The three Cs of Indian news

Despite access to information from a wide variety of sources the news networks in India tend to go for celebrities, criminals and cricket. Posted/Updated Thursday, Dec 08 00:00:00, 2005
Prasun Sonwalkar in London Indo-Asian News Service Daya Kishan Thussu, the first professor of Indian origin in the field of media and cultural studies in any British university, is worried about the future of public service broadcasting in India. Thussu feels that despite access to information from a wide variety of sources the news networks in India tend to go for what he calls the three Cs - celebrities, criminals and cricket. He is a professor of international communication at the University of Westminster, London, which is ranked highly for its research and teaching in the theory and practice of journalism, media and cultural studies. Speaking to IANS on key questions facing the Indian media today, he said: Not just the future of public service broadcasting but public media in general worries me. I think it is important to distinguish between public service and state media. In India we had the latter, although we deserved the former. Thussu holds a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. A former journalist, he has published extensive research on the Indian media in academic journals, edited collections and books. Excerpts from the interview: Q: You have worked on the thesis of `infotainment`. How do you view the editorial content in the Indian media today - particularly television news? A: The concept of infotainment is a relatively new one, which emanates from recent changes in broadcasting ecology around the world. This is manifest in the way broadcasting has moved from public to private, where the private is privileged at the expense of public media. This also reflects the way the audience is perceived within the broadcasting industry people tend to be seen increasingly as consumers rather than citizens. As elsewhere, this is visible in Indian media too, with a range of programmes about consumerism, often driven by ratings and circulation battles. Q: The Indian press has a long history of service to society. What is the contribution of television to Indian society?

A: Unlike the private and professional press, the electronic media, almost from its inception in India has rarely been little more than a mouthpiece for the government. Successive governments have used the electronic mass media, especially television, to promote their agenda. Mrs Indira Gandhi was on record as saying that unlike her counterparts in other developing countries, she did not own a newspaper and therefore needed to have control on the airwaves to publicise her government`s policies. Indeed, under her stewardship the idea of using the visual media to educate the poor was taken seriously - just think of the amount of money the government spent on creating a satellite infrastructure in India. Satellite television came to India 10 years before it was available in Europe. Q: What do you see as the drawbacks in India`s news culture? A: Given the size, complexity and diversity of the Indian news media, it is not easy to speak of India`s news culture. Traditionally, we tended to follow the Western European (or more specifically the British) model of journalism. This was not surprising given the evolution of journalism in India. However, there was also strong anti-colonial ethos within the media in general. Many stalwarts of journalism had participated or were deeply affected by the anti-colonial movement. This also made them close to the political establishment in India. The government owned the electronic media and exerted influence over print media through control of newsprint and public sector advertising, thus making most media companies toe the official line, particularly on issues that had significant geo-political implications. In addition, the so-called Brahmanical press had a very urban, metropolitan bias, often ignoring the hinterland where most of India lives. The India vs. Bharat distinction could also be detected in the way the elite media covered real India. Q: What future does public service broadcasting have in India? A: Not just the future of public service broadcasting but public media in general worries me. I think it is important to distinguish between public service and state media. In India we had the latter, although we deserved the former. The idea of a public service broadcaster, as against the dominant American model of market-driven commercial broadcaster, is of utmost importance for a fast developing country in the world. Doordarshan is the world`s second largest terrestrial television network after China`s CCTV. It needs to be nurtured and seen not just as a political mouthpiece but a key part of Indian cultural diplomacy. We should learn from the Chinese who have launched an English language international channel CCTV-9. India has the professional expertise, especially in English - the language of global communication and commerce - and legitimate aspirations to be taken seriously among the comity of nations.

