An arrow landed on the pitch in Oval, England and the county cricket match was suspended. The metal-tipped arrow had been fired from outside the stadium and the police is yet to reach a conclusion on the motive. BBC reported this in the early morning news bulletin on BBC World News. Would the projectile have caused harm if it had hit a person on the ground? Similar incidents, stone/bottle been thrown onto the ground, in India and other countries have got little or no traction. Why, then did BBC give so much importance in a world service news programme?
Flooding in Assam gets little coverage but Mumbai floods are on the front page of Indian newspapers. Flooding anywhere in India gets little to no coverage in CNN but hours are spent on the Houston flooding. Why is there such imbalance and parochialism in the news coverage by reputed news organizations? India doesn't matter on the world scene, Assam doesn't matter in the Indian context.
Audience matters- so if the major portion of the audience for CNN is American, the Houston flooding coverage is understandable- but we are watch CNN International and it is for a non-American audience. Same with BBC, it is BBC World Service and not BBC Britain. We read Times of India in Bangalore and therefore the flooding in Assam and Mumbai should have the same interest, or does it. We are led to believe that anything to do with Mumbai is much more important than any other part of India.
News organizations are constantly trying to impose their ideology onto the audience. The imbalance in the news flow, more from West to East, is extended to the Indian context. Economic criterion is the basis for the news coverage and importance in terms of duration. So, if it is a poor state like Assam, the value for the newspaper/TV channel and their audience is low.
Flooding in Assam gets little coverage but Mumbai floods are on the front page of Indian newspapers. Flooding anywhere in India gets little to no coverage in CNN but hours are spent on the Houston flooding. Why is there such imbalance and parochialism in the news coverage by reputed news organizations? India doesn't matter on the world scene, Assam doesn't matter in the Indian context.
Audience matters- so if the major portion of the audience for CNN is American, the Houston flooding coverage is understandable- but we are watch CNN International and it is for a non-American audience. Same with BBC, it is BBC World Service and not BBC Britain. We read Times of India in Bangalore and therefore the flooding in Assam and Mumbai should have the same interest, or does it. We are led to believe that anything to do with Mumbai is much more important than any other part of India.
News organizations are constantly trying to impose their ideology onto the audience. The imbalance in the news flow, more from West to East, is extended to the Indian context. Economic criterion is the basis for the news coverage and importance in terms of duration. So, if it is a poor state like Assam, the value for the newspaper/TV channel and their audience is low.
There can also be another perspective for this way of reportage. Every person in India wants to move to a bigger city and dream of luxury, imagining the same city. This makes cities dearer to every citizen and every one would like to have tabs on it or at least would like to hear about it. If this is one aspect, cities are the pivots of politics, economy and massive urban migration which again makes cities a major concern for the national media and the nation.
ReplyDelete