Television always operate under the guise of false realism . The TV journalists are not bothered about how the news or other shows can be improved but they are looking at how the public at large may be sensitized . The increasing strength of modern mass cuture including TV is enhanced by the sociological structure of the audience . The fact is that the modern intelligentsia only partilly corresponds to it . What is happening is a huge strata of population who are unacquainted with other forms of art have become the consumers of TV . I think the TV journalists will continue to do what they are supposed to do (satisfying this intended population) .Now this defence is against the modern intelligentsia with whom their priorities and goals do not match .
--- On Tue, 24/2/09, ranju radha <[email protected]> wrote: From: ranju radha <[email protected]> Subject: [GreenYouth] Defending TV news To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: Tuesday, 24 February, 2009, 11:09 PM At a time, when the self-glorified patrons of radicalism that imagine caravans of mediations agaisnt corporate media and patronisingly sing the songs of self-nauseating accounts of sacrifices they extendtsympathetically FOR the Other (as if without which the struggles of the other wont see the light of the day.), let us also hear what the "fiendish" TV journalists have to say. http://thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=3675&mod=1&pg=1§ionId=14&valid=true Defending TV news “The job of a journalist is not to be an inanimate, unthinking robot. You are seeing the liberation of TV as a news media. TV is speaking its mind.” At FICCI Frames in Mumbai ARNAB GOSWAMI of Times Now and AJAY KUMAR of Aaj Tak, defended what they do. Posted Tuesday, Feb 24 15:32:20, 2009 Are television news anchors on the defensive after the criticism they faced through much of 2008 about their idea of news, and their treatment of events? If they are, it is an aggressive defence. At FICCI Frames in Mumbai on December 18, at a session titled 'Sensationalism vs Journalism, TRP zindabad' Arnab Goswami of Times Now and Ajay Kumar of Aaj Tak, defended what they do, the latter even more stridently than the former. On television's alleged sensationalism Arnab Goswami: There is far too much discussion around what we do. I refused to be patronized as a TV journalist, and told that TV is in its infancy. It is not in its infancy. India cannot be compared as a market with the UK or the US. TV sets the agenda and newspapers write about them. 2008 has seen the growth and maturing of TV. TV will set the agenda and other mediums will talk, write and blog about it. Ajay Kumar: Journalism per se is always good. There is nothing bad about it. We believe in any news that covers the common man's perspective. TRPs do not drive channels. Channels are driven by what people want to watch. Why do we do programmes on TV serials? If the viewer watches a serial he has every right to watch a news programme about it. People criticised our coverage. But didn't you want to watch it? You watched. Hindi networks are accused of being sensational., even if journalism was sensational, so be it. People like to talk about sensationalism in journalism, and why not? It keeps us in business! On why TV went to town with the story of Prince, the little boy who fell down a tube well shaft. Arnab Goswami: The job of a journalist is not to be an inanimate, unthinking robot. You are seeing the liberation of TV as a news media. Tv is speaking its mind. For far too long stories like this have been reduced to two-line mentions. Those who watch these stories are not watching sensational TV, they are watching relevant TV. Ajay Kumar That real India that which we think about, dream about but don't have the guts to go and meet. 23 hours of Prince: if we hadn't done it neither the army nor government would have been moved to go to his rescue. On why they blow up small things like the Bangalore pub incident. Arnab Goswami: We take a small thing and make it into a national debate. In Bangalore the police refused to register the case. It is only after TV channels made an issue of it that they did. Now cameras are everywhere. They cannot get away with it. They cannot get away with it. If we had not shown the policemen pulling that little girl in a UP village by her hair those policemen would not have been arrested. Ajay Kumar: The small kid who was abused and pulled by her hair. If TV had not picked up that stroyr those guys would not have been in jail. Take the Godhra riots. We have always brought people's stories. 80,000 people turned out at the Gateway of India after the Bombay attacks because we brought those pictures into their bedrooms. About the aggressive editorializing: Arnab Goswami There are comments about the tonality and stridency of TV. For far too long we have been used to bland stuff. So we add a little salt, not spice. What's popular news should not become populist news. What we are witnessing now is a stridency of news and non-news. The News agenda has shifted away. Today 3 times as many people watch news than did 3 yrs back. More people will watch news than entertainment. On why channels repeat footage incessantly Arnab Goswami TV has impact. If I don't repeat the pictures they will get away with it. On why TV cameramen do not intervene to stop attacks on people instead of merely shooting footage. Arnab Goswami The problem is that if our cameras do not grab such footage, then the police or the government might completely deny occurrence of such an incident. Footages serve as solid proof and immediate action is taken. On the accusation that during26/11 Mumbai carnage, the unending live footage by TV channels enabled terrorists to locate the VIPs inside the hotel and also give the position of the NSGs. A death of a police constable was blamed on the media. Ajay Kumar Perhaps we erred in this regard but the government too was late in awakening to this fact. It is a lesson that we will have to learn. Arnab Goswami We stopped the live telecast the moment the NSG commandos asked us to do so. -- " The so called caste-hindus are bitterly opposed to the depressed class using a public tank not because they really believe that the water will be thereby spoiled or will evaporate but because they are afraid of losing their superiority of caste and of equality being established between the former and the latter. We are resorting to this satyagraha not becasue we believe that the water of this particular tank has any exceptional qualities, but to establish our natural rights as citizens and human beings." - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