The government needs to take its public diplomacy more seriously. Public television needs professional people, not Mandi House mandarins to promote public service ethos within the country and a channel for the global Indian as well as an authentic voice of India, the emerging IT power, in the 21st century. Q: If globalisation has accelerated in recent decades, how has it impacted on the Indian media? A: The opening up of the media sector has profoundly affected Indian journalism. This is most visible in television - where we have come a long way from a state monopoly to the era of multi-channel viewing with many dedicated news networks, and not just in English and Hindi but in India`s other major languages. At the very least, this has created a television industry, which did not exist before 1991. We are indeed living in the age of media plenty. There are many more jobs for broadcast journalists. The information revolution - satellite TV and the Internet - have made journalists much more connected with the outside world. However, quantity does not necessarily translate into quality. With some exceptions, television news in India today is veering towards infotainment. Despite access to information from a wide variety of sources and heavy investment in the news sector as well as a more liberal regulatory environment, the news networks tend to go for what I may call the three Cs - celebrities, criminals and cricket. There is far too much on Bollywood in the news and far too little on what is actually happening in the country and indeed in the world at large. Q: How would you compare the professionalism of Indian journalists with that of their counterparts in the west? A: The press in India is comparable with the best in the world. This is not an empty boast but the professionalism of Indian journalists is out there for all to see. We produce some of the most professional news magazines. What distinguishes Indian journalists from others, especially in the developing world and I think this is important to emphasise -why should we compare Indian journalism with that of Britain or the US, which is what we often do. A more appropriate comparison would be with Brazil, China, Egypt, Indonesia or Turkey and I have no hesitation in saying that Indian journalism is streets ahead in comparison to these countries. And the primary reason for that is India is the world`s largest and most vigorous democracy. Q: To what extent can Indian citizens rely on the media for a faithful news discourse so that they may make rational choices on politics and policies of the day? A: I think Indian citizens are very media savvy and they also tend to consume a range of media. Many, especially in rural India, are suspicious of journalists, viewing them as city folks who visit them only at the time of elections! However, I do think that media play a very important role in shaping public opinion and creating an active public sphere.

Q: How has the proliferation of television news channels influenced political communication in India? A: There is obviously much more news to consume and increasingly the political establishment has recognised the value of visual communication in a country where even today nearly 40 percent of the population is illiterate. Also, many political parties have invested in news channels to promote their viewpoints this is happening more in a regional context but even the national and trans-national channels too have their political backers. This is making the political discourse, in many ways, much more interesting. Q: How does India`s large language press relate to the influential Englishlanguage `national` press based in New Delhi? A: The most exciting change in the Indian media scene is really in what has been traditionally called, without a trace of irony, as `vernacular` press. The press and broadcasting in Indian languages are thriving and are likely to make the elite press take notice. Even trans-national operators such as Rupert Murdoch have recognised the value of localisation of content - STAR TV in India has gone almost completely native! The growth of the Indian language media is a welcome development, which demonstrates further democratisation of India. Q: What are your views on allowing foreign participation in the Indian press and the media as a whole? A: This question is increasingly becoming almost redundant. If you are allowing foreign investment in television networks, including news networks, why not in the press? However, I do appreciate the apprehensions of many about foreign business interests coming to dominate media agenda. What is most dangerous for me is what I call `desi globalisation` - when foreign interests emphasise their native credentials to present a more acceptable face of globalisation.

Book Review: From News to Infotainment to Tamasha Subhash The book From News to Infotainment to Tamasha by Dr. Amit Nagpal is a must read for students and faculty of journalism as it connects the past with the present in a pragmatic manner and makes an attempt to predict the emerging scenario. THE TELEVISION journalism in the country has undergone a drastic transformation in recent year and the process is still continuing with an accelerated pace. Not much literature has been created to understand the transformation and the book From News to Infotainment to Tamasha-From Tamasha back to News by Dr Amit Nagpal strive to couture the process and also present an emerging landscape of television news. TV News in India has come a long way from the days of monopoly of Doordarshan to the present proliferation of private news channels. The book begins with theoretical aspects of news and ends with analysis of impact of social media on news channels (including the Anna Hazare episode) and a positive note on how tamasha bouncing back in television news. Share The book discusses various aspects like news definition, sensationalism, journalistic and managerial components of TV news and analyses the factors that has resulted into a situation in which the truth is a casualty to certain extent. It further discusses the genuine constraints that have emerged in the new situation. The book connects the past with the present in a pragmatic manner and makes an attempt to predict the emerging scenario. The evolution from news hard information to infotainment and subsequently to a kind of grabthe-attention Tamasha is covered in detail and the emerging scenario of tamasha becoming news again is explored with the help of insights from media professionals including renowned experts. The book has several useful appendices including a case study, Why BITV Collapsed? glossary and detailed bibliography. The book is highly informational and contains comprehensive tables, compact information on news channel industry in India, (a mini encyclopedia of Indian news channels including channel profiles, logos, punch-lines, launch date, ownership patterns etc.), and complete information on social and new media initiatives of news channels including Google+. If there is one area where the book falls short, is that the data (included in figures)

sometimes belongs to 2005-08 period and have not captured the major changes that have occurred afterwards. On the whole a must read book for journalism students and faculty, managers in TV news industry and general public who consumes the news. (Subhash Dhuliya is Director & Professor, School of Journalism & New Media Studies, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi.)

