When idealism drowns, media monologues
I guess every student of media has been taught that like every other enterprise, media is also a business and money speaks - big time. Sometimes, marketing and money overtake editorial and ethics. No two ways about that. As a comparitively 'green' journo, I sometimes tend to take an idealistic view of journalism...but a year in the line has given rise to the crushing realisation that editorial, for many media conglomerates, is only second to marketing and most people will perhaps not think twice before dropping an article for an advertisement. It hurts for a bit...but then you swallow it. They need money and you need money to live and if they don't earn the money, you won't earn it either and in the process, content is sometimes compromised. So if you criticise a particular brand and those people pool in a lot of money for advertisements then your story is dropped, if you unwittingly write well about some brand, giving it 'free' publicity, you can be charged for it, so on and so forth. There are many if's and but's in the equation and there you have it.
A recent example (actually not so recent right now) was when the cover page of the NY Times, arguably one of the BEST papers in the business, was put up for ads. As a journalist, I feel that the cover page of any daily is a sanctum for all that this business upholds. People buy papers when they find the headlines eye-catching and headlines represent some of the most pressing issues of the day (of course sometimes, marketing mentality and intrinsic interests imply that headlines are coloured and things that may seem trivial to the masses make it to page1 because of so and so's vested interests..no further comments). A page1 byline is treasured by most scribes...so when the page 1 also succumbs to marketing and money-making, a small piece of your conscience shatters.
People call journalists all sorts of names, I'm not saying that some of us don't deserve it, but in my experience most scribes are not like that. They may be cynical, but there is some heart in there, for which they go to every nook and crany for stories that someone somewhere may benefit from. The media may be loathed at times, during 26/11 for instance. But it also always makes it to the list of social change-makers. But still there are aspects of it that are hateful, things, as forementioned, which one, scribes included, love to hate. But we live with it, c'est la vie...(shit happens), it also hits the fan many a times and heads are set rolling. Now, with the recession, the industry is reeling even more. But still, one must learn to treat it like a strangely alluring spouse, in whose imperfections, one must try and find the perfection. Somewhere in all the money-making, there is still hope for men (and women) who believe in the old school of editorial values. It may be an oft debated topic, but really, if there is no editorial, no quality content for people to read and for circulation to increase, marketing is pointless. What will it sell? People don't buy papers for the ads...they buy it for the matter. Of course, ads are important for the revenue and sustainance. But people who place marketing over editorial are not thinking wisely. period.
I guess every student of media has been taught that like every other enterprise, media is also a business and money speaks - big time. Sometimes, marketing and money overtake editorial and ethics. No two ways about that. As a comparitively 'green' journo, I sometimes tend to take an idealistic view of journalism...but a year in the line has given rise to the crushing realisation that editorial, for many media conglomerates, is only second to marketing and most people will perhaps not think twice before dropping an article for an advertisement. It hurts for a bit...but then you swallow it. They need money and you need money to live and if they don't earn the money, you won't earn it either and in the process, content is sometimes compromised. So if you criticise a particular brand and those people pool in a lot of money for advertisements then your story is dropped, if you unwittingly write well about some brand, giving it 'free' publicity, you can be charged for it, so on and so forth. There are many if's and but's in the equation and there you have it.
A recent example (actually not so recent right now) was when the cover page of the NY Times, arguably one of the BEST papers in the business, was put up for ads. As a journalist, I feel that the cover page of any daily is a sanctum for all that this business upholds. People buy papers when they find the headlines eye-catching and headlines represent some of the most pressing issues of the day (of course sometimes, marketing mentality and intrinsic interests imply that headlines are coloured and things that may seem trivial to the masses make it to page1 because of so and so's vested interests..no further comments). A page1 byline is treasured by most scribes...so when the page 1 also succumbs to marketing and money-making, a small piece of your conscience shatters.
People call journalists all sorts of names, I'm not saying that some of us don't deserve it, but in my experience most scribes are not like that. They may be cynical, but there is some heart in there, for which they go to every nook and crany for stories that someone somewhere may benefit from. The media may be loathed at times, during 26/11 for instance. But it also always makes it to the list of social change-makers. But still there are aspects of it that are hateful, things, as forementioned, which one, scribes included, love to hate. But we live with it, c'est la vie...(shit happens), it also hits the fan many a times and heads are set rolling. Now, with the recession, the industry is reeling even more. But still, one must learn to treat it like a strangely alluring spouse, in whose imperfections, one must try and find the perfection. Somewhere in all the money-making, there is still hope for men (and women) who believe in the old school of editorial values. It may be an oft debated topic, but really, if there is no editorial, no quality content for people to read and for circulation to increase, marketing is pointless. What will it sell? People don't buy papers for the ads...they buy it for the matter. Of course, ads are important for the revenue and sustainance. But people who place marketing over editorial are not thinking wisely. period.
posted by Meg @ 11:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home