KEVIN CARTER'S 'THE VULTURE AND THE CHILD'

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta was making a spirited submission in front of Supreme Court on May 28 this year attacking journalists as ‘prophets of doom’ for highlighting the desperation and plight of workers who had been trying to reach home amid the lockdown. You can read the details of Mr Mehta's arguments here, here and here.

Mehta later on June 1 said he had never referred to journalists as "prophets of doom". To defend Mr Mehta, Times of India carried an interesting refutal of Mr Mehta where he reportedly said that he used the term 'Prophets of doom' against "certain NGOs and so-called activists who filed a slew of PILs and intervention applications before the courts to look into migrant workers and other problems. These were the same people who contributed nothing to mitigate the problems of any section of the society during the pandemic."

On March 31, the same Mr Mehta told Supreme Court that "No one is now on road. Anyone who was outside has been taken to available shelters". A blatant lie about which you can read here and here. A day before, hearing two petitions by advocates Alakh Srivastava and Rashmi Bansal seeking immediate redressal to the "heart-wrenching and inhuman plight of thousands of migrant workers walking back home",  the SC had asked Central Government to submit a status report on the measures taken to prevent exodus of migrant workers in the wake of the 21-day lockdown that began on March 22 midnight.

After 63 days of the lockdown and many hearing on the two petitions, the SC finally took sou-moto cognisance of the issue of migrant workers on May 27 and asked the Central Government to file a reply in two days. While appearing before the court, Mr Mehta referred to the iconic photograph of a malnourished child and a vulture in Sudan taken in 1993 by South African photo-journalist Kevin Carter, which got him a Pulitzer.

This has brought into sharp focus a decades-old debate on ethical dilemma faced by journalists. While submitting that the government was doing a lot for the workers walking home, the SG accused journalists of spreading negativity. What the SG failed to tell the court is that he quoted verbatim from a social media post (mainly in WhatApp) that was doing rounds since around 19^th May. 

Various well-crafted translation of the post in regional languages were also being circulated. ‘Remember the picture? The name of the picture was The Vulture & the Little Girl’ – the post read. The child in the picture was actually a boy, but the SG said it was a girl – just as circulated in the social media post. He also told the court that the photo was taken in 1983 missing the actual time by exactly a decade.

The social media post described how Carter committed suicide after being called a vulture for choosing to take photo instead of helping the child. ‘There was(sic) two vultures in the picture, one with a camera’ – the post screamed. The depiction of Carter as the second vulture sought to draw a parallel between Carter and the media’s role in reporting the migrant workers’ crisis.

 

“Today, 26 years later, the vultures are still returning home from all over India with cameras in their hands, busy taking pictures of workers walking thousands of kilometers... These vultures are more concerned with gathering news, with increasing channel TRP, than with worrying about workers' deaths. They are busy collecting breaking news by pouring spices on the bodies of dead workers and children”. These were the venomous words in the post which was being forwarded.

 

Carter’s photo has a story behind. Sudan was experiencing a ‘silent famine’ during 90’s following a protracted civil war and hundreds were dying of starvation and malnutrition, which the world at large was not much aware of. The United Nations was aware of the need for a massive humanitarian support and wanted to highlight the plight of the people. Carter was one of the journalists engaged to document this human tragedy.

 

On that day in March 1993, Carter had completed the day’s work and was returning to the waiting aircraft at the small airstrip in the Sudanese village of Ayod, when he noticed a child resting amid a crawl, trying to reach the United Nation’s food distribution centre run by and NGO called Doctors’ of the World situated near the airstrip. The NGO had divided the population in need of assistance into two categories – T for severe malnutrition and S for supplementary feeding. People in T category were to reach the food distribution centre first. If anyone looks carefully, a plastic band with the letter T3 inscribed can be seen on the wrist of the child in Kevin’s photo.

 

It is not that Carter just clicked the photo leaving the child to the vulture as the social media posts insinuated. What he did as a professional photo-journalist may seem even more revolting to many readers who does not understand the profession. Carter later recollected that he, in fact, waited almost twenty minutes for the vulture to open its wings for a more impactful photograph. But, when he realised that it was not going to happen he took the image anyway, shooed the bird away, and left.

 

The question about the fate of the child remained unanswered for another 18 years when the Spanish newspaper El Mundo tracked the father of the boy in 2011. The severely malnourished boy named Kong Nyong was the third to reach the UN food centre that day; he survived the famine but died of ‘fever’ in 2007.

