’s Talk Money and Let’s TalkMutual Funds. With a Master’s in Economics from the Delhi School of Economics and a second Master’s in Journalism Studies from the University of Wales, UK, Monika has written for leading publications, including Mint, The Economic Times and The Indian Express, and was the Editor at Outlook Money. She has also run multiple TV shows focused on personal finance, on NDTV, Zee and Bloomberg India.
Jitendra
Dixit:
I have much to say about TV journalism, but it will lead to controversy and will hurt members of my fraternity. However, I will limit myself to the words that most TV journalists are not doing journalism at all. Except for a few regional channels, most of the Hindi and English news channels are showing content that doesn’t fit into the global or traditional definition of journalism. TV news is marred with allegations of sensationalism, bias, toeing the line of the government and propagating jingoism, fake news and hatred. I have been a TV journalist for the last 25 years and today the so-called journalism lacks those elements which motivated me to choose this profession for my career. Now, writing non-fiction books are an extension of my journalism or rather I would say, I am keeping the journalist alive in me through these books.
The internet, like many other spheres of our life, has revolutionised the news industry as well. Now news content is largely consumed on mobile phones in video or text formats rather than TV. The monopoly of TV channels over ‘Breaking News’ has ended. Many news-breaks happen on Twitter.
Author of Bombay After Ayodhya: A City in Flux, which was released in December 2022, Jitendra Dixit has worked in television journalism for 25 years. A broadcast journalist specialising in reporting on politics, crime and conflicts, Jitendra is a man of many talents; he is a bestselling author who writes both fiction and non-fiction, a blogger and a PADI-certified scuba diver.
I have much to say about TV journalism, but it will lead to controversy and will hurt members of my fraternity. However, I will limit myself to the words that most TV journalists are not doing journalism at all. Except for a few regional channels, most of the Hindi and English news channels are showing content that doesn’t fit into the global or traditional definition of journalism. TV news is marred with allegations of sensationalism, bias, toeing the line of the government and propagating jingoism, fake news and hatred. I have been a TV journalist for the last 25 years and today the so-called journalism lacks those elements which motivated me to choose this profession for my career. Now, writing non-fiction books are an extension of my journalism or rather I would say, I am keeping the journalist alive in me through these books.
The internet, like many other spheres of our life, has revolutionised the news industry as well. Now news content is largely consumed on mobile phones in video or text formats rather than TV. The monopoly of TV channels over ‘Breaking News’ has ended. Many news-breaks happen on Twitter.
Author of Bombay After Ayodhya: A City in Flux, which was released in December 2022, Jitendra Dixit has worked in television journalism for 25 years. A broadcast journalist specialising in reporting on politics, crime and conflicts, Jitendra is a man of many talents; he is a bestselling author who writes both fiction and non-fiction, a blogger and a PADI-certified scuba diver.
Aprajita
Sharma:
The rise of internet is a recent phenomenon. It has happened post Covid-19 and I truly believe it is short-lived. It is already fading. I don’t see the death of print or TV due to this. People may have been consuming news on smartphones but what are they consuming? Content produced by print and TV. PDFs of print newspapers circulate on WhatsApp and Telegram daily. Magazines too. Magzter is a popular app that many people use to consume print content. But, yes, physical print copies have certainly taken a hit. Number of print pages have reduced. Jobs have reduced. So far as TV is concerned, it will always enjoy an edge when it comes to breaking news. A couple of mainstream TV channels may have behaved irrationally in the past, but they would still not become irrelevant. People in India watch TV, period.
Print vs Web-only media debate is more relevant for journalists than readers. You cannot just be a print journalist. You need to cultivate multi-media skills. Publications would prefer hiring people who can do it all. No media house can make money solely through print copies. Revenues will come through Web, videos and events. Almost all media houses have a Web team which writes content on trending topics. These are quickly-generated stories which may or may not be rich in substance. Sometimes, such easy-to-read and rich in keywords stories gain higher page views than a well-researched long-form piece. But I am hopeful. I can see that Web-only platforms have started gaining traction. Platforms such as The Ken, The Signal and The Morning Context are doing a great job at it.
Financial journalist with Mint, Fortune India, and Outlook Money, and a certified financial planner, Aprajita Sharma is co-author of The Big Bull of Dalal Street: How Rakesh Jhunjhunwala Made His Fortune. She has a degree in journalism from the IIMC and a healthy understanding of the financial markets developed over a decade spent working with leading publications like ET, Business Today, Business Standard, Zee Business and India Today.
The rise of internet is a recent phenomenon. It has happened post Covid-19 and I truly believe it is short-lived. It is already fading. I don’t see the death of print or TV due to this. People may have been consuming news on smartphones but what are they consuming? Content produced by print and TV. PDFs of print newspapers circulate on WhatsApp and Telegram daily. Magazines too. Magzter is a popular app that many people use to consume print content. But, yes, physical print copies have certainly taken a hit. Number of print pages have reduced. Jobs have reduced. So far as TV is concerned, it will always enjoy an edge when it comes to breaking news. A couple of mainstream TV channels may have behaved irrationally in the past, but they would still not become irrelevant. People in India watch TV, period.
