ravishingravi Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 EbFvcgppjs4 You certainly can't blame him of mincing words. He has received severe backlash for his comments. 9HeaHEp9IYI
zen Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Hats off to justice Katju :hatsoff: I am sure there are many who would endorse Katju's views on how rubbish (if not one of the worst) Indian media is .... That guy Aashutosh on IBN portrays what's wrong with our media, the ibn show itself hinted on trying to cherry pick and sensationalize what Katju said. It was good to see a couple of sensible journos stressing the need for media to introspects and pointing the fact that media is open to criticism too. There is no absolute freedom
Desi Cartman Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 What's wrong with Karan thappar, why was he summarizing whatever was being said to make it sound like a headline ? I found it a little disrespectful to the guest
yoda Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Media enterprises are commercial entities, so they will spin things, try to get "news" out early to increase ratings. However, over time, certain organizations set themselves apart from the others and reasonable people know to rely more on them for proper news. I am not sure government regulation or trying to induce fear in them is the right approach.
ravishingravi Posted November 10, 2011 Author Posted November 10, 2011 What's wrong with Karan thappar' date=' why was he summarizing whatever was being said to make it sound like a headline ? I found it a little disrespectful to the guest[/quote'] He is actually agreeing with Katju. Thats my sense. Although Katju is 100% correct imo, he seems to be throwing caution to the wind and making some very sweeping statement for a guy of his position and pedigree.
Pagalpanti Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 If a channel like India TV can be called a news channel, there is definitely something wrong with Indian media.
CandyFloss Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 All I can say about Katju after his Velusamy ruling that seems to have undone the positive impact of all the earlier judgments, obiter full of crap.. is LOL! :headshake:
f.b.m Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Although I commend his views and desire to be rational and enlightened, he is missing on one important point: The media only shows what people want. There'll be no astrology channels if there was no one who believes it. If a channel suddenly decides to stop showing astrology, it doesn't suddenly create a more rational audience. It'll just lose out in ratings to another channel which does show it. People point to IndiaTV as though its some great tower of media evil. Its only there and famous because of the market demand for such BS. If you banned it, there'd be some other channel that would cater to credulity and backwardness. The problem really isnt with 'the media', its with the views and beliefs of other people. Its the same for fair and lovely: its not creating racism as much as its just harnessing the racism in the population to its advantage.
f.b.m Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Oh lawd! I made the grave mistake of pressing play on the second video. The scream and bellow-fest that followed reminded me why I dont follow 'debates' anymore on Indian news channels. And just to add: The people on the scream-fest are going on about 'the meeja' being evil and 'the meeja' being a shining light in our democracy (lol). Of course this is completely ignoring the fact that 'the media' doesnt exist: only people saying and showing stuff that others watch/read/listen to. Some of them are silly, some of them are responsible for good etc, etc but looking at the media as a separate entity is ridiculous.
WC2011INDIA Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 That IBN live senior editor (white haired) sitting in studio is very annoying and comes across as someone who would do anything for TRPs
Mariyam Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 He is actually agreeing with Katju. Thats my sense. Although Katju is 100% correct imo' date=' he seems to be throwing caution to the wind and making some very sweeping statement for a guy of his position and pedigree.[/quote'] I would beg to differ. The first part of the interview, I partially agree with, i.e when he calls for media reform, a more responsible media etc. I think f.b.m has addressed that part nicely. The second part of his interview, he calls for more power for PCI. Thats the leit motif of his arguement. In a nutshell, the PCI was formed under the Morarji Desai ( not very sure) govt. as statutory body. In those days it was the be all and end all of all things print media. In the late 80s or ealry 90s, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's (MIB) powers were enhanced and they ate into many roles that the PCI had hitherto handled. For one, PCI revenue is wholly dependent on MIB grants for their running. And MIB is a body that is not independent of govt. influence. PCI, to a large degree, was independent of govt. intervention. What Katju sir is asking here is indirectly reverting back to the old method, where PCI has more avenues to generate its revenue and can act independently. Or so I think. This is quite an old debate.
Mariyam Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Oh lawd! I made the grave mistake of pressing play on the second video. The scream and bellow-fest that followed reminded me why I dont follow 'debates' anymore on Indian news channels. And just to add: The people on the scream-fest are going on about 'the meeja' being evil and 'the meeja' being a shining light in our democracy (lol). Of course this is completely ignoring the fact that 'the media' doesnt exist: only people saying and showing stuff that others watch/read/listen to. Some of them are silly, some of them are responsible for good etc, etc but looking at the media as a separate entity is ridiculous. Exactly!!! The media is basically a mirror. It may distort the views a little bit here and there, but it essentially shows what a society is and what it wants to see. Katju sir was talking as if the media has its own life, its own agenda. If you don't like what you see in the mirror, its time for a rhinoplasty or a minor cosmetic surgery. Breaking the mirror is not going to solve your problem.
vvvslaxman Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Don't think cricketers like the media either.