   

 

It is a dilemma faced by not only journalists but almost every professional in their life - whether to be professional or be humane. Many journalists face this moral and ethical question – whether to intervene or to observe and tell. Carter's death had given a new dimension to the ethical debate. There is no conclusive evidence as to why he committed suicide; it was just a convenient conjecture that is being spread that he felt remorse for his action of not helping the child in Sudan. Maybe there were other reason! He had a failed relationship and fathered a daughter out of wedlock. He had little money and a lot of obligations. His closest friend died a few months ago. May be these were the passive causes for his suicide.

 

When the Solicitor General told Supreme Court that Carter’s work spelled “doom” he was wrong on at least two counts. First - as representative of the executive, his tasteless remarks on journalists and others highlighting the crisis actually amounts to one pillar of democracy attacking another pillar, which is ominous. His reference to Carter as the second vulture is derogatory to the entire profession of journalism. Second – his longwinded submission based almost in toto on a WhatsApp forward was not only factually inaccurate, but also symptomatic of a greater malaise in the society. By replacing sound legal arguments with propaganda materials to question the motive and credentials of people highlighting the crisis, the solicitor general has erred in professionalism, to say the least.       

A shorter edited version of this post was published in The Assam Tribune on 3 June 2020.

 

"You cannot buy peace" ....... but they can buy you.

The next piece (2nd lead in editorial page) just below Arup Dutta's writing in Assam Tribune (on meter gauge heritage railway line in Assam and what authorities need to do to preserve it, you can follow the link to read it) is by M Venkaiah Naidu, titled "Let us not politicise farmers' issues". Mr Naidu is currently the Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting. The same article was published as lead article in editorial page of Times of India across all editions.

Now read what Arun Shourie has to say about Mr. Naidu. While referring how newspapers and media people want to buy peace by providing politicians space. Shourie said, "Never delude yourself into believing that a little concession will buy you peace". He was speaking in front of an array of veteran journalists at the Press Club of India in New Delhi. The event was to protest the CBI raid on the founders of NDTV, Pranoy Roy and Radhika Roy. Mr Shourie added, "Many of you think that if you give prominence to some of the articles of these ministers or if you give them air-time, they will help you in a crisis."
"Give Venkaiah Naidu that small third-standard notebook, and ask him to fill one page coherently on any random topic. But you keep printing his articles, when you know very well that he cannot write. Because you think that by giving him that space, that much airtime to these fellows, you are buying peace. No, in fact, when the assault comes to you none of them will help." [The Telegraph, Page 1, Saturday, 10 June, Guwahati edition]

Asomiya Pratidin

P.S.  The meet at Press Club of India on Friday, June 9 to protested CBI raid in NDTV offices on trivial ground and the veteran journalists felt it was an attack on freedom of press. Here is how newspapers in Assam, which otherwise are very sensitive about freedom of press, treated the news -

(1) The Telegraph - page 1
(2) Assam Tribune - not covered
(3) Times of India, Guwahati - not covered.
(4) Asomiya Pratidin - Page 9 with smallest headline in the page.
(5) Dainik Agradoot - Not covered
(6) Asomiya Khabor - not covered
(7) Dainik Janambhumi, Guwahati edition - not covered
(8) Dainik Asom - Page -10

Dainik Janasadharan

(9) Janasadharan - page -1 (2nd lead)The newspaper is owned by Congress
politician Rakibul Hussain.
(10) Dainandin Varta - not covered
(11) Amar Asom - not covered.(They carried it in front page on Sunday, 11 June)
(12) Dainik Gana Adhikar - not covered.
(13) Ami Asomor Janagan - not covered.

Now let us have a look at the display advertisement received from government by these newspapers on Saturday, June 10. Classified like tenders etc. is not counted.


(1) The Telegraph - Nil, except a Railway function advt released by Eastern & South Eastern Railway for Kolkata edition, which is carried by default in Guwahati edition.
(2) Assam Tribune - two half page advt from Social Welfare Department, one half page from Assam Minorities Development Board, 1/4 th page from National health Mission, Assam
(3) Times of India, Guwahati - Same railway advt released to Telegraph, again to Kolkata edition but printed in Guwahati by default.
(4) Asomiya Pratidin - one half page from Assam Minorities Development Board, 3/4 page from National Commission on Women & Social Welfare Deptt,
(5) Dainik Agradoot - one half page from Social Welfare Department, one half page from Assam Minorities Development Board.
(6) Asomiya Khabor - one half page from Social Welfare Department, one half page from Assam Minorities Development Board, one half page from Central Board of Direct Taxes, 1/4 page from Central Excise Board, one half page from National Commission for Women.
(7) Dainik Janambhumi - two half page, one from Social Welfare Deptt. the other from Assam Minorities Development Board, 1/4 th page from National health Mission, Assam, another half page from National Commission on Women.
(8) Dainik Asom - None
(9) Janasadharan -None
(10) Dainandin Varta - one half page from Social Welfare Department, one half page from Central Board of Direct Taxes, one half page from National Commission on Women.
(11) Amar Asom -  two half page, one from Social Welfare Deptt. the other from Assam Minorities Development Board, another half page from National Commission on Women.
(12) Dainik Gana Adhikar - two half page, one from Social Welfare Deptt. the other from Assam Minorities Development Board.
(13) Ami Asomor Janagan - two half page, one from Social Welfare Deptt. the other from Assam Minorities Development Board, another half page from National Commission on Women.