Print vs Web-only media debate is more relevant for journalists than readers. You cannot just be a print journalist. You need to cultivate multi-media skills. Publications would prefer hiring people who can do it all. No media house can make money solely through print copies. Revenues will come through Web, videos and events. Almost all media houses have a Web team which writes content on trending topics. These are quickly-generated stories which may or may not be rich in substance. Sometimes, such easy-to-read and rich in keywords stories gain higher page views than a well-researched long-form piece. But I am hopeful. I can see that Web-only platforms have started gaining traction. Platforms such as The Ken, The Signal and The Morning Context are doing a great job at it.
Financial journalist with Mint, Fortune India, and Outlook Money, and a certified financial planner, Aprajita Sharma is co-author of The Big Bull of Dalal Street: How Rakesh Jhunjhunwala Made His Fortune. She has a degree in journalism from the IIMC and a healthy understanding of the financial markets developed over a decade spent working with leading publications like ET, Business Today, Business Standard, Zee Business and India Today.
Sachin
Rao:
As a writer and editor, I still greatly value print stories: well-crafted, complete, tangible ‘things.’ But as an industry insider and as a consumer, I can’t argue with the numbers and my own purchase habits: print media is in structural decline. Newspapers are more of a weekend read, while newsstand magazine circulation figures are dropping steadily. I do still read ‘proper’ magazines, albeit online, through aggregators like Readly, and I have a handful of digital subscriptions to, say, the New York Times, but there’s only so many publications you can pay for. So, paywalled content is sometimes out of reach.
[In the UK,] The Guardian’s model of complementing advertising with reader contributions is working well for them, but I don’t think every title can replicate that success. I think you have to identify your tribe – the readers who share your values – and then build up a trust-based relationship with them. Quality must prevail over quantity, otherwise it’s a clickbait-driven race to the bottom. But unfortunately, advertisers and online metrics still often tend to prioritise quantity.
News media is unarguably web-first, and melding into the social media ecosystem. As we all spend more time online, content creators are competing for eyeballs. Shortening attention spans and virality-oriented algos means that mobile and video-led content is definitely the direction of travel for the younger generations – they use TikTok like a search engine – and advertiser money will naturally flow there.
Of course, with the proliferation of streaming services and so many brilliant TV dramas being produced, we are all also spending hours watching content now, not reading it. We live in a visual age where technology is all-captivating and edging ever closer to magic. People want to be spellbound, without necessarily putting in a great deal of effort. Anyway, in terms of magazines, what’s attracting money is – from the bottom up: premium, well-made, passion-driven specialist magazines (think Delayed Gratification, Huck or Magneto) targeting focused groups; and from the top down: brand content – where brands are turning content creators and turning out publications (and some really nice ones – seen Sandwich?) for their community of buyers and fans. I’ve worked on some automotive brand magazines myself, so I might be biased, but I think when done right (and there’s always a tension between creativity and corporate messaging, so it’s important for the client to share the vision and to be on the same page), they can be really good. You want to apply true editorial principles and harness talented writers, designers and photographers to tell in-depth, interesting stories on behalf of brands, creating a bond with their customers.
Based in London, Sachin Rao is currently a freelance writer and editor. Until March this year, he was a commercial features Editor at Guardian News & Media. One of the best writers/editors in the business, he has worked in the UK since the mid-2000s. Before that, he was based in Bombay, working with leading newspapers like Business Standard, Indian Express and Mumbai Mirror.
As a writer and editor, I still greatly value print stories: well-crafted, complete, tangible ‘things.’ But as an industry insider and as a consumer, I can’t argue with the numbers and my own purchase habits: print media is in structural decline. Newspapers are more of a weekend read, while newsstand magazine circulation figures are dropping steadily. I do still read ‘proper’ magazines, albeit online, through aggregators like Readly, and I have a handful of digital subscriptions to, say, the New York Times, but there’s only so many publications you can pay for. So, paywalled content is sometimes out of reach.
[In the UK,] The Guardian’s model of complementing advertising with reader contributions is working well for them, but I don’t think every title can replicate that success. I think you have to identify your tribe – the readers who share your values – and then build up a trust-based relationship with them. Quality must prevail over quantity, otherwise it’s a clickbait-driven race to the bottom. But unfortunately, advertisers and online metrics still often tend to prioritise quantity.
News media is unarguably web-first, and melding into the social media ecosystem. As we all spend more time online, content creators are competing for eyeballs. Shortening attention spans and virality-oriented algos means that mobile and video-led content is definitely the direction of travel for the younger generations – they use TikTok like a search engine – and advertiser money will naturally flow there.