vvvslaxman Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Although I commend his views and desire to be rational and enlightened' date=' he is missing on one important point: [b']The media only shows what people want. There'll be no astrology channels if there was no one who believes it. If a channel suddenly decides to stop showing astrology, it doesn't suddenly create a more rational audience. It'll just lose out in ratings to another channel which does show it. People point to IndiaTV as though its some great tower of media evil. Its only there and famous because of the market demand for such BS. If you banned it, there'd be some other channel that would cater to credulity and backwardness. The problem really isnt with 'the media', its with the views and beliefs of other people. Its the same for fair and lovely: its not creating racism as much as its just harnessing the racism in the population to its advantage. I don't think people want only this only that. It is much like American media portraying its people as if they are celebrity obsessed. In reality nobody cares about Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton.
zen Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 One of the points that Katju made was how the Indian society is in a transition phase, i.e. from a largely agricultural to modern and industrial. During a transition phase like this it is important for media to take a lead role with stories that help people not only in understanding this transitional phase but also bring out their problems. He also touched upon the positive role of media in Europe when it was going through a similar transitional phase When you go through the Indian TV channels, it's like many of these journos have no clue. Usually, they only look to see and say what suits them (cherry picking) and sensationalize a story. As I said, even in that IBN show (2nd link), it appears as if they wanted to portray Katju's comments as an attack on India, the poll question put on was "should Katju apologize?" when it should have been "does the Indian media need to introspect" I disagree with the notion that the "media has to give what the people want or they would be lost in the competition". When you are talking about serious coverage like news stories, investigative journalism, current affairs, debates on matters of national interest, etc the level needs to be improved (this is where I think Katju calls these guys not "well read"). Like Katju said, even in debates, the guys in the panel interrup and not let others speak and in such a scenrio where is a debate or light shed on the subject Media plays a very imp role in our lives and in shaping up our mindset. Like in creative thinking, if you ask the ppl what they want you would hardly advance because most ppl don't have a clue about what they woulld need in the future. From what I have heard, on the first train ride in India, many ran away at the sight of an incoming train, may be thinking it is some kind of a monster. If you are in a transitional phase, the media has to play a key role and not act like an extention of bollywood
ravishingravi Posted November 11, 2011 Author Posted November 11, 2011 I would beg to differ. The first part of the interview, I partially agree with, i.e when he calls for media reform, a more responsible media etc. I think f.b.m has addressed that part nicely. The second part of his interview, he calls for more power for PCI. Thats the leit motif of his arguement. In a nutshell, the PCI was formed under the Morarji Desai ( not very sure) govt. as statutory body. In those days it was the be all and end all of all things print media. In the late 80s or ealry 90s, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's (MIB) powers were enhanced and they ate into many roles that the PCI had hitherto handled. For one, PCI revenue is wholly dependent on MIB grants for their running. And MIB is a body that is not independent of govt. influence. PCI, to a large degree, was independent of govt. intervention. What Katju sir is asking here is indirectly reverting back to the old method, where PCI has more avenues to generate its revenue and can act independently. Or so I think. This is quite an old debate. Fair point. Although when I said I agree with him, I was merely talking about take on media, not necessarily on regulating it.
ravishingravi Posted November 11, 2011 Author Posted November 11, 2011 http://ibnlive.in.com/shows/The-Last-Word.html
zen Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 http://ibnlive.in.com/shows/The-Last-Word.html Thanks for the link .... Liked the views of the editors of the Hindu and IBN Lokmat
f.b.m Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 I don't think people want only this only that. It is much like American media portraying its people as if they are celebrity obsessed. In reality nobody cares about Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton. If people dont care about them, why do they get the viewership that they do? disagree with the notion that the "media has to give what the people want or they would be lost in the competition"You agreeing or disagreeing with it really doesnt matter. Its like disagreeing with gravity. People will get what they like one way or the other. If astrology and other kinds of bs is what they like, they will get it either from a tv channel that shows it or the local con artist. If TV doesnt cater to their taste, they will watch less of it and so on. It doesnt matter how North Korean a government gets with its media, it has very little effect on its population until the root problems of credulity and irrationality are addressed.
zen Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 You agreeing or disagreeing with it really doesnt matter. Its like disagreeing with gravity. People will get what they like one way or the other. If astrology and other kinds of bs is what they like, they will get it either from a tv channel that shows it or the local con artist. If TV doesnt cater to their taste, they will watch less of it and so on. It doesnt matter how North Korean a government gets with its media, it has very little effect on its population until the root problems of credulity and irrationality are addressed. I don't think you understand the crux of what is being said. For what's worth, people like drugs too, they are going to get that in one way or the other so why not sell it to them officially. If you won't sell it someone else will .... We are talking about ethics and morals, how something as powerful as media, which can shape what we think, should get its priorities right I am not really concerned about trival stuff like having astrology on TV. My point is to have the Indian media with more substance and play a vital role by giving more weightage to key issues esp. when India is in a transitional phase .... for example: if in the main news programs, if you are discussing a wax statue of an actor something is wrong, it should be in a side section Also reporting is about doing proper research and not airing to sensationalize the news to get more TRP There are many avenues to make money. Something like media, in a country like India needs to get its priority right and help educate and bring out the issues the people face. From being an extention of bollywood, it needs to turn into a game changer for India and Indians This is not just about the TV channels but also print
Recommended Posts