I am not asking you to draw any correlation from above, and I will come back at a later date to record the revenue collected by these newspapers for these advertisements.
(Reports on 11 June 2017, in the newspapers which received the Assam Minorities Welfare Board's half-page advertisement on Chief Minister attending Iftar, said the government spent close to Rs. 24 lakh on this advt) 

Every year in December they say car prices will increase in January, Why?


News like to one above is published by all newspapers across India in the month of December every year. Car prices are likely to increase - why do I need to know that? So that I can buy the car now in December before the price is hiked in January. Simple! Car companies are indeed doing a great social service by telling everyone in advance about the imminent hike in prices and thereby helping us to save a few thousand rupees.
But, does it make any business sense? I mean telling everybody that "input costs have gone up and we were so far absorbing them. But from January, we are going to pass in on to you, keeping our profit intact". And then, why such news appear every year invariably during December, not any other time?
Moreover, why do I read about a lot of incentives, discounts and other freebies on car sale during December? Such announcements are understandable during festive seasons as many people like to buy cars on auspicious occasions. December does not have any festivals.
To understand this, we need to consider a few facts. First, the depreciation in value of a car is in the range of 6-10% every year. So, a car bought today will have 24-40% less value after four years. Second, car registration in India is on calendar year basis. That means a car registered in December 2016 is one year older than a car registered in January 2017 even though the registration is only one month apart. So, a car bought in December 2016 will become four years older in January 2020. But, a car bought in January 2017 will become only three year old in January 2020.
Therefore, if you want to sell your car in future you will get less value if you had bought it in December. It makes sense not to buy a car in December if you want to sell it later.
Now, let us come back to the apparent news. What will be the likely consequences of the news? It is basically aimed at enticing you to buy the car in December. That makes it advertising, not news. There are other reasons why car makers want to sell all stocked up inventory in December. The total number of a cars sold up to December gives the car fancy title like "Car of the Year" "People's Choice of the Year" etc. No wonder, they want to clear all their stock in December. For this reason most car maker postpone new launch till January. Tata motors have postponed its launch of Hexa till January next year.
To help calculate benefit or loss of buying a car in December, I am listing the price of a few Tata Motors' vehicles here (as on today, price is approximate only as it varies from states to states). Find out in January (with simple arithmetic) whether the news above is actually a news to help you or an advertisement to entice you.

Tata Tiago – Rs. 3.32 to 5.85 lakh

Tata Zest – Rs. 5.28 to 8.73 lakh

Tata Nano – Rs. 2.33 to 3.31 lakh

Tata Bolt – Rs. 4.73 to 7.42 lakh

Tata Safati – Rs. 9.72 to 10.95 lakh

Tata Indica eV2 – Rs. 4.89 to 5.60 lakh

Tata Indigo sCS – Rs. 5.12 to 6.54 lakh

Tata Safari STORME – Rs. 10.50 to 15.48 lakh

Tata Nano GenX – Rs. 2.33 to 3.31 lahk

Tata Hexa – to be launched in Jan 17 (exp 15 Lakh)

Tata Kite – to be launched in July 17 (exp 4 lakh)

Tata Nexon – to be launched in Dec 16 (exp 8 lakh)

Tata Aria – Rs. 12.15 to 17.46 lakh

Tata Sumo Gold – Rs. 6.82 to 8.64 lakh

Tata Xenon XT – Rs. 10.14 to 11.19 lakh

   