Of course, with the proliferation of streaming services and so many brilliant TV dramas being produced, we are all also spending hours watching content now, not reading it. We live in a visual age where technology is all-captivating and edging ever closer to magic. People want to be spellbound, without necessarily putting in a great deal of effort. Anyway, in terms of magazines, what’s attracting money is – from the bottom up: premium, well-made, passion-driven specialist magazines (think Delayed Gratification, Huck or Magneto) targeting focused groups; and from the top down: brand content – where brands are turning content creators and turning out publications (and some really nice ones – seen Sandwich?) for their community of buyers and fans. I’ve worked on some automotive brand magazines myself, so I might be biased, but I think when done right (and there’s always a tension between creativity and corporate messaging, so it’s important for the client to share the vision and to be on the same page), they can be really good. You want to apply true editorial principles and harness talented writers, designers and photographers to tell in-depth, interesting stories on behalf of brands, creating a bond with their customers.
Based in London, Sachin Rao is currently a freelance writer and editor. Until March this year, he was a commercial features Editor at Guardian News & Media. One of the best writers/editors in the business, he has worked in the UK since the mid-2000s. Before that, he was based in Bombay, working with leading newspapers like Business Standard, Indian Express and Mumbai Mirror.
Chitra
Narayanan:
The early part of my journalism career was great fun. I started out interning with The Sunday Times of India in 1991 and in that one-month internship probably learnt far more than what I learnt in journalism school. [My boss] set me to work on dummy copies, painstakingly corrected them, assigned me to collect snippets, and asked me to shadow a reporter who was covering the Saharanpur Riots. I got first hand practical experience in both editing and reporting. That kind of mentoring and internship is sadly lacking today in journalism.
Journalism has changed hugely since the time I joined the profession. We were part of the always on field generation. You had to go meet people and see things personally before writing. I remember one of my editors famously asking a colleague who turned up in office, ‘do you have a story?’ When he said no, the editor sent him out, saying ‘don’t return until you have a story.’ Today, you can do everything on the phone and research on the Internet (and sometimes get it wrong thereby). The colour and flavour are often missing. You compete with social media and bloggers who have better skills in video. We used to struggle to get news, and find interesting features. Now there is so much, with the PR fraternity inundating you with thousands of pitches, that the struggle is to choose which to follow. Now, actually, the news is plenty, but the fight is to find an ‘exclusive.’ In terms of editing and packaging stories, I think we spent far more time on captions, headlines, blurbs etc. in the old days – now I don’t see that same quality.
Internet media poses a challenge, yes, but print in India will always stay, as its credibility is much higher. However, print has to find different, innovative angles (AI is coming to the help here) to the same story, or present it differently. There is the rise of the ‘personal brand’ in print media. Opinion writers with a huge following on social media whose pieces are looked forward to have carved a niche for themselves. Although news gathering and dissemination is more challenging now, it is also more exciting. For instance, as a print media journalist I have to think of a story in many different ways – one, how it will be presented in print, secondly, how it will be on the web, and third on the mobile. So, you will have to do a podcast to accompany your story, write the headline differently for the web (it has to be straight, no frills, with the right keywords) to optimise for search engines, and differently for print to make it catchy and hook the reader.
Chitra Narayanan is an editorial consultant for The Hindu Business Line. She has earlier worked with leading newspapers and magazines, including The Economic Times, Business Standard, Times Internet, Businessworld, Business Today and Mint. She is also the author of From Oberoi To Oyo, which talks about the innovation, disruptions and challenges that define the Indian hotel industry.
The early part of my journalism career was great fun. I started out interning with The Sunday Times of India in 1991 and in that one-month internship probably learnt far more than what I learnt in journalism school. [My boss] set me to work on dummy copies, painstakingly corrected them, assigned me to collect snippets, and asked me to shadow a reporter who was covering the Saharanpur Riots. I got first hand practical experience in both editing and reporting. That kind of mentoring and internship is sadly lacking today in journalism.
Journalism has changed hugely since the time I joined the profession. We were part of the always on field generation. You had to go meet people and see things personally before writing. I remember one of my editors famously asking a colleague who turned up in office, ‘do you have a story?’ When he said no, the editor sent him out, saying ‘don’t return until you have a story.’ Today, you can do everything on the phone and research on the Internet (and sometimes get it wrong thereby). The colour and flavour are often missing. You compete with social media and bloggers who have better skills in video. We used to struggle to get news, and find interesting features. Now there is so much, with the PR fraternity inundating you with thousands of pitches, that the struggle is to choose which to follow. Now, actually, the news is plenty, but the fight is to find an ‘exclusive.’ In terms of editing and packaging stories, I think we spent far more time on captions, headlines, blurbs etc. in the old days – now I don’t see that same quality.
Internet media poses a challenge, yes, but print in India will always stay, as its credibility is much higher. However, print has to find different, innovative angles (AI is coming to the help here) to the same story, or present it differently. There is the rise of the ‘personal brand’ in print media. Opinion writers with a huge following on social media whose pieces are looked forward to have carved a niche for themselves. Although news gathering and dissemination is more challenging now, it is also more exciting. For instance, as a print media journalist I have to think of a story in many different ways – one, how it will be presented in print, secondly, how it will be on the web, and third on the mobile. So, you will have to do a podcast to accompany your story, write the headline differently for the web (it has to be straight, no frills, with the right keywords) to optimise for search engines, and differently for print to make it catchy and hook the reader.
