The implication was obvious: you've not done the story because you think its a good story, you've done it because you have an agenda. Its a familiar refrain. You report honestly on the Gujarat riots, and you're accused of being anti-Modi. You do a story critical of the UPA government, and you are in the lap of the sangh parivar. We live in such a polarised atmosphere, that it seems that we simply can't be allowed to do journalism without being accused of partisanship. Sure, journalists to a large extent have been participants in their own downfall. Like in every other profession, there are a number of journalists who are here to drive personal agendas, succumbing to the lure of being in close proximity to power. But there are also several journalists who just want to do a job, report a story, and then allow the debate to be carried forward in the public domain (which, I am delighted to see, most news-driven channels and good newspapers have chosen to do with the Bofors story). Frankly, we reported the Bofors story because we thought it was a damn good one, the kind of story that to my mind represents good old-fashioned journalism, based on documents, leg work and fact-checking, exposing those in public life . In fact, our correspondent Sumon Chakrabarti had been on it for a month now, and we only carried it after all the facts had been cross-checked. Ironically, no one has questioned the facts of the story . Thats all that matters to us. As for agendas, we're not politicians. Let the politicians slug it out. we're just going to have a drink to celebrate another CNN-IBN story thats made an impact. Thats what a journalist-driven channel is all about. About the AuthorRajdeep Sardesai Rajdeep Sardesai was the Editor-in-Chief, IBN18 Network, that includes CNN-IBN, IBN 7 and IBN Lokmat. He has covered some of the biggest stories in I...Read Morefirst published:January 13, 2006, 17:33 ISTlast updated:January 13, 2006, 17:33 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
A recent survey in the United States suggested that the credibility of journalists was at an all-time low. Its just possible that a survey in this country would throw up similar results. Its a paradox: you've never had more media in the history of India, but the more media you have, the less the viewer/reader seems to trust you. Let me give you an example. We'd just broken what I thought was a big story: the law ministry's attempt to give Bofors middleman a clean chit in a British court that would result in the defreezing of his accounts . Just as we were feeling great at "breaking" a big story (there is no bigger buzz in this profession) that I got a call from an old colleague. "Is it true that you actually had a bigger story in mind, but scuttled it because you didn't want to get on the wrong side of the government?" Another friend rang up, "I guess this story is a BJP 'plant' right, since when did you become a knickerwallah?"
The implication was obvious: you've not done the story because you think its a good story, you've done it because you have an agenda. Its a familiar refrain. You report honestly on the Gujarat riots, and you're accused of being anti-Modi. You do a story critical of the UPA government, and you are in the lap of the sangh parivar. We live in such a polarised atmosphere, that it seems that we simply can't be allowed to do journalism without being accused of partisanship. Sure, journalists to a large extent have been participants in their own downfall. Like in every other profession, there are a number of journalists who are here to drive personal agendas, succumbing to the lure of being in close proximity to power. But there are also several journalists who just want to do a job, report a story, and then allow the debate to be carried forward in the public domain (which, I am delighted to see, most news-driven channels and good newspapers have chosen to do with the Bofors story). Frankly, we reported the Bofors story because we thought it was a damn good one, the kind of story that to my mind represents good old-fashioned journalism, based on documents, leg work and fact-checking, exposing those in public life . In fact, our correspondent Sumon Chakrabarti had been on it for a month now, and we only carried it after all the facts had been cross-checked. Ironically, no one has questioned the facts of the story . Thats all that matters to us. As for agendas, we're not politicians. Let the politicians slug it out. we're just going to have a drink to celebrate another CNN-IBN story thats made an impact. Thats what a journalist-driven channel is all about.
Comments
0 comment