http://www.sources.com/SSR/Docs/SSRW-Infotainment.htm

nfotainment is "information-based media content or programming that also includes entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with audiences and consumers." [1] It is a neologistic portmanteau of information and entertainment, referring to a type of media which provides a combination of information and entertainment. According to many dictionaries [2] infotainment is always television, and the term is "mainly disapproving."[3] However, many selfdescribed infotainment websites exist, which provide a variety of functions and services.[4]

Contents

1 Criticism 2 Infotainment versus Journalism 3 Entertainment and news crossovers 4 Apocrypha 5 Footnotes 6 See also 7 External links

Criticism
The label "infotainment" is emblematic of concern and criticism that journalism is devolving from a medium which conveys serious information about issues that affect the public interest, into a form of entertainment which happens to have fresh "facts" in the mix. The criteria by which reporters and editors judge news value - whether something is worth putting on the front page, the bottom of the hour, or is worth commenting on at all - are integral parts of this debate. Some blame the media for this perceived phenomenon, for failing to live up to ideals of civic journalistic responsibility. Others blame the commercial nature of many media organizations, the need for higher ratings, combined with a preference among the public for feel-good content and "unimportant" topics (like celebrity gossip or sports). In her critique of infotainment News Flash, Bonnie Anderson cited the CNN lead story of February 2, 2004. It was the accidental exposure of Janet Jackson's breast on national TV. The follow up story was about a ricin chemical attack on the U.S. Senate majority leader.[5]

A specialization process has also occurred, beginning with the rise of mass market specialinterest magazines, moving into broadcast with the advent of cable television, and continuing into new media, like the Internet and satellite radio. An increasing number of media outlets are available to the public that focus exclusively on one topic such as current events, home improvement, history, movies, women and Christianity. This means that consumers have more choice over whether they receive a general feed of the most "important" information of the day, or whether they get a highly customized presentation that contains only one type of content, which need not be newsworthy, and which need not come from a neutral point of view. Some publications and channels have found a sizable audience in the "niche" of featuring hard news. But controversy continues over whether the size of that audience is too small, and whether those outlets are diluting content with too much "soft" news. Adding to the distinction between journalists and anchors and reporters are "human interest", personality, or celebrity news stories, which typically are directed by marketing departments based on a demographic appeal and audience share. It's commonly accepted that anchors are also media personalities, who may even be considered celebrities. The very nature of corporate network news requires its media personalities to use their public appeal to promote the networks investments, just as network broadcasts themselves (morning shows, TV news magazines) schedule self-promotional stories, in addition to advertising. Critics might go so far as to view anchors as a weak link, representing the misplacement of both the credit and the accountability of a news journalism organizationhence adding to a perceived erosion of journalistic standards throughout the news business. (See yellow journalism.) Most infotainment, especially television programs on the networks or broadcast cable, only contain general factual information on the subjects they cover, and should not be considered as formal learning or instruction. For example you may learn that a motorcycle contains an engine, or how fast one can travel, on American Chopper, but you will not learn the inner-workings of the engine, the physics and chemistry involved when it is running, or how to customize a motorcycle on your own using schematics.

Infotainment versus Journalism

Some define "journalism" only as reporting on "serious" subjects, where common journalistic standards are upheld by the reporter. Others believe that the larger "news business" encompasses everything from professional journalism to so-called "soft news" and "infotainment", and support activities such as marketing, advertising sales, finance and delivery. Professional journalism is supposed to place more emphasis on research, fact-checking, and the public interest than its "non-journalistic" counterparts. Because the term "news" is quite broad, the terms "hard" and "soft" denote both a difference in respective standards for news value, as well as for standards of conduct, relative to the professional ideals of journalistic integrity. The idea of hard news embodies two orthogonal concepts:

Seriousness: Politics, economics, crime, war, and disasters are considered serious topics, as are certain aspects of law, business, science, and technology.