Chitra Narayanan is an editorial consultant for The Hindu Business Line. She has earlier worked with leading newspapers and magazines, including The Economic Times, Business Standard, Times Internet, Businessworld, Business Today and Mint. She is also the author of From Oberoi To Oyo, which talks about the innovation, disruptions and challenges that define the Indian hotel industry.
Shubhabrata
Marmar:
I think the democratisation of opinion-based journalism has created more voices but that almost automatically implies that the quality, veracity and clarity of what’s being said has become hard to establish. There’s just so much noise that I think people struggle to understand what’s going on, as well as who to listen to. That noise has also created a generous amount of cynicism which stems from the inability to tell real content from misguided or promoted opinion. It’s not all doom and gloom. I don’t even think the print format will die, really. I firmly believe that the guys still working in print need to rethink their basics. They need to answer the question, why would anyone make the effort to acquire a magazine (the Internet appears free-to-consume, although we know that it is not). And what kind of content or magazine would make people delighted to put in that work and surrender their phones temporarily.
I don’t believe that answer is it cannot be done. I think the answer is that the time for a sea change in print publication has come. Print will never again be a dominant form of communication in terms of news/features and what have you, but I do believe that the depth of print is irreplaceable, and what can and should go into print has changed. This is the insight that eludes the brands that persist in continuing to use formats invented in the ’70s with little to no change to adapt to today’s audience.
[In the context of automotive content] I’d tell all aspiring automotive journalists to get real. To fundamentally understand that there are no easy jobs, if you’d like to excel at that job and rise to the top. Automotive journalism is a communication-related job and while it’s fun to test cars and bikes, your real job is to be able to tell people how a vehicle will fit into their lives today, tomorrow and beyond. It’s less glamourous than it looks and it is harder work that it appears. As it is with most professions in India where passion is a reason for people to be in those jobs, the pay is less and the work is a lot. Anyone who’s not afraid to work hard should be able to crack it. Anyone who thinks they know a shortcut won’t be able to hack it.
As for print-first automotive journalists, I think it’s easy to be led to believe that you must reinvent yourself for the online world. I don’t think this is true. Authenticity is what’s missing in the noise and re-inventing your persona, to me, doesn’t add authenticity. These journalists were communicators first and the online world is also a communication medium. I would tell them to be honest to themselves and stick to what they do best. To ask for help in the same way they did at the beginning of their careers – help in structuring content better, with making the videos look and feel better… the basics. If they can hammer out stunning, well-structured, articulate articles, being able to tell that story in video form should not stump them. Anyone who thinks they can be relevant by staying on-trend online is signing up for a gig where they must pivot to whatever is new and trending for the moment. It’s terrifyingly hard to follow, harder still to achieve. But as much as everyone likes the idea of a breaking new trend, the world is powered by the stuff that endures, not the fleeting.
We’re in a boom of sorts and everyone’s putting in a lot of effort, as shallow as some of it is, to create content. Some of the content will be wrong, some advice will be horrifically off-base and all that drama will play out. But I think we should treat the audience as adults too. They must eventually be responsible for whose advice they took, who they chose to believe and who, therefore, they need to ignore. That check and balance system, as chaotic and slow-moving as it appears, will right itself. I’ve no doubt that clarity and quality will rise to the top no matter what the chaos level is. I’m quite happy to wait for it to settle down.
Shubhabrata Marmar is India’s leading motorcycle journalist and has worked with the top automotive magazines and websites in the country for more than two decades. He is the founder of MotorInc, which has some of the best automotive content on YouTube.
I think the democratisation of opinion-based journalism has created more voices but that almost automatically implies that the quality, veracity and clarity of what’s being said has become hard to establish. There’s just so much noise that I think people struggle to understand what’s going on, as well as who to listen to. That noise has also created a generous amount of cynicism which stems from the inability to tell real content from misguided or promoted opinion. It’s not all doom and gloom. I don’t even think the print format will die, really. I firmly believe that the guys still working in print need to rethink their basics. They need to answer the question, why would anyone make the effort to acquire a magazine (the Internet appears free-to-consume, although we know that it is not). And what kind of content or magazine would make people delighted to put in that work and surrender their phones temporarily.
I don’t believe that answer is it cannot be done. I think the answer is that the time for a sea change in print publication has come. Print will never again be a dominant form of communication in terms of news/features and what have you, but I do believe that the depth of print is irreplaceable, and what can and should go into print has changed. This is the insight that eludes the brands that persist in continuing to use formats invented in the ’70s with little to no change to adapt to today’s audience.
[In the context of automotive content] I’d tell all aspiring automotive journalists to get real. To fundamentally understand that there are no easy jobs, if you’d like to excel at that job and rise to the top. Automotive journalism is a communication-related job and while it’s fun to test cars and bikes, your real job is to be able to tell people how a vehicle will fit into their lives today, tomorrow and beyond. It’s less glamourous than it looks and it is harder work that it appears. As it is with most professions in India where passion is a reason for people to be in those jobs, the pay is less and the work is a lot. Anyone who’s not afraid to work hard should be able to crack it. Anyone who thinks they know a shortcut won’t be able to hack it.
