A friend gave me permission to quote his reaction to the piece: "Agreed that one view is that the wide centre is what these are reporting on...Political left has vanished. Intellectual left has been thriving because of the deep roots - institutions and academia, public policy, long discourse Internet. And because this has been thriving and if not explicitly, implicitly so strong and rooted, the biases creep in even if they are not overtly played out, in long format ‘independent’ media where the enforced “populist - pro Govt” pressure is not in action."
This is very useful and much needed discussion to have. Do we need to consider the founders work before they have started these four news websites? e.g. Siddharth Varadarajan has worked as Editor in The Hindu before he started The Wire. And The Hindu is pro-left, according to you.
The challenge to old school journalism ethics comes from the fact that people want to get more "balanced", "real", "unbiased" view of the situation. If journalism is always anti-establishment, is it serving this need of it's readers well?
Hence it started with folks saying we shouldn't discount good work done by the government / a politician. This opened the flood gates for propaganda, as it becomes hard to distinguish the two.
The classification for left and right wing is frankly useless. Designating something as LW or RW or even centrists, takes the focus away from the responsibility that these news organisations need to focus on facts - that is the literal center. As editors, you can have a bias on either side, but while reporting news, you need to report the facts and all the facts. Which frankly no media is doing. They are businesses first and foremost, and they are behaving like that. The Wire gets its donations from liberals who are mostly anti establishment, hence its serving them the stories they want to read and conform to their bias. Same goes with MSM, which has owners and even readers who arent as liberal.
News as a business/establishment where one newspaper was enough for everyone should be done away with. It should be divided into news and opinions reporting - for opinions you already have social media, and for reporting facts, we should use the news websites. Just like Reuters is more reliable than anything even in Indian context and they rarely get tagged either way.
I am in PR and I couldn't agree to the 2nd para of your point 3 above. I agree to the essence of the piece completely though.
I believe a journalist need not be always anti-establishment as a rule. There's still people in the establishment working for greater good, and they need to be reported too. What will happen to development journalism if everyone becomes anti-establishment?
We, in PR, also take oath of professional ethics and honesty. Our job is advocacy, taking credit for the good work. What you were hinting at is propaganda. They are different, at least for professionals. There's some rotten tomatoes, but please do not throw the entire bag away.
This is a well-argued piece and I agree with the author that The Wire, Scroll etc. are not designed to serve any ideological agenda. However, the bigger problem with these outlets is the 'holier than thou' approach that defines their reportage. I agree with much of their work in principle, but the smug tone in which the message is often delivered only serves to alienate the right wing rather than bridge the divide.
I feel that the right-wing media has taken things so far, that what would have normally seemed centre-left is now 'left-wing'. And the narrative driven by pro-BJP media which labels anyone who questions their establishment as urban naxal and so on, has also contributed to this.
Good insightful comments! However in my opinion you missed , though these are all News sites started after 2014 / 2015 so you can not hold them against for UPA etc., they still have / had a chance to objectively report non-BJP Governments be in Jayalalitha, Mamta, Congress in Karnataka/ Rajasthan etc., Instead what you see is broadbrushing them as viable alternatives to BJP which reeks of hypocrisy. Like how SP/ RJD was promoted heavily earlier now again Shivsena, RJD being projected as the best alternatives!! That is the biggest problem which poses questions on their objective/objectivity
A friend gave me permission to quote his reaction to the piece: "Agreed that one view is that the wide centre is what these are reporting on...Political left has vanished. Intellectual left has been thriving because of the deep roots - institutions and academia, public policy, long discourse Internet. And because this has been thriving and if not explicitly, implicitly so strong and rooted, the biases creep in even if they are not overtly played out, in long format ‘independent’ media where the enforced “populist - pro Govt” pressure is not in action."
This is very useful and much needed discussion to have. Do we need to consider the founders work before they have started these four news websites? e.g. Siddharth Varadarajan has worked as Editor in The Hindu before he started The Wire. And The Hindu is pro-left, according to you.
Could The Caravan be included in this list?
The challenge to old school journalism ethics comes from the fact that people want to get more "balanced", "real", "unbiased" view of the situation. If journalism is always anti-establishment, is it serving this need of it's readers well?
Hence it started with folks saying we shouldn't discount good work done by the government / a politician. This opened the flood gates for propaganda, as it becomes hard to distinguish the two.
Can you elaborate a little on this? Why do you think internet-native independent media is freer from Government control? What makes it that way?
"Mostly restricted to the internet where they can’t easily be controlled by the government"
The classification for left and right wing is frankly useless. Designating something as LW or RW or even centrists, takes the focus away from the responsibility that these news organisations need to focus on facts - that is the literal center. As editors, you can have a bias on either side, but while reporting news, you need to report the facts and all the facts. Which frankly no media is doing. They are businesses first and foremost, and they are behaving like that. The Wire gets its donations from liberals who are mostly anti establishment, hence its serving them the stories they want to read and conform to their bias. Same goes with MSM, which has owners and even readers who arent as liberal.
News as a business/establishment where one newspaper was enough for everyone should be done away with. It should be divided into news and opinions reporting - for opinions you already have social media, and for reporting facts, we should use the news websites. Just like Reuters is more reliable than anything even in Indian context and they rarely get tagged either way.
I am in PR and I couldn't agree to the 2nd para of your point 3 above. I agree to the essence of the piece completely though.
I believe a journalist need not be always anti-establishment as a rule. There's still people in the establishment working for greater good, and they need to be reported too. What will happen to development journalism if everyone becomes anti-establishment?
We, in PR, also take oath of professional ethics and honesty. Our job is advocacy, taking credit for the good work. What you were hinting at is propaganda. They are different, at least for professionals. There's some rotten tomatoes, but please do not throw the entire bag away.
This is a well-argued piece and I agree with the author that The Wire, Scroll etc. are not designed to serve any ideological agenda. However, the bigger problem with these outlets is the 'holier than thou' approach that defines their reportage. I agree with much of their work in principle, but the smug tone in which the message is often delivered only serves to alienate the right wing rather than bridge the divide.
I feel that the right-wing media has taken things so far, that what would have normally seemed centre-left is now 'left-wing'. And the narrative driven by pro-BJP media which labels anyone who questions their establishment as urban naxal and so on, has also contributed to this.
Good insightful comments! However in my opinion you missed , though these are all News sites started after 2014 / 2015 so you can not hold them against for UPA etc., they still have / had a chance to objectively report non-BJP Governments be in Jayalalitha, Mamta, Congress in Karnataka/ Rajasthan etc., Instead what you see is broadbrushing them as viable alternatives to BJP which reeks of hypocrisy. Like how SP/ RJD was promoted heavily earlier now again Shivsena, RJD being projected as the best alternatives!! That is the biggest problem which poses questions on their objective/objectivity
Who stops them for reporting against state government that run by opposition parties?
Why daily killing of BJP workers in WB ignored?
Why Palghar Sadhu lynching by conversion mafia is not a issue but a child molester (muslim) lost his hand is big issue for these portals?
Those who used to call Shiv Sena a party of goons, now start to praise them (because Congress is partner in MAH government)
Their are so many points where lie of being neutral can be busted if some one really want to discussed please let me know.