Dialogue October - December 2005 , Volume 7 No. 2
The Changing Role of the Editor
In a
General Body meeting of the ‘Hindustan Samachar’, a multi-lingual
news-agency, held about twenty-six years ago, Baleshwar Aggrawal, the General
Manager cum Chief Editor of the of news-agency introduced Ramesh Chandra, the
owner-cum Editor of the Punjab Kesari to us. I was ignorant about Mr. Chandra
upto that time and was impressed by the information given to me about his
newspaper. I became immensely eager to see and to read Punjab Kesari after that.
I traced a copy of that paper and was excited to read it for the first time. I
must share with you the reason for my excitement.
Shishganj Gurudwara lies adjacent
to old Delhi Railway Station. I knew a person there who used to sell newspapers
for years. I also used to get newspapers and magazines of my choice from his
stall. In the motley of newspapers that decorated his stall, I never picked up
Punjab Kesari as its cover pages pronounced boldly its ‘filmy and trivial’
lineage. And I was as unconcerned with cinema as V.P. Singh was with Amitabh
Bachchan. V.P. feigned ignorance about Big B, till 1985. Anyway, after going
through the stories published in the Punjab Kesari, I cursed myself for not
giving proper attention to that paper earlier. Reason was not the special
reporting of the newspaper, rather its circulation rating. Audit Bureau
Circulation (ABC) had named it along with the Navbharat Times, the Hindustan,
the Rajasthan Patrika, the Nai Duniya and the Aryavarta as having crossed the
circulation figure of one lakh daily.
I had similar encounter with that
news-paper again during the late 1980s. The editors at 7, Bahadur-Shah Zafar
Marg, were regularly asked to learn lessons from the Punjab Kesari. That was the
decisive transition period with respect to leadership change in Hindi and
regional language journalism. Trajectories of various events criss-crossed. A
young generation was being handed over the reins of the institutions located at
7, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. This generation vied for carrying out its own editing
by inverting their predecessor’s thinking. To appreciate the zeal, one may
say, the new generation, enthused with new ideas and techniques, had come
forward to run the existing institutions. ‘Media’, for the new leadership,
no more reflected the concern about socio-political apparatus; whereas their
predecessors considered ‘media-business’ as dignity churning and a
social-commitment enterprise. Teleological gap widened to such an extreme that
even the filial ties could not cover up the chasm.
Inter-generational conflict was
not evident at the altar of ‘ideas’ alone. The Navbharat Times was overtaken
by the Punjab Kesari in circulation figures. The new generation was under
immense pressure to emulate the Punjab Kesari’s success story. At a time, when
the economics of newspaper got correlated with the advertisement revenue and the
maximization of the ad revenue determined the enterprise, the tutoring by the
new generation to follow the Punjab Kesari’s success story was not unnatural.
I am pondering over the
objectives of this new generation as this concerns the institution of the
‘Editor’. Only few years back, the opinion about various newspapers were
formed on the basis of the ‘charisma’ of their Editors. Readers were not
aware about their owners. Yes, there were politicians, businessmen and the
higher-ups in the government who knew who owns what and what concerned whom!
But, general public knew newspapers through their editors only. Time has changed
since then. Now, a reader forms his/her opinion about the newspaper through the
ownership. Is that something to abhor? I think, one cannot form a moralistic
judgment over such issues.
The real issue is not as to how
the readers form opinion about the newspaper. What concerns us is the logic
advanced by votaries to mutate the Navbharat Times into the Punjab Kesari. To
understand the phenomenon, one may put up a cursory glance at the ongoing
printline published in the Navbharat Times. That summarizes the essence of a
newspaper. Printline is a way to fulfill the legal requirements as per the
instructions of the Registrar of Newspapers. Printline contains two important
informations apart from the declaration of the names of the publisher and the
Editor. During 1980s, the Printline used to be published on the margins of the
editorial page. One could know the fact that the newspaper was being published
for last 50 years; the current publisher was Puneet Jain and its Senior Editor,
Madhusudan Anand. The Editor Anand represented the glittering flame of the
Navbharat Times. Some years back, the Printline contained the name of the Chief
Editor. No longer any more. It is either relegated into the dustbin of history
or fossilized into an object piece in the museum of the newspaper. The Navbharat
Times has mutated into a strange clone of itself. The wonderful horns in the
form of the chief editor have suddenly disappeared, but the ‘body’ still
survives. What a biological destiny for this imbiotic species? This abnormal
mutation defines my fundamental query.
Let us skip over metaphoric
propositions and ponder over concrete events. During the period of Ashok
Jain’s ownership, there existed a chairman for the institution to decide
policy matters. The Managing Director supervised the routine matters and had no
direct relationship with the editor. With growing interference of Mr. Sameer
Jain, the nature of the management underwent a metamorphosis. The duality
between the chairman and the Managing Director dissolved. 7, Bahadurshah Zafar
Marg represented the Centre for transcendental non-duality, the Advaita. It
became national leader of the media in that aspect. In fact, it was already a
leader of the English language newspapers. Robin Jaffrey has found in his
studies that there are 21 big companies involved in the newspaper business out
of which only 4 big companies are associated with essentially English
newspapers. The Benett-Coleman is the only Company whose Hindi newspapers had
widest circulation till recent days.
