having said that, here is a more considered response. the fastest
growing section, in terms of internal dynamics, investments in writers,
resources etc., is precisely the section within the hindu that tries to
be like the TOI. and it is bringing in the cash (ads). the supplement
which i myself edit, supposedly a more serious part of the hindu, used
to come out twice a month. now it comes out once. it doesn't bring in
any ads. no serious planning or thought about where it is headed or
even what it is; everything done on an ad hoc basis.
right now i would say that the hindu has a good mix of the serious and
trivial. but no doubt at all about where it is headed. if 'serious
journalism' sticks as a brand equity it will be retained. otherwise,
naturally, it will be thrown out. it *is* a product too.
regards, subash
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 07:54:32 +0530,
Subash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sometime back (months? i don't have the link now) jace had put up a
> similar analysis of the indian print media by an indian which
> went along very similar lines. and my reactions to that piece, as to
> this one, were very similar to yours udhay.
>
> when these guys talk so blithely and in general terms about the
> "indian media" i really wonder whether they've sampled enough
> data. :) but, given their data, which, like you say, seems to be
> restricted to the TOI and HT, the problems they talk about are real
> and urgent enough.
>
> regards, subash
>
> p.s.: apropos to the pakistani/indian thingy, while living in saudi
^^^^
ouch!
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:52:37 +0530,
> Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 08:45 AM 12/3/2005, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote:
> >
> > >A Pakistani journalist laments Bollywoodisation of Indian print
> > >media.
> > I wonder what Subash Jeyan, among others, thinks of this piece.
> > Subash?