As for print-first automotive journalists, I think it’s easy to be led to believe that you must reinvent yourself for the online world. I don’t think this is true. Authenticity is what’s missing in the noise and re-inventing your persona, to me, doesn’t add authenticity. These journalists were communicators first and the online world is also a communication medium. I would tell them to be honest to themselves and stick to what they do best. To ask for help in the same way they did at the beginning of their careers – help in structuring content better, with making the videos look and feel better… the basics. If they can hammer out stunning, well-structured, articulate articles, being able to tell that story in video form should not stump them. Anyone who thinks they can be relevant by staying on-trend online is signing up for a gig where they must pivot to whatever is new and trending for the moment. It’s terrifyingly hard to follow, harder still to achieve. But as much as everyone likes the idea of a breaking new trend, the world is powered by the stuff that endures, not the fleeting.
We’re in a boom of sorts and everyone’s putting in a lot of effort, as shallow as some of it is, to create content. Some of the content will be wrong, some advice will be horrifically off-base and all that drama will play out. But I think we should treat the audience as adults too. They must eventually be responsible for whose advice they took, who they chose to believe and who, therefore, they need to ignore. That check and balance system, as chaotic and slow-moving as it appears, will right itself. I’ve no doubt that clarity and quality will rise to the top no matter what the chaos level is. I’m quite happy to wait for it to settle down.
Shubhabrata Marmar is India’s leading motorcycle journalist and has worked with the top automotive magazines and websites in the country for more than two decades. He is the founder of MotorInc, which has some of the best automotive content on YouTube.
Vaishali
Dinakaran:
When I first began writing for a magazine in 2008, people still bought magazines. That number has declined steadily over the years, and I suspect most niche magazines can no longer survive on subscription and ad-sales revenue alone. Hence the rise of ‘paid partnerships’ and ‘advertorials.’ People also seem less inclined to pay money to read quality writing and journalism, since there is a lot of material available to read online for free. I think the internet and social media have given people the freedom of choice in terms of what they can read or view. But they’ve also brought with them dramatically lower attention spans, susceptibility to the dangers of the filter bubble, and a fair amount of misinformation. One of the things that strikes me quite often is that we ‘read’ ‘stories,’ but we ‘consume’ ‘content.’ One requires more commitment and involvement than the other.
I think it’s been hard for a lot of traditional journalists to adapt to the rapidly changing media landscape, but a lot of them have, and some have done so very well. I think the tricky thing is holding true to what you stand for as a journalist as you evolve to embrace new media. It’s not easy.
I’m not cynical enough to believe young people don’t want to read. I think most of them read far more than their parents do. But does the average fifteen-year-old today read as much as the average fifteen-year-old in 1990? I can’t say that I have the definitive answer.
Print magazines and newspapers will still be around ten years from now. In some cases, print won’t be the only vertical a media house has. In other cases, where print is the only vertical, volumes will be lower and prices for subscriptions much higher – niche publications might survive and hopefully thrive like this.
One of the very best motorsports journalists India has ever seen, Vaishali Dinakaran worked for leading automotive publications like Autocar India, Business Standard Motoring and Overdrive, when she was based in Mumbai. Having moved to Germany a few years ago and now based in Berlin, she continues to write as a freelance journalist and has also branched out into video work for Deutsche Welle.
When I first began writing for a magazine in 2008, people still bought magazines. That number has declined steadily over the years, and I suspect most niche magazines can no longer survive on subscription and ad-sales revenue alone. Hence the rise of ‘paid partnerships’ and ‘advertorials.’ People also seem less inclined to pay money to read quality writing and journalism, since there is a lot of material available to read online for free. I think the internet and social media have given people the freedom of choice in terms of what they can read or view. But they’ve also brought with them dramatically lower attention spans, susceptibility to the dangers of the filter bubble, and a fair amount of misinformation. One of the things that strikes me quite often is that we ‘read’ ‘stories,’ but we ‘consume’ ‘content.’ One requires more commitment and involvement than the other.
I think it’s been hard for a lot of traditional journalists to adapt to the rapidly changing media landscape, but a lot of them have, and some have done so very well. I think the tricky thing is holding true to what you stand for as a journalist as you evolve to embrace new media. It’s not easy.
I’m not cynical enough to believe young people don’t want to read. I think most of them read far more than their parents do. But does the average fifteen-year-old today read as much as the average fifteen-year-old in 1990? I can’t say that I have the definitive answer.
Print magazines and newspapers will still be around ten years from now. In some cases, print won’t be the only vertical a media house has. In other cases, where print is the only vertical, volumes will be lower and prices for subscriptions much higher – niche publications might survive and hopefully thrive like this.
One of the very best motorsports journalists India has ever seen, Vaishali Dinakaran worked for leading automotive publications like Autocar India, Business Standard Motoring and Overdrive, when she was based in Mumbai. Having moved to Germany a few years ago and now based in Berlin, she continues to write as a freelance journalist and has also branched out into video work for Deutsche Welle.