Late night show

We generally call it a day at around 10.30 every night because the kid has to wake up early for school. He does not like to sleep alone and we love to oblige him. Saturday night I was awake till 12.30 surfing through TV channels ostensibly because I could not sleep, but actually hoping to get an eyeful of the "big" attraction in Colors - Pamela at 43.
Of late, Pamela - who has been out of job in her country - has been raising storm in my country. I think anybody would have; if paid 23,000,000 rupees for three days performance. Television and print - both have extensively reported on Pamela and her 'show'and people like me were left exasperated at the thought - why should I be deprived of it when the whole country is getting it?
The Information and Broadcasting Ministry had last week acquired the sudden realisation that Pamela and other actors in the copycat reality TV show 'Big Boss - season 4' are showing vulgarity, obscenity, sexual innuendo and thereby degrading the 'culture' in my country by 'doing' things we apparently do not do.
Please do not get it wrong. The I&B Ministry was not against freedom of expression, but it did not wanted the kids to see all those "big" action. Everything big should be the absolute territory of the adults. So, it ordered Colors to show Pamela (and Big Boss) after 11 P.M. and forced hundreds of others like me to suddenly become insomniac.
The resultant debate on free speech, government control and moral standard has missed a few points. Obscenity and vulgarity are not objective or absolute. Like in nature, change is the norm here. As the size of the Bikini has shrunk in the last 70 years, so is the definition of obscene and vulgar. What is obscene or vulgar is not decided by the performer but decided by the sense of the receptor. It is the consciousness, taste and value system of the receptor that decides the acceptability (or lack of it) of a show. You will not see it if it repulses you, or will be glued to it if you like it - no matter when or where.
Another point that was missed (or left out?)by media is that Indian viewers had a dilemma before the ban - whether to watch Kaun Banega Crorpati in Sony or Big Boss (both had same timings). As a result, the TRP was shared between the two channels. Post ban the problem for both Colors and Sony have been solved. Is I&B Ministry helping Colors in more than one way - first by raising the storm over the issue, attracting eyeballs and telling everyone what Colors is showing. Then by allocating a different time for the Big Boss and helping it (and Sony too) get more TRP. Finally, telling the whole country about the change of timings for the Big Boss show. Otherwise, how many of us would have been aware what Big Boss shows, what Raki Ka Insaf shows and that these shows now starts from 11 P.M. or think about the money Colors would have to spend on advertising just to tell people about it.
It's a win win for all. And a big show of hypocrisy by the entire nation.

Cry baby

"They write whatever they feel or think, they never bother to confirm from me. They write all kinds of imaginary things. They are ruining the image of my organization and putting my job at stake".
This was not a cry baby, but a grown up government public relations personnel. He was lamenting on media people writing all kinds of stories which had little facts and a lot of imagination. "What can I do?", was all he could manage to say.
What he (and lot of other PR professional in similar places) fail to realize is that newspapers has at least 60,000 square centimeter of space to fill everyday. They need news that can be written about; that can fill up space. Simple "yes" or "no" does not take much of a space. If you say nothing, they will "find" something to write and print. That may be imagination, hearsay, trash or pure misrepresentation of facts.
If you do not say enough for mediamen to write and fill up ample spaces, you really do not have much to complain about. Give them a lot to write, they will write what you say. They will not resort to inventing news if they do not have to. For a better PR, please speak.

Jade Goody and Media Ethics

Star of reality television show Jade Goody died peacefully in her sleep last Sunday. Goody was made infamous in India by the media for her supposedly racial remarks against Indian actor Shilpa Shetty during the shooting of the British version of the reality show Celebrity Big Brother in 2007. She was detected with cervical cancer while she was taking part in the shooting of the Indian version of the show during August last year. Since then, media all over the world and especially in Britain have been subjecting her to close scrutiny and glare, at time even intruding in her personal life.The progress of her illness was chronicled in detail in the media.
It is appallingly sad to hear someone as young as twenty-seven dying of cancer. It was equally sad to observe the role media played during her painful and excruciating seven-month personal fight against cancer and her wretched attempt to get whatever was left of her life together. Goody was inching towards certain death as the British tabloids splashed their front pages with every minute details of her personal life. She was a regular item as the weather report. Media around the world more or less followed the pattern although news about her was not as frequent as in the British media. There was no second thought while writing about Goody. The terrific fact that someone is dying slowly being completely aware of it has completely failed to have any imprint on the media.
Death is certain; it will catch up with all of us one day. Death is also very personal. Still, we try to avoid it and possibly try to evade it. How many people have the courage to stare at death with calm, composed resilience? How difficult it is to accept death; when it is not someone else’s but one’s own? How does one prepare knowing that sooner than later she is going to die? Is it ethical to put her under public glare and scrutiny every day in the name of reporting and remind her of the impending death every moment till she dies? Does she not have the right to fight her own battle in peace without being subjected to public judgment for every single act? The media was not sure.
Goody and her family appeared to be more than willing to help media report her march towards death.She underwent surgery and chemotherapy in the public eye — filming part of the experience. She confessed she was doing it to raise money for her children. "People will say I'm doing this for money," she said. "And they're right, I am. But not to buy flash cars or big houses — it's for my sons' future if I'm not here. I don't want my kids to have the same miserable, drug-blighted, poverty-stricken childhood I did." But her mother Jackiey Budden told reporters Sunday: "Family and friends would like privacy at last."
The most common logic forwarded by British media in defense of their intruding into the life of Goody is that reporting the trauma and sufferings from cervical cancer will make thousands of other women aware of the danger posed by the disease and help them prevent possible death by timely and accurate diagnosis. This may be true to a limited extant. It is hard to understand how reporting in minute details on what Goody was planning for her funeral was going to make women aware of cervical cancer. The media was not acting as the Good Samaritan that it projected itself to be and wants us to believe. It was the urge to subscribe to the (in)human tendency of making most of other people’s suffering and thus increasing the circulation bottom-line that prompted media for behaving the way it did. Goody deserved a better deal from media.

