Skip to main content

How to be newsy: Choosing wheat from the chaff

Culling out gist from a plethora of sources available to you is indeed quite tricky. While I cannot speak for others (frankly, I lack competence to do it), journalists are made to do it almost on a daily basis. In doing so, at initial stages, they often falter, as they lack conceptual clarity as to what should be considered news. Of course, there are textbook definitions, but they cannot in any way help one to identify news from the huge flow of information available around. Journalists, especially of my generation, have never been trained into a formal school of communication, hence to them to answer this question academically is even more difficult. They have just “picked up” the skill. I asked a senior editor, “How do you identify what should be headline today?”, and his answer was simple, “Well, Rajiv, it comes from within, frankly, it just comes…” Often, whatever new you find from the available information is identified as news. It’s especially very easy when a big event takes place—an electoral victory, an earthquake, a nuclear disaster, a peace talk, a victory in a cricket match, or a bloody riot. But things become complicated when one is forced to go beyond. Nowadays, you often hear journalists complaining, “There’s no news in Gujarat, with Modi gone…”
So, while preparing a short version, or news, of what is happening around you, as a journalist, it is necessary to identify for a journalist the big question: “What is news?” Though involved in formal journalism since 1979, I personally never thought of putting down the issue of “What is news” in black and white till about three years ago, when I had to introduce myself in order to be a blogger for the Times of India; as someone, my editor thought, to my amusement, had “wide experience” with bureaucrats and politicians in Gandhinagar. Quite in line with what I thought, I gave two definitions of news, while writing about myself – that “news is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising” (Lord Northcliffe, 19th century British publisher), or “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations” (George Orwell). I thought these definitions fitted well into the type of job I was involved in – to cull out news from government sources, many of them were oral narratives, while in other cases they were reports got prepared by consultants to suggest a policy direction.
Indeed, as a newsperson, I was always involved in “culling out” information from available sources – and had to fight against time, as there were deadlines to be met, whether it was Delhi, Moscow, Ahmedabad, or Gandhinagar, the places where I worked. While preparing news, we had to also keep in view the need to be as precise as possible in disseminating information. Latest instructions given to us in the Times of India were sharp – no news stories should be “more than 450 words”; worse, ideally they should be “less than 350 words”. Reason? New readers wouldn’t be interested in reading long stuff. But while preparing these news stories, I kept in mind, subconsciously, the framework of Northcliffe and Orwell, that news is what “someone somewhere wants to suppress.” It is this concept that has helped great journalists to write great stories, even as being precise with events, though they had with them a huge lot of information. Without this central concept, I think, I wouldn’t do justice to what I wanted to write.
As a Times of India representative in Gandhinagar, one of the most exciting jobs would be seek information from official sources. There was a huge amount of utter nonsense—propaganda stuff – around us. Once having accessed them, should one report all that was there? That would be stupidity. Before it reached the reader, my editor would just throw away my copy. Besides, it would be a tall order, particularly when one is fighting against time, as the official document would have a plethora of facts and figures, a lot of background, an effort to highlight how the government has been “successfully” functioning, and so on. So, the effort would be to get involved in finding out what was novel in the document, indicating a major policy change, which was not known to the general public -- and which the proponents of the documents wouldn’t perhaps like as much to highlight. We would be given three volumes of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report sometime in the afternoon, and we had to file our reports (not one but three) “latest by eight”. This wouldn’t be possible if we, as journalists, did not keep in mind latest controversies identified in the document. We were supposed to know some bit of background; and as for the rest, we had to depend on others -- officials, academics, fellow journalists.
Often, we would make the choice of the most controversial issue in the report. I will offer two examples here. Two months before the 2007 Gujarat assembly elections, I was handed over a book Gujarati, a collection of Chintan Shibir speeched by Narendra Modi, published under the title “Karmayog”, by top IAS official in the chief minister’s office (CMO), K Kailashnathan. There was virtually nothing in the book worth reporting, all big talk on how well should babus perform. Finally, I found “news” – Modi said, manual scavengers have “spiritual experience” while performing their duty. I promptly reported. Kailashnathan was angry, and I thought this was my success. Five thousand copies of the book were withdrawn. In 2010, another CMO official AK Sharma handed me over the “first copy” of the 1,000-page “Blueprint for Infrastructure in Gujarat (BIG) 2020”, as he had promised, and I filed a report titled “Las Vegas set to bloom in dry Gujarat: Casino zone planned near Dholavira in Kutch”. The report made government to order a recall of all copies of “BIG 2020”, including the ones given to babus, as this was embarrassing. A white slip was pasted on the controversial portion where this was mentioned before redistributing it. “BIG 2020” is supposed to be a major policy document!
I am not claiming these are best examples of how a short note should be culled out of a huge document. But they do suggest the need to identify what’s “new”; only after identifying what’s most current, and perhaps most contentious, one should pen it, so that others notice it. This is particularly important if one has to swim and feel kicking, as a top newspaper tycoon told us, “to be in the business of news.” Otherwise, nobody would notice you. The choice of subject should depend on this. Of course, while doing this, I think, one would need to keep in view another factor – one should be act as a “media” to convey what is there in the original source, instead of seeking to interpret facts by giving own explanations. But facts should be selected. And selected facts should speak for themselves about what’s there in the original source. They should be meticulously chosen. All facts need not become part of a smart, small report. The interpretation must necessarily depend on the choice of facts from the original source.
M Chalapathi Rau, described in yesteryears as “doyen of journalists”, once said, journalists are “quick historians.” Even as “quick historians”, it is necessary to understand what EH Carr once said in his famous book “What is History?”: “When we attempt to answer the question ‘What is history?’, our answer, consciously or unconsciously, reflects our position in time, and forms part of our answer to the broader question what view we take of the society in which we live.” He adds, “History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions and so on, like fish on a fishmonger’s slab. The historian collects them, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to them.” Further: “The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to give the floor, and in what order and or context.” What Carr talks about history should also true of any blog, or a short note, or a news story – it should have to depend, basically, on the type of facts that one selects.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Surprised? Communist candidate in Ahmedabad bypoll in a Hindutva bastion