Prof.
Dhiman Chattopadhyay:
The rise of internet was not all at the same time. Yet, the changes were so rapid and so dramatic that admittedly newsrooms were often caught unawares. Just as we are now struggling to answer how we are going to deal with ChatGPT and other open AI technologies. I remember when the Internet was becoming big, we were told in the Times of India that we could use Gmail, apart from the in-house email, because Gmail had so much space that we would not be able to use it up in our lifetimes. We also thought a computer with 1 GB space would be good enough for all our needs. Similarly, when Facebook launched, many folks pooh-poohed it as just another ‘Orkut’ that would be primarily used to catch up with friends, post some images, or go on a blind date. Twitter was going to be that space where we self-promoted our journalistic work! Little did we know that Facebook and Twitter would launch revolutions, fight wars, give us breaking stories and exclusive scoops by the hour – and also flood our lives with misleading information and so-called fake news.
So, yes they have changed our lives and changed journalism forever. To those who denied and sometimes continue to deny or oppose the rise of social and other digital media, my two bits of advice is this: There are things you cannot change, and things you can. Focus on things you can change. You cannot stop the progress of science and technology. What you can do is adapt, as humans have done since times immemorial. Journalists and newsrooms would do wisely to use social media to increase reach, engage directly with audiences, be more transparent about how they get their information and the challenges they face. They should also be more trained and aware of the pitfalls of social media and the information available therein, so that they can both avoid the risk of falling for the trap and sourcing or sharing fake news, and also share their knowledge to help their audiences make better, well-informed choices when consuming any information.
In terms of the quality of content being produced, the very meaning of ‘quality’ has changed in the past three decades. Content is not just what you see in print, watch on TV, or even read on a news website. Content today could mean a TikTok or a YouTube video, an Instagram post, or a Twitter link. These could be from authentic journalists representing a brand, or from journalists gone rogue who are posting whatever they want, instigating people, stoking fear and hatred, and completely disregarding that a thing called ‘facts’ exists – often wearing their biases on their sleeves. Of course, content could be from you, me or anyone with access to a computer or an internet connection. And if someone has a huge following on a social media platform, then today they can rival a newspaper or a TV channel for reach and impact. So yes, things have changed – and they have affected journalism.
In many ways, journalism has actually improved. Let me explain. Many journalists today are twice as careful as earlier when they upload a news story on the web. They know that a factual error will be pointed out online or on social media within minutes, and their reputation taken for a ride before they can make a correction. Back in the day, an error would be pointed out in-house – often the next day. In case someone called or wrote a letter to the editor, it was either dumped, or carried in the following day’s (or week’s) paper, with a small rejoinder, or in extreme cases, an apology. Today, we do not have that luxury.
Also, social media had given journalists ready access to political leaders, and celebrities and they can be directly tweeted for a response within minutes. Sometimes, even tagging them in a post can elicit a response. This was just not possible back in the day, when we would have to wait for hours, sometimes days, for an elusive quote.
On the other hand, the quality of online journalism sometimes is appalling. The race to get page views and clickbait etc., has led to misleading and openly untrue headlines. I follow three of India’s leading English newspapers on their app and almost every day without fail there are stories that may suggest that “an Indian legend” has made a “shocking statement” or that a well-known public figure has given an “epic response” to another. But inside – there are no legends, shocks, or epic responses. I understand that news organizations believe they will gain millions of new page views every day because of these SEO-driven headlines. However, what they may not realize is that over a long-term period, such headlines, and such misleading stories lead to an erosion of public trust in media. To worsen matters some of these pieces are a horror from an editor’s perspective – riddled with grammatical errors, and words/phrases that no self-respecting reporter would want their byline associated with.
If you look at the annual trust in media reports that Edelman (or others) publish annually, you will notice that public trust in journalism in India is on a steady decline. While some of this may be due to factors such as increasing political polarization, business control of media, and the pressures on journalists to kowtow to their owners – some of the blame must lie with what is being peddled as “news” in the online space. I must add here that this is NOT a reflection on the hundreds of absolutely amazing journalists doing their jobs against the odds every day – folks who continue to give us great journalism. But the growing number of such misleading pieces, grammatically incorrect copies, and openly biased reportage (often aimed at instigating hate) is a matter of concern.
Based in the US, Dr Dhiman Chattopadhyay is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication/Journalism, at the Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, where he teaches courses in Media Management, Diversity & Media, Strategic Communication, Journalism, and Public Relations. Dhiman, who has a Ph.D. in media and communication from the Bowling Green State University, Ohio, started his career in journalism in the mid-1990s, as a writer for Asian Age in Calcutta. He later went on to work with Deccan Chronicle, The Times of India, India Today, CFO India and Sunday Mid-Day, before moving to the US.