Read what BBC has to say

The Strange life & death of Jade Goody

Opinion Engineering

One of my teachers talked about opinion formulation and role of media in opinion engineering in the class the other day. He was elaborate on the practice of newspapers trying to train its readers to read certain kinds of news written in specific language and style - and how this training goes to form a loyal and dedicated readership.
One may question why am I taking up this forum to talk about what the teacher said in a class of twenty students instead of saying whatever I have to say in the class itself. I have two reasons for it – first, I did not want to disturb the class and the second and most important, what he said is not so simple and innocent a statement and needs to be debated in public sphere.
People absorb attitude from the culture that surrounds them as they grow up. This absorption of attitude lead to formation of public opinion . When attitude are based on deeply-held personal values, persuasion can hardly influence attitude. Public opinion, once formed and set-in stick for years afterwards. It is during our college years that social and political ideas crystallize in our minds on the basis of our observation of the world around us at that time.
For Public Relations the biggest problem today is not getting noticed – the problem is getting believed and trusted. No Public Relations policy, however well planned it may be, can build trust if reality is working towards destroying it. It is foolish to assume that people’s mind are like empty can that you can pour whatever liquid you like to.
We are living in era where people’s trust in public institutions, policy makers, elected representatives and the whole gamut of governance is fast eroding. People in the government think because they have been vested with the right to do, people will believe what they do are right. A large majority of our own people are trying to remain blind to the growing cynicism and changed values of the new generation and like to believe that all their communication messages would have the same credibility they enjoyed three decades ago.
Edward L. Bernay’s defined Public Relations as - “Public Relations is that discipline that helps reconcile institutional or individual behaviour in a manner that accords with the public interest and when effectively communicated, creates opinion or attitude that motivate target audience to specific course of action. There are two distinguished part in the definition – behaviour and communication. No communication, however excellent it may be, can be effective if the behaviour of the individual or the institution is not good. The government today is not trusted not because of lack of effective communication but because of bad behaviour and performance.

