Panel sifts through media clutter for right answers

KOLKATA: Someone described it as being “Transatlantic”, no doubt impressed by all the Englishmen and a young American, but there was also this sizeable representation from Pakistan and, of course, a strong Indian presence. On the steps of the majestic Victoria Memorial, it was an impressive panel that set out to find if ‘Media Clutter Has Compromised Credibility’.
Sadly, just as the topic suggested, numbers did lead to a clutter of thoughts and blurred the focus.
Between the media bashing and some posturing on moral high ground, it did emerge that the proliferation of newspapers and television channels, and the many manifestations of new-age media, cannot be regulated. It began with most thinking this clutter was bad, till someone said it was good (“One man’s clutter is someone’s diversification”). For Jill Robinson of BBC, it presents a problem when she is trying to find funds for her more meaningful programmes.
Why the clutter? “Because there can be,” shot back Rob Hopkins, an independent activist and writer.
“Because it’s profitable,” added Umair Javed of Pakistan’s ‘Dawn’. “It’s not easy to make money from a (just launched) newspaper. They are tools of influence,” proffered someone else.
As in any discussion on the media, the question of ethics came up, as did the debate on self-regulation versus regulatory body. Rob Hopkins, an independent activist and writer, set about to explain how it works in England, while Mehmal Sarfraz, a freelance journalist from Pakistan, said she could never accept a government representative on such a panel.
After a prolonged phase of showing the media and mediapersons in bad light, journalist Utpal Chatterjee reminded others that “by and large, journalists were conscientious”. It led to panelists saying that it’s not right to “paint all media with the same brush”.
“The aim of making profits is not bad in itself, if it is not done with malicious intent,” was one conclusion.