The rise of internet was not all at the same time. Yet, the changes were so rapid and so dramatic that admittedly newsrooms were often caught unawares. Just as we are now struggling to answer how we are going to deal with ChatGPT and other open AI technologies. I remember when the Internet was becoming big, we were told in the Times of India that we could use Gmail, apart from the in-house email, because Gmail had so much space that we would not be able to use it up in our lifetimes. We also thought a computer with 1 GB space would be good enough for all our needs. Similarly, when Facebook launched, many folks pooh-poohed it as just another ‘Orkut’ that would be primarily used to catch up with friends, post some images, or go on a blind date. Twitter was going to be that space where we self-promoted our journalistic work! Little did we know that Facebook and Twitter would launch revolutions, fight wars, give us breaking stories and exclusive scoops by the hour – and also flood our lives with misleading information and so-called fake news.
So, yes they have changed our lives and changed journalism forever. To those who denied and sometimes continue to deny or oppose the rise of social and other digital media, my two bits of advice is this: There are things you cannot change, and things you can. Focus on things you can change. You cannot stop the progress of science and technology. What you can do is adapt, as humans have done since times immemorial. Journalists and newsrooms would do wisely to use social media to increase reach, engage directly with audiences, be more transparent about how they get their information and the challenges they face. They should also be more trained and aware of the pitfalls of social media and the information available therein, so that they can both avoid the risk of falling for the trap and sourcing or sharing fake news, and also share their knowledge to help their audiences make better, well-informed choices when consuming any information.
In terms of the quality of content being produced, the very meaning of ‘quality’ has changed in the past three decades. Content is not just what you see in print, watch on TV, or even read on a news website. Content today could mean a TikTok or a YouTube video, an Instagram post, or a Twitter link. These could be from authentic journalists representing a brand, or from journalists gone rogue who are posting whatever they want, instigating people, stoking fear and hatred, and completely disregarding that a thing called ‘facts’ exists – often wearing their biases on their sleeves. Of course, content could be from you, me or anyone with access to a computer or an internet connection. And if someone has a huge following on a social media platform, then today they can rival a newspaper or a TV channel for reach and impact. So yes, things have changed – and they have affected journalism.
In many ways, journalism has actually improved. Let me explain. Many journalists today are twice as careful as earlier when they upload a news story on the web. They know that a factual error will be pointed out online or on social media within minutes, and their reputation taken for a ride before they can make a correction. Back in the day, an error would be pointed out in-house – often the next day. In case someone called or wrote a letter to the editor, it was either dumped, or carried in the following day’s (or week’s) paper, with a small rejoinder, or in extreme cases, an apology. Today, we do not have that luxury.
Also, social media had given journalists ready access to political leaders, and celebrities and they can be directly tweeted for a response within minutes. Sometimes, even tagging them in a post can elicit a response. This was just not possible back in the day, when we would have to wait for hours, sometimes days, for an elusive quote.
On the other hand, the quality of online journalism sometimes is appalling. The race to get page views and clickbait etc., has led to misleading and openly untrue headlines. I follow three of India’s leading English newspapers on their app and almost every day without fail there are stories that may suggest that “an Indian legend” has made a “shocking statement” or that a well-known public figure has given an “epic response” to another. But inside – there are no legends, shocks, or epic responses. I understand that news organizations believe they will gain millions of new page views every day because of these SEO-driven headlines. However, what they may not realize is that over a long-term period, such headlines, and such misleading stories lead to an erosion of public trust in media. To worsen matters some of these pieces are a horror from an editor’s perspective – riddled with grammatical errors, and words/phrases that no self-respecting reporter would want their byline associated with.
If you look at the annual trust in media reports that Edelman (or others) publish annually, you will notice that public trust in journalism in India is on a steady decline. While some of this may be due to factors such as increasing political polarization, business control of media, and the pressures on journalists to kowtow to their owners – some of the blame must lie with what is being peddled as “news” in the online space. I must add here that this is NOT a reflection on the hundreds of absolutely amazing journalists doing their jobs against the odds every day – folks who continue to give us great journalism. But the growing number of such misleading pieces, grammatically incorrect copies, and openly biased reportage (often aimed at instigating hate) is a matter of concern.
Based in the US, Dr Dhiman Chattopadhyay is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication/Journalism, at the Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, where he teaches courses in Media Management, Diversity & Media, Strategic Communication, Journalism, and Public Relations. Dhiman, who has a Ph.D. in media and communication from the Bowling Green State University, Ohio, started his career in journalism in the mid-1990s, as a writer for Asian Age in Calcutta. He later went on to work with Deccan Chronicle, The Times of India, India Today, CFO India and Sunday Mid-Day, before moving to the US.
Kavitha Iyer:
My first job was at The Asian Age in Mumbai, in 2000. Of course, technological
advancements and geo-political transformations have altered the nucleus of news
dramatically, along with how it is consumed, who consumes it, when, where, and
so on. These are profound changes; they have hit us more rapidly in recent
years; and now we are all playing catch-up, all the time, with one or the other
new platform, audience segment and algorithm.
And yet, when you ask about changes, I remember what hasn’t changed – the power
of a good story to move the reader. A former editor told me often, ‘If a story
has legs, it will run.’ That is an uncomplicated early lesson in journalism, to
find a story with legs, and I believe it is the biggest change we’ve witnessed
in the profession (and certainly also in news consumption), that mainstream
journalism now appears able to skip the search altogether.