Spin as a Career

I will not blame you if you decide to skip this piece and prefer to continue with more meaningful writings in this compilation. It appears that Cricket as a medium of mass hysteria has finally lived its time and people are replacing specialist cricket players with heroes from other spheres of life as their idol; especially so after the recent World Cup debacle of the Indian cricket team. Pepsi has replaced cricket legends with small kids in their television advertisement and other companies have either stopped airing their commercials with cricketers or have developed new commercials. There are other forms of rebuttal aimed at Indian cricketers reported in the media. Thus, I understand, it is not the correct time to talk cricket.
However, in case you care to read on, let me quickly clarify my intention so that I can escape the agony of outright condemnation and rejection. I am trying to talk about an altogether different career prospects here. In the field of Public Relations, spin is a usually an uncomplimentary term used to mean a biased, one-sided presentation of an event or situation through deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics to mobilize opinion in one's own favour. Traditional public relations practitioners generally rely on honest and creative presentation of facts for mobilizing people’s opinion. But, public relations people relying on ‘spin’ often do not care for ethics or rules and prefer to get public favour by all means. The term is dramatized and somewhat legitimized by media which more than often prefer to refer to all kind of public relations practice as ‘spin’. We, the public relations practitioners, are still not sure whether ‘spin’ can be called public relations or not. The debate is, in fact, raging hot now.
So, what makes ‘spin’ different from public relations? The term ‘spin’ is borrowed from cricket, where a spin bowler delivers the ball in such a way that it curves through the air, bounces and changes direction fooling the batsman and putting the bowler in an advantageous position to get the batsman bowled out. A public relations practitioner who uses cherry picking (selectively presenting facts and quotes that supports his/her position), equivocation, euphemism or phrases his words in such a way that assumes unproven truths to fool his public in believing him is said to be using ‘spin’.
According to Wikipedia, the term Cherry Picking originated from the fact that while harvesting cherries, or any other fruit, the picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit are very good. Thus, cherry picking metaphorically indicate the act of presenting facts that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related facts that may contradict that position. For example, proponents of some hair oil often cite rare cases in which hair growth was noticed after application of certain oil, whereas common scientific knowledge suggest that hair growth cannot be achieved by external application of any kind of oil available in the market. Cherry picking might be appropriate when a person is assigned to advocate a particular position like a lawyer in a criminal case, where it is assumed to be the responsibility of the opposing counsel to present any contrary data. Moreover, in common law guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and thus introducing 'cherry picked' evidence may be appropriate because, while such data may not prove something in general, it may be successful in introducing the needed minimum level of doubt to win the case. Cherry picking can also be justified in marketing campaigns where prime motive is to seduce customers to buy a product or service. However, when a person with a supposedly neutral position like journalists, public relations professionals, scientists, and judges cherry picks, it becomes not only inappropriate but also derogatory to the entire profession. A public relations professional need to be truthful not only to his/her employer but also to the public with whom he or she is communicating because the foundation of good public relations is mutual understanding and goodwill. Cherry picking in public relations seldom helps as ‘you cannot fool all the people all the time’. Besides being unethical, cherry picking might help the PR man to get some publicity for his employer in the short run, but once his bluffs are revealed he will never be trusted again; neither by the media nor by the people.
On the other hand, equivocation is often used to give misleading impression. Politicians regularly use equivocation when they say allegations against them are ‘ridiculous’ ‘misleading’ or ‘absurd’ without saying that they are false. Examples of use of euphemism are like not exactly thin for "fat", not completely truthful for "lied", not unlike cheating for "cheating" etc. Journalists are apt at deciphering equivocation and euphemism and so are common people now-a-days. Media manipulation for building favourable public opinion is not an easy task. Using equivocation and euphemism in ‘spin’ is a challenging task and needs superb command over the language and presence of mind. One also needs to be smart and unashamed to some extent to be a ‘spin’ specialist.
It may seem to be glamorous to be titled a ‘spin doctor’, but the glamour has its own peril. Over the last two or three decades, public relations has transformed from an occupation to a profession and has developed into a discipline in academics. This growth has seen the subject being developed as a management tool for such decision making which is beneficial for long-term objectives of both an organization and its public. This growth has also seen public relations being distinguished from blunt marketing, self-centered publicity or propaganda. ‘Spin’ essentially is a propaganda and publicity tool and thus should not be confused with public relations. A ‘spin’ specialist will be feared, ridiculed, suspected and may of course be financially rewarded. However, he or she will not be loved, revered, regarded and trusted. It is now your call to decide on your career.
Published in the Journal of Mass Comm Deptt, Gauhati University 2006

Epilogue to Great Disconnect

The Rocky Mountain News, the oldest newspaper of Denver, Colorado closed down on 27th February after unsuccessfully hunting for a buyer for several months. The cause of the closure - a protracted and severe slump in advertising and classified revenues, declining circulation and deteriorating financial numbers, the economic downturn, falling stock prices and, of course, the Internet.
Newspapers across the US - and particularly larger publications in big cities - are scrambling to adapt to rapidly changing business conditions. That's resulted in mass layoffs, employee buyouts, closures and a heavy dose of uncertainty.
Newspaper advertising nationwide dipped 7 percent in 2007 and has gotten progressively worse this year, climaxing with an 18 percent plunge in the third quarter. That decline represents the biggest drop in at least 40 years, according to the Newspaper Association of America. A report issued in October by a Goldman Sachs analyst estimates that newspaper ad revenue will fall 11 percent next year - more than the firm's previous prediction of a 7.5 percent dip.
The economy is certainly a big factor. But advertisers also are simply finding new ways to reach customers, while consumers are increasingly using sites like Craigslist to place classified ads. At the same time, more people are now getting their news on the Internet, where most content is free. Newspapers have been able to increase online ad sales, but not enough to supplant the print product. And even that growth is slowing: Online newspaper ad revenue rose 19 percent last year vs. a 31 percent spike in 2006.
Prices for newsprint, which represent about 10 percent to 15 percent of the industry's cost structure, also have been rising - adding even more pressure. Most analysts don't expect a recovery for years, and many believe the industry will change significantly in that time.
Given the current environment, analysts and observers said they aren't necessarily surprised that one of Denver's newspapers is for sale and could be shut down if a buyer isn't found. Perhaps the bigger surprise is that Denver has managed to remain a two-newspaper town for this long.