On October 11, 2019 morning, as I was scanning through daily news online (I don’t read papers now), I found that both BJP and Congress candidates from Ahmedabad’s Amraiwadi assembly constituency, which fell vacant following the victory of its BJP MLA in the Lok Sabha polls, have been asked to explain as to why they had cash in hand for election campaign, and why they did not deposit their money in a bank account. Fighting the bypoll, BJP’s Jagdish Patel and Congress’ Dharmendra Patel had declared they possessed Rs 1.81 lakh and Rs 1.70 lakh as cash in hand, respectively, for election expenditure.

Tree-felling for greenery? Gujarat govt 'accepted' proposal; awaits implementation

The other day, I went to Nadiad, a town in Central Gujarat, about 55 kilometres from Ahmedabad. For a change, I took an alternate route, which falls between two toll roads – the Expressway and the National Highway. What surprised me was, I saw truckloads of wooden logs moving to and fro on this state highway soon after I left Ahmedabad. I was immediately reminded of a "tree enthusiast" I had met in 2007. Introduced by former chief secretary PK Laheri, who was then chairman of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd (SSNNL), Jayantibhai Lakdawala came to my Times of India office in Gandhinagar with a unique proposal, which, he said, he had put up before the Gujarat government to grow more trees.

What was wrong with Rahul Gandhi's Chowkidar chor hai campaign?

A few days back, I came across an interesting Facebook post by Vinod Chand, an FB friend. I always read his comments with great interest. This one was on Rahul Gandhi launching what he called “a broadside on Narendra Modi” during the initial phase of the campaign during the last Lok Sabha polls -- “Chowkidar chor hai.” However, during the later phase of the campaign the slogan appeared to have been dropped, not because it seemed derogatory, but perhaps because it was not having the “desired impact.”