The effort that goes into the search is not the most economical way of doing journalism
– it’s simpler to be economical with facts and dress up views as reportage.
Everything else that continues to rush downhill stems from that. With regard to
how we now operate as journalists, the most terrible fallout of this is the
unwillingness of very large sections of bureaucrats/ police officers/
politicians and others to engage with those who ask questions, and with those
who reported or published something that caused discomfort. It is rare now to
have a morning-after-publication argument over a published item that ends with
the reporter-resource relationship intact.
As for the Internet, its transformative power is very well known, and growing
as we speak, with mind-boggling numbers of AI applications appearing every
week. WhatsApp deserves a special mention, both, for being its own parallel
post-truth universe and for replacing reportage with WhatsApped press notes.
(If it hasn’t been shared via WhatsApp, did it even happen?) Snark aside, the
Internet has given us in India a small treasure of digital-only news companies.
They’re growing in numbers and many of them are punching above their weight,
producing quality journalism from tiny newsrooms with a sliver of staff.
Kavitha Iyer has been a journalist for more than two decades and a
significant part of her work has been reporting on those living on the margins
– slum dwellers, small farmers, indigenous communities, landless labourers and
women. She is also the author of Landscapes Of Loss: The Story of an Indian Drought, which won the 2021 Tata Literature Live! First Book Award for
Non-Fiction.
Prof.
Anubhuti Yadav:
News consumption pattern has changed tremendously in the past few years. Reading newspapers, watching the news and listening to radio bulletins – every media consumption experience has witnessed a paradigm shift. People have stopped consuming media the way they used to earlier. The habit of reading newspapers with a cup of tea in the morning is replaced by reading on laptops, tablets and smartphones. Even while reading printed text, there is always an urge to go online to watch a video using a QR code placed next to a story. While reading text online, there is always an option to listen to the story than just reading it. These new ways of consuming content are the result of new technology integration in newsrooms, which makes it possible for news producers to produce content in a variety of ways. These new technologies not only help in packaging the content in a variety of ways but also in publishing it in different formats and disseminating it via different platforms.
New technologies have democratised the media landscape, where anybody can create and disseminate, but with this has emerged a problem of misinformation and disinformation. We have seen at the time of the pandemic how people were falling for misinformation. This requires media and information literacy initiatives so that people can consume media messages wisely and create messages responsibly.
At IIMC, we make sure our students are abreast of the latest in the field and we conduct workshops on emerging areas like mobile journalism, artificial intelligence, AR and VR, digital marketing etc. An English journalism course is a flagship course at IIMC. The course is a mix of theoretical and practical inputs. In recent years, keeping in view the use of new technologies in newsrooms, the focus has been on training students to handle new technologies. In today’s convergent media scenario, students have to be multi-skilled [but] for anyone who would like to have a career in media, writing skills are the most important. It is as essential for those who are working in radio, television, and web, as it is for print.
Dr Anubhuti Yadav is a Professor at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC). She was earlier Head of the Department of New Media & Technology and Course Director, Advertising and Public Relations, at the IIMC. She is also the author of New Media Journalism: Emerging Media and New Practices in Journalism, which was published in 2023.
News consumption pattern has changed tremendously in the past few years. Reading newspapers, watching the news and listening to radio bulletins – every media consumption experience has witnessed a paradigm shift. People have stopped consuming media the way they used to earlier. The habit of reading newspapers with a cup of tea in the morning is replaced by reading on laptops, tablets and smartphones. Even while reading printed text, there is always an urge to go online to watch a video using a QR code placed next to a story. While reading text online, there is always an option to listen to the story than just reading it. These new ways of consuming content are the result of new technology integration in newsrooms, which makes it possible for news producers to produce content in a variety of ways. These new technologies not only help in packaging the content in a variety of ways but also in publishing it in different formats and disseminating it via different platforms.
New technologies have democratised the media landscape, where anybody can create and disseminate, but with this has emerged a problem of misinformation and disinformation. We have seen at the time of the pandemic how people were falling for misinformation. This requires media and information literacy initiatives so that people can consume media messages wisely and create messages responsibly.
At IIMC, we make sure our students are abreast of the latest in the field and we conduct workshops on emerging areas like mobile journalism, artificial intelligence, AR and VR, digital marketing etc. An English journalism course is a flagship course at IIMC. The course is a mix of theoretical and practical inputs. In recent years, keeping in view the use of new technologies in newsrooms, the focus has been on training students to handle new technologies. In today’s convergent media scenario, students have to be multi-skilled [but] for anyone who would like to have a career in media, writing skills are the most important. It is as essential for those who are working in radio, television, and web, as it is for print.
Dr Anubhuti Yadav is a Professor at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC). She was earlier Head of the Department of New Media & Technology and Course Director, Advertising and Public Relations, at the IIMC. She is also the author of New Media Journalism: Emerging Media and New Practices in Journalism, which was published in 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment