------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:19:32 +0530
From: Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [silk] Journalistic Ethics
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On 25-Nov-10 8:44 AM, Shoba Narayan wrote:
Salil Tripathi has written a lovely piece in today's Mint about the
'thin red line' that journalists should not cross. Reactions?
http://www.livemint.com/2010/11/24211300/Over-the-thin-red-
line.html?h=D
I find this bit interesting:
<quote>
They become participants in a game they?re meant to observe, and some
among them believe that they matter in their own right, and not
because
of the credibility of their profession.
</quote>
A couple of thoughts come to mind:
1. The function of journalism is hold a mirror up to society, but it
should be noted that journalists are part of society
Yes, but....read on.
2. I think that being a participant-observer is a necessary part of
the
process of journalism, and it is not possible to eliminate the
participant component. I'd be very interested in comments from the
anthropologists here on this duality.
Being a participant is different from being an observer. The best
journalists viewed themselves as dispassionate observers. There was
this editor of the Wash. Post, I believe it was Ben Bradlee, who
refused to vote and discouraged his staff from doing so, lest they be
seen as partial. Although there are very few journalists of that ilk
these days, they remain the romanticized gold standard for most of us.
The above are thoughts about the notion of journalism itself, and
can be
construed as 'design' comments. In terms of 'implementation' comments
(i.e, in this particular case) I think that nobody has covered
themselves with glory, but, as Salil seems to imply, the bigger actors
here are the politicians and their corporate backers. Of particular
interest is exactly who was *surprised* by this whole contretemps,
which
merely seems to reflect Indian society's current mad infatuation with
Mammon. To translate it into a more Indian metaphor, the journalists
involved apparently decided that it made more sense to go with Lakshmi
than Saraswati.
I don't think either Dutt or Sanghvi made money off this in the
following Lakshmi sense. But it is sad to listen to the tapes. The
most poignant line in this piece is something about not the clout
they have but the clout they think they have. To retain some sense
of humility when you have proximity to "power," is tough and it shows
with these people.
Which may not be particularly noble, in this context, but neither
is it
hard to understand.
I think that journalists, like doctors and judges ought to be held to
higher standards.
Thoughts?
Udhay
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
silklist mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/silklist
End of silklist Digest, Vol 12, Issue 17
****************************************
