Hack Digest: Edition 1

Starting today, I'll be posting links to the best journalistic writing that I've read in the recent past. I'll try and be as regular with this as possible but in case I can't do it on a monthly basis, I'll put up a bi-monthly or even quarterly digest depending upon my workload. In the meantime, enjoy this and if you think you've read an equally good or a better piece of journalistic writing than what I've posted here, feel free to email and I'll upload it.


Rahul Bhatia's account of the three days he spent with LSD director Dibakar Banerjee (Open magazine)


Siddharth Varadarajan's powerful piece on the double standards of Indian politics when it comes to riots (The Hindu)


Chandrahas Choudhury's wonderfully written account of the BJP's 30 year journey and how it tries to strike a balance between the old and the new (The Caravan)


Shreevats Nevatia's cover story on how New Delhi is getting newer and better for the Commonwealth Games (Outlook) 


Priya Ramani on why Shyam Benegal is the Indian villager's Last Action Hero  (Mint Lounge)


Jai Arjun Singh talks to movie director Anup Kurian about the 'smallness' of his movie 'The Hunt' (Business Standard)


Gaurav Kalra on why Prince Yuvraj will never be King (IBNlive.com)


Samar Halarnkar wonders what Twitter is all about  (Hindustan Times)


Manu Joseph's superb piece on the most foolish things said about Sachin Tendulkar (Open Magazine)


Vir Sanghvi on why the Hindu loony fringe was obsessed with Sania Mirza's wedding and the origins of Dal Makhani (Hindustan Times)


And finally, Salil Tripathi on the humility of the Indian journalist (Mint)


Also check out the anniversary issue of TimeOut Delhi which is an exhaustive compilation of the best eateries in the capital

"Perhaps societies in political turmoil produce the best writing"

(In conversation with Sunil Sethi, Senior Editor, NDTV and Anchor, Just Books)

You’ve been associated with the news industry for a long time now. How has the industry changed/evolved over the years?

Well, I started out as a print journalist with India Today in the mid 70’s. I was there for 10 years and was one of the founding members of the team. It was a very very different place then. There was only one TV channel – state-owned Doordarshan – and technology back then, as compared to today, was very primitive. We functioned on teleprinters. Phone very seldom worked. The communication problems were unbelievable by today’s standards. There was no fax – forget emails –and we had old Remington typewriters and no computers. So, the changes in these last 25-30 years have been absolutely extraordinary. And I think, largely driven by technology.

Apart from technological advancements, do you think that, editorially, TV news media has deteriorated or has it improved? And is there scope for improvement?

Well, there is always room for improvement in any industry. The thing about the media is it is both, industry as well as institution because it has great social and political responsibility. Yet, one must not forget that it is an industry driven by advertising. So, the challenge at editorial level is to somehow balance commercial drive together with judicial reporting and opinion. What has been staggering in the growth of television is the satellite revolution – as to how fast news, ideas and opinions can be transmitted. As we saw during the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The people who were trapped inside the hotels didn’t know as much as the viewers knew. In fact, it’s not only television but even a cell phone which has become a very powerful tool. So, the growth and the speed with which electronic media operates today is really fantastic.
However, it is also open to misuse. The competition – due to the growth in the number of TV channels – is so acute that often people tend to sensationalise or blow up inconsequential and really irrelevant news to gain TRP ratings. So it is this ratings which leads to this sensationalisation and subsequent lowering of standards. But, in the end – as in all flourishing institutions – the best, most competent and most fair always survive and succeed because, ultimately, what matters in the media is your credibility.

But these days most people criticise the media and say the standards (of news coverage) have lowered. Would you agree?

The media in India, just like in other parts of the world, is too big a place to generalise like this. Obviously, some TV channels are better than others. As I said it’s the credibility of the channel to report and to reflect opinion fairly, substantiate points accurately and with great speed. That is what makes a TV channel or a newspaper acquire that fantastic thing called credibility, which the quotient by which your reading or viewing audience will believe you. Of course, many people tend to misuse it as well. But, that has always been the case. When you’re reading a novel, you can either read a cheap, stupid and trashy novel. Or, you can read great literature.

Now that you’ve mentioned literature, 2008 was a great year for publishing in India. A lot of debutants, such as Mohammed Hanif, Aravind Adiga and Basharat Peer among others, have made a mark. What do you for see for 2009 and the years ahead?