There are a number of anecdotes
eulogizing Sameer Jain. His very first statement addressed to his editors used
to equate ‘newspaper’ with ‘business’. His proud declarations
confabulated the ‘poor’ editors: Publish what sells in the market –
sensational events, sex, jokes, hyperemotionalities. His second statement used
to pygmie editor’s status. Earlier, editors considered themselves as
representatives of readers before their owners. Therefore editors put themselves
onto high pedestals as how could a newspaper exist without readers. Sameer Jain
punctured this understanding. For him, newspapers survive on the fulcrum of the
management techniques. There is a market for the newspaper. Who so ever
understands the market, sells the newspapers. And it is the job of the
management experts. Sameer may feel offended with the word ‘expert’. But it
is how he himself states about these people. Sameer is not ready to confer
greater status than merely ‘skilled labourers’ to these ‘experts’. For
him, editor and journalists are skilled labourers and the theory of ‘wages’
is to be applied on these categories. The newspaper group, which was known for
sticking to the recommendations of Salary Board and its own standards for
payment to employees, is experimenting with new contract system.
Journalism has descended into a
pure capitalist enterprise. The rules adhered to by the journalists have
collapsed, as they no longer enjoy any autonomous sphere. The glorious tradition
of media is fading. Journalists cannot form a union at 7, Bahadurshah Zafar
Marg. No one is willing to even write an elegy for the ‘dead’ trade
unionism. The pomp and show witnessed during union elections in earlier times is
an illusion. With the end of unionism, the owner has gained absolute power to
apply contract system for the employees. This can happen only when the owner
himself appropriates the editorship. For god’s sake, this fine demarcation
still exists in the ‘Printline’ of the Navbharat Times. If one glances at
the Printline of the master of the pack viz. the Punjab Kesari, the demarcation
will be evident – “For the owner Hind Samachar Limited – the, Printer,
Publisher and Editor – Vijay Kumar”.
A journalist working the Dinman
narrated an incident. When the rumour pertaining to the closure of the journal
was at its peak, a group of journalists sought appointment with Sameer Jain.
Sameer Jain bluntly expressed that he was not bothered about the revenue loss he
was incurring on publishing Dinman, but the fact that the space occupied by the
magazine at 10, Daryaganj could fetch him a monthly rent of Rs. 10 lakhs. Some
people may foam at this attitude but the market and the commercial interest have
logic of their own. The question that perturbs me is as how the media house
which created news Bureau for the Navbharat Times that was envied by other Hindi
newspapers has succumbed itself to the logic of market. This has caused a
spiraling effect over whole field of journalism. It is not that only the
Navbharat Times is facing the assault of market. Sameer Jain does not consider
it fit to have any editor in the Times of India and even in the Economic Times.
There was a time when revered Shri H.K. Dua was invited to edit the Times of
India with an expectation that he could influence the then prime Minster to hush
up the FERA violation case against Ashok Jain. H.K. refused to do so and
expectedly his exit was imminent. The matter was taken up by the Press Council.
The Editors Guild also jumped in the fray. The controversy battered the status
of the Press Council itself. People realized that the Press Council no longer
enjoys any effective authority. Jawaharlal Nehru had high hopes about this
institution in disciplining newspapers. It no longer enjoys any legitimacy. Even
the media has grown over the years. Apart from the print, the visual media is
multiplying exponentially. The nation needs effective Press Council. But, none
is concerned about the impending chaos that an undisciplined and unregulated
media can brood.
The institution of editor is
losing its sheen after attaining a level of prestige during 1980s. Once upon a
time, I asked late Rajendra Mathur as to whether he had planed to improve the
standard of the Navbharat Times. Rajju Babu was the Chief Editor of the
newspaper in 1991. My question had cropped up after a long deliberation and I
had sought prior appointment with him to discuss this matter at his home. I
rubbed a little salt by adding whether he had compromised with the prevailing
situation and sidetracked his vision and endeavour? He was very forthcoming. He
narrated his plight. He could have discussed his schemes with Ashok Jain as he
reads Navbharat Times. But, how could have he entered into a dialogue with
someone like Sameer Jain who never reads any Hindi newspaper. At the time, when
new standards for media were emanating from 7 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, another
churning was going on in the adjacent building. Journalism was undergoing a
sea-change and so was its leadership i.e. the institution of editor. The debate
with respect to these changes will continue.
The other incident that changed
the nature of media happened in the Express Building. Ramnath Goenka joined the
anti-corruption movement launched by V.P. Singh. His newspapers also joined the
fray. The owner donned the robe of a missionary and launched a jehadist
offensive. He was accompanied by the writer-troop of editor and journalists. The
Indian Express and the Jansatta led the attack against the then Government. In
one way, the fight was not against corruption per se. It was targeted to use
issue of corruption in the politics of power. The media had the last laugh. This
was the first victory of media as a determining factor in political change in
out country since independence. Before the Bofors issue, the media always sided
with those in authority. One could just gauge their leanings during the Janta
Party rule or during, Indira’s post-1980 rule when media didn’t associate
itself with public opinion but the authority. The Government used to control
media houses and they, in turn, obliged those heading the government. The trend
was reversed only during V.P. Singh-led movement. When the new government. was
formed, the media considered it as its own victory.
But, the Bofors saga hit hard the
institution of the editor. Politicians began to hobnob with the owners and the
editors slowly got marginalized. Earlier, Ramnath Goenka was the exception in
having privileged direct relationship with political leadership. But, the Lok
Sabha election in 1989 changed the scenario forever. Editor no more remained a
‘mean’. Now, editors have been reduced into a sentry of their owner’s
commercial interests. They no longer represent the tradition of journalism or
interests of readers.
The history of Indian media is two hundred years old.
This is also the corresponding age of the institution of the editor. By this
time, the nature of the editorship should have evolved and carved out its own
specificities. Unfortunately the ‘margins’ are the destiny of editors. His
functions have dramatically changed. Democratic norms and unbiased reporting are
disappearing from the media. The institution of ‘Editor’ had been revered by
the journalists for three reasons: capacity as an intelligent Editorial leader,
administrative efficiency and commitment towards colleagues. But, how many
contemporary editors imbibe this troika between ‘me and us’ anymore?
Dialogue (A quarterly journal of Astha Bharati) |