Timeliness: Stories that cover current eventsthe progress of a war, the results of a vote, the breaking out of a fire, a significant statement, the freeing of a prisoner, an economic report of note.

The logical opposite, soft news is sometimes referred to in a derogatory fashion as infotainment. Defining features catching the most criticism include:

The least serious subjects: Arts and entertainment, sports, lifestyles, "human interest", and celebrities. Not timely: There is no precipitating event triggering the story, other than a reporter's curiosity.

Timely events happen in less serious subjectssporting matches, celebrity misadventures, movie releases, art exhibits, and so on. There may also be serious reports which are not event-drivencoverage of important social, economic, legal, or technological trends; investigative reports which uncover ongoing corruption, waste, or immorality; or discussion of unsettled political issues without any special reason. Anniversaries, holidays, the end of a year or season, or the end of the first 100 days of an administration, can make some stories time-sensitive, but provide more of an opportunity for reflection and analysis than any actual "news" to report. The spectrum of "seriousness" and "importance" is not well-defined, and different media organizations make different tradeoffs. "News you can use", a common marketing phrase highlighting a specific genre of journalism, spans the gray area. Gardening tips and hobby "news" pretty clearly fall at the entertainment end. Warnings about imminent natural disasters or acute domestic security threats (such as air raids or terrorist attacks) are considered so important that broadcast media (even non-news channels) usually interrupt other programming to announce them. A medical story about a new treatment for breast cancer, or a report about local ground water pollution might fall in between. So might book reviews, or coverage of religion. On the other hand, people frequently find hobbies and entertainment to be worthwhile parts of their lives and so "importance" on a personal level is rather subjective.

Entertainment and news crossovers

Infotainers are entertainers in infotainment media, such as news anchors or "news personalities" who cross the line between journalism (quasi-journalism) and entertainment. Notable examples in the U.S. media are Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Maury Povich, Deborah Norville, and Geraldo Rivera among others. Barbara Walters, though not the first to cross the line between news and personality stories, is for many the quintessential news-media icon. Her career dates back to the 50s, and her current prominence at ABC is largely due to celebrity interviews, with a long running co-anchorship on

20/20 with Hugh Downs and, later, John Stossel until 2004, and her overlapping morning infotainment show The View. When Geraldo Rivera became the host of his own news-oriented talk show on CNBC, others within the NBC organization voiced their protest, including Tom Brokaw who was reported to have threatened to quit. Rivera had a notorious history as a "sleaze reporter" and daytime talk show host, where he and one or two others were representative of "Tabloid talk shows"; television seen to have little social value or redeeming intelligence, but still popular with viewers. Fox News is sometimes classified as infotainment as it increasingly relies on loose fact checking policies, distortion of facts and celebrity personalities to present a more entertaining, although less factually accurate, version of events.[6]

Apocrypha
Infotainment the word was created by Joseph L. Putegnat III in January 1979. He also created his first company with the same name. The company advertised colleges and universities to high school students via VHS video tape made available with no charge to the high school's library. In this way the student could preview the college campus without having to travel. Several press releases were published in 1979 announcing the company formation. The terms "Infotainment" and "Infotainer" were first used in September 1980 at the Joint Conference of Aslib, the Institute of Information Scientists and the Library Association in Sheffield, UK. The Infotainers were a group of British information scientists who put on comedy shows at their professional conferences between 1980 and 1990. An earlier, and slightly variant term, "Infortainment" was coined in 1974 as the title of the 1974 convention of the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (IBS), the association of college radio stations in the United States. It took place on April 57, 1974, at the Statler Hilton Hotel, now the Hotel Pennsylvania. It was defined as the "nexus between Information and Entertainment." In a letter dated February 25, 1974, Russell C. Tornabene, then Vice President and General Manager of NBC Radio, wrote to Convention Chairman Robert S. Tarleton, who had coined the term, "The title of your national convention is indeed clever. May we borrow it some day to describe something we may attempt." Whether NBC's rather limited use of the term led to the 1980 event and variation is unclear; what is clear is that the second version stuck.