When Gandhi said Congress can 'only die with the nation'; warned of its weedy growth

I don’t recall when, why and how, but I have been under the impression for decades that Mahatma Gandhi wanted the Congress dissolved after India attained Independence. However, a few days ago, I was pleasantly surprised on seeing a Facebook post by Hari Desai, a well-known Gujarati journalist and a Sardar Patel expert, putting on record and claiming that this, indeed, was never the case. Desai released the photograph of “Harijan”, edited by Gandhi himself, dated February 1, 1948, which carried an article by Gandhi written on January 27, 1948, three days before he was murdered, clearly stating that the “Indian National Congress ... cannot be allowed to die”, and that it can “only die with the nation.”

A top Gujarat High Court lawyer who lived and worked for the underprivileged

When I came to Ahmedabad to join as assistant editor of the Times of India in 1993, I didn’t know Girish Patel was a senior advocate of the Gujarat High Court. Apart from assisting the then editor, Tushar Bhatt, my job was to specifically look after the editorial page, which also meant I should be selecting from among the letters to the editor that we would get, edit them appropriately, and put them in the Letters to the Editor column.

Nitish Kumar a 'Modi-fied' chief minister 'refusing' to hark to reason

Yesterday, I came across an unusual Facebook post by my veteran journalist colleague, Law Kumar Mishra. It recalls an incident which took place when Mishra was posted in Rajkot as the Times of India correspondent during of the worst droughts in the region in late 1980s. At that time Amarsinh Chaudhury was Gujarat chief minister. Currently Patna, Mishra compares how Chaudhary handled drought with the way Nitish Kumar has been handling Bihar floods.

Enlightened Buddha didn't want monks to get enchanted by the glance of a woman

Some of my Dalit friends, including Martin Macwan, whom I respect as one of the best human rights activists I have met, have a great fascination for Buddhism. Nearly all Dalit rallies or functions I have attended carry with them Buddha’s photographs. Probably, one reason could be that Dalit icon Babasaheb Ambedkar converted to Buddhism because he believed this was the only religion of India which does not believe in casteism. Many Dalits, not without reason, get converted to Buddhism.

Attack on Gandhi: Where diehard Left and extreme Right appear to meet

Another Gandhi Jayanti has come and gone. Several of the top comments – some which we also published in www.counterview.net – on this occasion hovered around US president Donald Trump calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi “father of India”. Perhaps things wouldn’t have taken a turn that it did had not Modi’s “diehard” followers like Union minister Jitendra Singh going so far as to say that those who “do not feel proud” of Trump’s comment that Modi is the “father of India”, do not consider themselves Indians.

The enigma called Amit Shah

Those were turbulent days. It was, I remember, second half of March 2002. The post-Godhra riots in Ahmedabad, as elsewhere in Gujarat, may have lost their intensity, but rioting had still not stopped. It was my first meeting with Amit Shah, Gujarat’s former minister of state for home, who has shot into prominence after the CBI arrested him in 2010 allegedly for being an accomplice in a triple murder case, involving the fake encounter of a gangster, Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kauserbi, and aide Tulsiram Prajapati. At that time, he was MLA from what then was one of the largest state assembly constituencies, Sarkhej, in Ahmedabad, with a voters’ strength of 10 lakh. All that I knew of him was, he was “very popular” in his constituency, almost invincible. He had just met chief minister Narendra Modi, and I had a very vague idea on his proximity to Modi, who had taken over reins in Gujarat.
Shah was coming out of the chief minister’s office (CMO), situated on the fifth floor of Block No…

Why Gujarat imposed mobile internet curfew during the Patel agitation

It was Wednesday, October 31, 1984. After finalizing the semi-left Link newsweekly, for which I worked then, the office driver boldly drove the Ambassador late at night through Delhi streets, which were already in the grip of anti-Sikh riots, erupted following the assassination of Indira Gandhi. The driver squeezed his way through burning vehicles. At several places we could see houses in flames and heard painful, shrieking voices. It was a ghastly scenario, of the type I had never witnessed, or even imagined, before. I reached home, a middle class South Delhi locality; to my consolation all was quiet, though we had a Sikh neighbour.