Murdochisation of the media

 F**k Dacre. Publish.” Rupert Murdoch uttered these three simple words 28 years ago. In a sense, they epitomise his journalistic philosophy. Lord Dacre was a historian who in 1983 expressed doubt about the accuracy of the Hitler Diaries that were being printed in the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times. As it turned out, the diaries were soon proved to be a clever work of fiction, a complete hoax.

This drive to create a sensation, without so much as a pause to consider the value of the content or its consequences, has been transmitted down the years to various news media acquisitions of Murdoch. It was only a matter of time before they stepped over the line of decency, propriety and law. Or perhaps it was only a matter of time before they got caught.

In July 2009, it emerged that the reporters of News of the World (NotW), a UK tabloid owned by Murdoch, had illegally hacked into the phones of celebrities and politicians. In the subsequent investigations, a closet-full of skeletons tumbled out, including the instance of NotW staffers hacking into the phone of a missing teenager, Milly Dowler. Since then, the Murdoch empire has well and truly been under siege.

Are we different?
The NotW scandal has led to a lot of introspection, among both the purveyors and consumers of news, about the possible Murdochisation of our own media. Even though no overt breakage of the law by the Indian media has come to light, so far, Murdoch’s basic philosophy — that business concerns should be put over ethical ones — apparently has enthusiastic acolytes in sections of the Indian media.

“The journalistic yardstick for success seems to be the number of eyeballs that you can garner,” exclaims Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, a senior journalist and a member of the Press Council of India, a self-regulatory body of the Indian media. “The argument that’s often made is that the media give people only what they want to see. If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, people also want to watch pornography; will the news media start dishing out pornography as well?”

Recently, a former NotW staffer spoke out about the work culture brought into the tabloid by its flame-haired former editor Rebekah Brooks, which led to the use of illegal tactics such as phone-hacking. He talked of how the staff were under intense pressure to deliver scoops at an impossible frequency.

If you’re in the business of sensationalism, then the problem that you face is the lack of sensational news cropping up on a daily basis. This either leads to misrepresentation of news to create sensation, or the use of underhanded, even illegal tactics to generate sensation, both of which fall far short of the ethical tenets of journalism.

A similar erosion of ethics in the Indian media came to the surface when the Radia tapes scandal broke in late 2010, exposing the seamy nexus between journalists, corporate lobbyists and politicians. The Indian media came under the scanner and the debate revolved around the deference of some of the country’s top journalists to the whims of the rich and powerful, in return for access or more. The argument made by the accused, in their defence, was that they needed to cozy up to the politicians to do their jobs, which presumably was to get access to news and report it. The question that needs to be asked is: what does this do to the credibility of the media and what importance does that have even from a business point of view?

Subhash Chandra, chairman of the Essel group which owns the Zee media network and also has a stake in Diligent Media, the publisher of DNA, says, “Credibility is what the viewer or reader of media wants. Unless there is credibility you won’t have viewers or readers. So I’m of the view that credibility for the media is very important and has to be maintained.”

This is not an easy precept to follow in the current environment, however. Speaking on condition of anonymity, one of the senior-most television journalists in the country says, “When channels which spend time, money and effort in reporting on real issues with half-hour shows find themselves competing with in-your-face tabloid-style reporting interspersed with Bollywood gossip and skin shows, and begin to lose the TRP war, it leaves you with two options: either you happily watch your advertisement revenue walking away to the competitor, or you jump in and play by his rules. Market forces often ensure you choose the latter.”

The race for ratings
If it’s viewership that determines content, then does the final responsibility lie with the consumer of news?  Are we, as consumers of news, able to appreciate responsible journalism or are we too enamoured by the flashing lights and high pitch of sensationalism? To a certain extent, the responsibility does lie with the viewer or the reader.  However, the problem is also with the metrics used to gauge viewership. Ratings, it seems, is the holy grail of journalism today. “We await Wednesdays with bated breath as TRP figures get released mid-week. Generally, this is what then decides programmes, run-downs, schedules and so much more,” admits Sudhir Chaudhry, Editor and CEO, Live India & Mi Marathi.

But then, given the levels to which Murdoch’s NotW stooped in the UK, who is to say the ratings themselves are bribe-proof? If push comes to shove, TRPs can be manipulated too in the cut-throat competition for ad revenues.

Moreover, a simple TRP doesn’t reveal the level of engagement a viewer has had with the content. In a landmark speech given in 1961, Newton Minow, the then chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, castigated the heads of the television networks by declaring, “A rating, at best, is an indication of how many people saw what you gave them. Unfortunately, it does not reveal the depth of the penetration or the intensity of reaction, and it never reveals what the acceptance would have been if what you gave them had been better. I believe in the people’s good sense and good taste, and I am not convinced that the people’s taste is as low as some of you assume.”

The Murdochisation of news certainly didn’t start with Murdoch, nor will it end with his much clamoured for demise, if at all that happens. The responsibility lies with every stakeholder of the media.   

— Yogesh Pawar contributed to this report