I think there’s a popular view that, with the proliferation and spread of TV and digital technology, books will be devalued and that people will read less and less. I don’t think that’s true. For instance, when I started my weekly show Just Books six years ago, I thought translating books onto television would be a difficult job. In fact, I didn’t think the show would last six weeks! And yet, it’s six years and every weekend, without a single week’s break, the show is aired. So, obviously, there is a great thirst for books. And, for the written word. Not only for new ideas and information, but for the sheer pleasure of reading. If you look at figures for Indian publishing over the recent years, they’ve soared. There are more publishing houses in India today in search of new authors than they were ever before. A young journalist like Basharat Peer has given us such a moving account (Curfewed Night) of what it was like to grow up during the insurgency years in Kashmir. Or the proliferation of Pakistani writers; people like Daniyal Mueenuddin , Nadeem Aslam, Mohammed Hanif who have given us a unique portrait of Pakistan in their works of fiction. Hence, there’s always room for new voices and, in my opinion, the hunger for the written word will never die.

But even as publishing houses are sprouting up all over India, there isn’t enough coverage of books in the Indian media. Don’t you think coverage of books has plateaued if not declined?

I don’t think coverage has declined. I think, by and large, the coverage has been proportionately fair. On weekends, newspapers have a page or page-and-a half for book reviews.

But is that sufficient?

I think so. After all, if you wanted to read about movies alone then you would read a specialised movie magazine. You wouldn’t expect movie news to be splashed on the front page of the newspaper! So arts coverage, in some respects, may have declined. But, thank God for shows like Just Books. But most newspapers cover books and profile authors regularly.

But on news channels, one rarely finds books programmes.

Well, maybe because they are not easy to do. They are not instantly saleable or have that commercial cache that film programmes do. But, that’s not to say that there’s no audience for them and I do believe that there is sufficient books coverage in our weeklies such as India Today, Outlook or The Week. And newspapers do carry books news. Vikas Swarup’s Q&A - which is now Slumdog Millionaire – is a fine example.

Last quick questions: a) Are you planning to write a book yourself and b) which authors to look forward to in 2009?

I am always thinking of writing a book but I need to take time off from my journalistic and broadcasting commitments to be able to do so. I hope I will be able to do so someday. I have written books on Indian architecture and design. In 2009, the best books – particularly from fiction – will be from Pakistan. Perhaps there’s a point to this and the point being that societies in political and social turmoil produce the best writing. Authors like Nadeem Aslam, Daniyal Mueenuddin and Mohammed Hanif are the top literary stars of 2009.

Interview: Siddharth Varadarajan

Associate Editor, The Hindu

(On how to become a political writer, state of the Indian media, relations between India and Pakistan and Obama's foreign policy for the next for four years)

A lot of young people today are interested in political commentary and analysis but don't know how to do it. As someone who reports and writes on these matters, what insight can you offer?

In the old days, anybody aspiring to be a commentator or writer on politics or international affairs was, by and large, constrained by the lack of a platform other than that of a daily newspaper or a weekly magazine or, if you're an academic, you had academic journals. Invariably, for most of these forms, politics and foreign policy were fields that journalists got to write on after putting in years of hard labour doing crime or city reporting. 

But most people don't want to do that these days..

Exactly. Now, one of the beauties of modern technology is through the internet - via blogs and news sites - it is entirely possible for any aspiring writer to present his/her views and analysis on politics and foreign policy to as wide an audience as exists out there. This is something I would tell all frustrated and aspiring writers to do. It is much better to have an article published in The Times of India or The Hindu or any mass circulation newspaper or to appear on a TV channel. But, until you build up a profile which would then give you access to those kinds of platforms, nothing prevents you from opening your own blog site focusing on politics or international affairs and writing and giving your own analysis. I think that's what people should do. 

It is said that one must specialise in these subjects to make an impact or to be taken seriously. Is it true?

I think it is essential to have, as part of one's educational background, some training - ideally a degree - but some training in an academic discipline. But, not necessarily because some of the best writers on foreign policy are those who studied english literature in college or even physics. But, what a rigorous undergraduate or postgraduate degree does is that it gets you accustomed to reading and doing research and I think you cannot be a good analyst of contemporary affairs unless you have a good knowledge of history, a good grasp of current affairs and unless you're reading, not just newspapers and magazines, but books. One should also take part in seminars and talks. As a writer, my tentacles are always up and I'm constantly receiving material, whether it is through TV, books, seminars and journals. And it is only when you feed on a wide variety of sources that your own ability to analyse and think will get developed. So, it doesn't matter if you don't have a degree in political science or economics; you can still aspire to analyse the world. But what that needs is a certain humility, certain application of mind, a willingness to read and to not be arrogant with the belief that you have the right answers.