The Great Disconnect

The Indian Express's Delhi edition used a good quarter of a page to publish an advertisement last week to say that it was the first to report that the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was likely to resume office after surgery ‘next week’ - well before he actually did. The punch line was that this newspaper was the first to give the news (read speculation) even before the news actually happened. If, for a moment, we agree to forget the finer point that speculation can hardly be classified as news and carry on to believe that this newspaper indeed reported the time of the Prime Minister resuming duty beforehand, that piece of news was nothing so great to boast off. Dr. Manmohan Singh had a successful surgery, recovered as expected without any complications arising and was released from hospital for recuperating at home. He was in good health, recovering faster and in all probability was as eager to resume duty as any other person in his position would have been. Taking into consideration all other indications it was pretty simple to guess that he was likely to resume duty as predicted by the newspaper.
Now, the fact that newspaper space are apparently at premium at this point of time, especially when the country is heading for a general election, and there was hardly any need for the unconvincing boasting off with a loud advertisement proclaiming better value for the newspaper itself, the entire exercise underscores a more complex and urgent problem faced by newspapers – that of holding ground as a profitable business model. It actually exemplifies the panic of loosing out to online version of the newspaper, the proliferation of electronic media like television and the emerging social media.
When newspapers started their digital editions online and started giving their content away for almost free, they sent a strong but wrong message to their customers. The message we got was that the revenue generated by the print version was enough for the business model - to cover the cost of the newsprint and the distribution. The content in the newspaper itself have no value and that’s why it was given away for free online. That killed the value of news. When I get news free online why should I buy a newspaper which contains news that often become stale in the morning? Added to this the television is catering adequately to the need of satiating one with news and at times even surpassing our expectations.
The investment needed for running a newspaper is considerable if it is a daily newspaper with at least twelve pages. This includes the money needed to run the supply chain besides the daily variable cost. It is common knowledge now that the newspaper offer for sale two kinds of product combined into one – the news and the advertisement space. While the revenue generated from selling the newspaper had never been adequate to justify the business, the revenue from advertisement space has been the main forte. Newspapers throughout the world, or generally the print media, are going through a crisis for quite sometime gradually loosing readers, circulation and revenue – both in terms of sales and in terms of advertisements. With more immediate and intimate media like television, radio, Internet and social media gaining ground the newspapers management are groping with the prospect of not getting even the market rate of return on their investment for quite some time now.
The online version of the news media and the television or radio has the advantage of immediacy. They report the news as it unfolds. But their disadvantage is the lack of polish, analysis and views. Newspaper can fill up the void here and take up the role of specialised presenter of news adding values to the ordinary news. Everyday news can be given new dimensions with in-depth analysis and divergent views. That will increase the shelf-life of newspapers and create the need to buy them.
People familiar with the business of news media are aware of the struggle between marketing people trying to sell advertisement space and the editorial side trying to keep enough space for news. Perhaps this is a valid struggle, but it also is a valid point that the newspaper has to give adequate returns on the investment. If the newspaper shuts down there will not be any struggle at all! So, the editorial and the marketing people need to finally come together.
One point that we hardly can afford to miss here is the future of the language press. The present education system is highly biased towards the English language and relegates the mother tongues to mere second languages. We are gradually replacing ourselves with a generation which is unlikely to subscribe to the language press. This is definitely going to affect the circulation of the vernacular newspapers.
The media business roughly has a model like this – pay some people called editorial staff to develop a nice looking product called newspaper, hire some marketing people to sell advertisement space, hire some more people to manage the supply chain and deliver the product everyday. Two very pertinent points missed in this model is that newspaper is not a fast moving consumer goods and the shelf-life of a newspaper is not even twenty-four hours. The only guarantee for survival of this product is connecting to the people and the world around them. Newspapers connect readers to their community and they connect advertisers to their customers. Newspapers are the king of content. They need to be the king of all media too if they are going to survive and flourish.
The greatest advantage of print media is the high retention quotient. We tend to retain more of what we read then what we see or hear. This puts newspapers in a better position to connect with people and build up a band of loyalist followers (read subscribers). This high retention factor also gives newspapers additional advantage to make unique value addition to their content. Unfortunately, newspapers have completely missed the boat while utilizing technology to connect people. Online news sites, social networking sites, Bloggers and the entire band of social media have steadily siphoned off consumers and advertising revenue in a game that newspapers were well poised to win. That’s because they understand what newspapers seems blind to - connecting people to their immediate surroundings.

