Journalists are supposed to be balanced, objective and fair. When a reporter reports a story, the facts are presented without adding their views. What is the norm when a journalist conducts a discussion with a panel on a controversial issue? The panelists obviously will put forward their views and perspectives, but what about the host? Should they take a stance, either overtly or covertly?
Was watching Sreenivasan Jain on NDTV's Truth vs Hype tonight and what struck me, not surprisingly, was the clear stance throughout the discussion of the emerging political scene in India today by Sreenivasan Jain. Should he have been so biased against Nitish Kumar- the statement Sreenivasan made 'I really don't know Nitish anymore' in the context of CM Nitish Kumar switching sides. We as the audience are interested in understanding the issue through the discussion among the panelists without the sarcastic remarks by the journalist.
This again needs to be contextualized. Many feel that Arnab is biased and is free with his personal stance on all issues. Because his image is amplified many times over, there is a feeling that Arnab more than any other anchor/host indulges in opinion based journalism. Sreenivasan Jain does it, Barkha Dutt did it and definitely Rajdeep Sardesai too indulges. It is convenient for journalists and critics out there to blame one when everyone is doing it, in different degrees.
Journalism cannot be neutral, it never has been. There is always an agenda and as long as it is clear, there is no problem. Indian Express took on the establishment and came out with its credibility intact. The Hindu , on the other hand, for all its bravado, came under government influence and buckled down in the Bofor's story. Only the Indian Express and The Statesmen were bold enough to take up the challenge and face the consequences for implicating the ruling Congress government for the Bofors' corruption. The binary (objective/subjectivity) does not work in journalism- all journalists are biased (they have an ideology).
Was watching Sreenivasan Jain on NDTV's Truth vs Hype tonight and what struck me, not surprisingly, was the clear stance throughout the discussion of the emerging political scene in India today by Sreenivasan Jain. Should he have been so biased against Nitish Kumar- the statement Sreenivasan made 'I really don't know Nitish anymore' in the context of CM Nitish Kumar switching sides. We as the audience are interested in understanding the issue through the discussion among the panelists without the sarcastic remarks by the journalist.
This again needs to be contextualized. Many feel that Arnab is biased and is free with his personal stance on all issues. Because his image is amplified many times over, there is a feeling that Arnab more than any other anchor/host indulges in opinion based journalism. Sreenivasan Jain does it, Barkha Dutt did it and definitely Rajdeep Sardesai too indulges. It is convenient for journalists and critics out there to blame one when everyone is doing it, in different degrees.
Journalism cannot be neutral, it never has been. There is always an agenda and as long as it is clear, there is no problem. Indian Express took on the establishment and came out with its credibility intact. The Hindu , on the other hand, for all its bravado, came under government influence and buckled down in the Bofor's story. Only the Indian Express and The Statesmen were bold enough to take up the challenge and face the consequences for implicating the ruling Congress government for the Bofors' corruption. The binary (objective/subjectivity) does not work in journalism- all journalists are biased (they have an ideology).
Comments
Post a Comment