In the league of liars

Two recent unrelated developments in the American media world vis-à-vis public relations professionals were perhaps pointers to the need of a closer look and introspection into the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists in our part of the world too.
Harold Burson, the founder of the renowned public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, had recently reacted very sharply to a comment by a lawyer at the CBS television’s “Sunday Morning” show on June 8. In an ‘unflattering diatribe’ on the behaviour and characteristics of Public Relations professionals, the lawyer had reportedly said that public relations is nothing but communicating lies.
Harold has been practicing public relations for more than sixty years now. He is the founder of renowned public relations firm Burson and Marsteller which has branches in various parts of Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America. It had recently taken over Genesis Public Relations at Chennai. Harold’s internet blog is a must-read, almost like the daily newspaper, for many hard-core public relations professionals across the world.
CBS News Sunday Morning is, on the other hand, an immensely popular morning news magazine program in America. The programme hosted by Charles Osgood is broadcast on Sunday mornings on the CBS network. Sunday Morning premiered in 1979 and was originally hosted by Charles Kuralt until 1994.When a person in legal profession ends up saying public relations is all about communicating lies on such an acclaimed show, one tends to sit up and take notice unless, of course, one is not dead.
There has long been a “love-hate relationship” between journalists and public relations professionals. Journalists often call public relations professionals “liars” and public relations professionals call journalists “necessary evil” though rarely in earshot of one another. But the gloves came off last week after Chris Anderson, the executive editor of Wired magazine, chided public relations professionals who deluge him with e-mails with news releases “because they can’t be bothered to find out who on my staff, if anyone, might actually be interested in what they’re pitching.” Anderson, then, released the names of 304 unsolicited e-mail senders who had sent him press releases, with hopes of getting a few column centimetre of printed space, and stated that he had permanently blocked these senders. To their embarrassment, the names included several renowned and established public relations firms.
These developments put up two very disturbing but pertinent questions. First, do people in general and journalists in particular, really understand what public relations is all about? And second, is it not time that public relations professionals also give a deeper thought to the age old notion of judging efficiency of public relations by volume of printed space or air time that they mange to get for their respective organizations or clients?
What we, the people in public relations, actually do to earn our living? Ideally our job is to be the bridge between the public and the organization we serve. For this we practice something called media relations apparently trying to get journalist write – about our clients, our organizations, our products, thereby give publicity. What is the end purpose in media relations? It is to convey messages to targeted audiences to advance concerned organization’s goals, raise its profile, and uphold its reputation. In this process, journalists become a means to an end. They are only conduits or tools for information disseminations. In other words, the focus of media relations should be creating an ongoing dialogue between public relations people and journalists to have your organization or product discussed in a positive light, in public, through a publication or broadcast.
This can be achieved by creating a relationships based on trust with media people, and that is what we do. But before approaching towards their job, public relations people need to understand the customs, conventions and standard operating procedures relating to the media. Public relations people need to know how journalists operate and approach their job, which in turn will shape their attitude towards journalists and editors. If you distrust and dislike journalists, it will eventually show and affect your dealings with the media. If as public relations professional you lie to a journalist, he or she will eventually find out and your credibility will go down. That is not going to help in your pursuit in developing a relationship and going to make your job increasingly difficult.
I think that the media in general sees themselves as a ‘watchdog’ against big business and institutions. In an environment where the public is bombarded with information from so many sources journalists believe that they are maintaining a balance by consciously and aggressively searching for the bad news. They see themselves as devil’s advocates, standing guard for right and truth.
Harold wrote in his blog that facts are no more scarce, and news is no more reporting facts only, it is more of interpreting facts. We public relations people also present facts to the journalists, of course laced with our interpretations or present them the way we look at those facts. Journalists often may find what we present them with not conforming to their idea of facts. But, that is per say not lying. Harold is of the view that if people are misunderstanding the profession of public relations, it is because the public relations people had failed to explain to them what they do.
Another factor that is making our life increasing difficult is the tendency of CEOs and top management of judging our efficiency by numbers of news coverage we manage to corner. It is this tendency that is pushing more and more people in public relations to go all out with mindless bombardment of journalists with press releases blindly. We have so little time and resources and so hard pressed to show results that we are left with no other option to spam the mailbox of journalists with the hope that some will at least publish our press releases. The situation will drastically change if we can make people understand that good public relations is not judged by volume of media coverage but by quality of media coverage. If only we could make them understand public relations is not possible without performance and telling lie or suppressing facts is not at all going to help. I will not mind being put in the league of liars by a few as long as others understand what we do.