On a different note, the media has come under increasing criticism especially after the November 26 terrorist attacks in Mumbai about the manner it projects issues. Your take on the state of the Indian media today.

Your question is quite vast so I'll break it down. The Indian media's handling of the Mumbai terror attacks between November 26 and 29 left a lot to be desired. The electronic media was too breathless and the amount of competition led them to make too many mistakes of fact, interpretation and judgment which, in a sense, worsened the situation. And I'm not talking about the three days. A lot of tension and war hysteria was also the product of a media that totally got out of control and lost its own bearings as media which reports what's going on. Everybody became an activist. I think no matter how intimately a journalist feels or is involved in an event that's happening, you have to resist the urge to become an activist. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have passion or commitment. But, above all, you should have fidelity to the truth and report what's happening in as dispassionate a manner as you can. So some sense of detachment is necesary. I think the Indian media did not display a sufficient degree of detachment during these attacks and the aftermath. It keeps happening all the time and this was an egregious example.

People these days interpret activism as taking a stance. Is there a difference between the two or is the line blurred?

Good question. I think journalists have views and should take a stance. But you should know where to take a stance and what's the platform. As a writer and somebody in print, I should respect the boundary between a news report and an opinion column. When I'm reporting  an event, there's no reason why any stance taking is necessary. But, when I analyse or write a commentary, obviously it is my view and the medium/platform requires you to take a stance. And people should take stances which lead to democratic solutions and oppose violence. The two things shouldn't be confused. If I allow my own personal opposition to the politics of the BJP to colour the way in which I report on an event involving the BJP, then that will be a big mistake for journalist. So, the boundaries between news and views should be respected.

I asked you this question because after the Jessica Lal case verdict was declared, the media started this 'Justice for Jessica' campaign. The argument given was that at times the media has no choice but to take stance. Who decides which issue the media should take a stance on?

I think under all circumstances, events should be reported objectively. There are no two ways about it. The problem arises in the electronic media because in print, we have a neat separation between news and editorial columns. So, I am reporting facts and loopholes of the Jessica Lal case on the news pages and I do so without inserting my opinion as a writer that 'I think XYZ is guilty' or 'I think ABC is guilty'. In an editorial column, I have a platform to criticise the judge or judgment and register my opinion that the guilty were let off. In TV, such a neat separation is not possible. An anchor is, at one and the same time, somebody who's reporting an event but who also, in a sense, giving his/her opinion. That's why in the Jessica Lal case, the boundaries got blurred. Having said that, those same TV channels, which asked for justice for Jessica, didn't cover the trial or the facts surrounding the case in a wrong way. There was no distortion of fact. So, yes, everybody is entitled to a view and a channel can have an editorial stance which gets blurred because you can't separate the two (news and editorial stance) physically. But, if you were to allow your 'Justice for Jessica' campaign to get converted into a witchhunt where reporters suppress evidence or distort facts, then there's a problem. Otherwise, I don't see it as a major issue.

It is often argued that with the advent of internet and blogs, the print media will become extinct. a) Do you agree? and b) What is your opinion about the web journalism market in India.

I think the print media in India still has a long way to go before it plateaus. Growth in print will continue as long as literacy and levels of education keep increasing in our society. Also, as long as the ordinary citizen lacks access to computers and the internet, for the next 20 or 30 years we will see an increase in print circulation. Even after internet density in India catches up with other countries, newspapers will play a major role. That's because, although internet allows people to access information from all over the world, it lacks credibility as there is no editor. And, in a modern world where people don't have much time, the reader is expected to sift the good from the bad. So, the benefit of a newspaper or a magazine is that it goes through an editorial mill. That benefit of a newspaper will always remain. Nowadays, every newspaper has a web edition and you will find that The Hindu's website will always remain popular than a blog that you and I may start simply because it reflects the editorial control which you respect. Beyond 20-30 years how things evolve I don't know but I don't see a major shift in terms of importance of print media. 

On a different note, media reports suggest that President Obama may appoint Bill Clinton as a special envoy for Kashmir. Do you think this is a good step or should the issue be resolved between India and Pakistan.

Firstly, I don't think Obama will be so foolish to appoint an envoy for Kashmir as the Indian government will never accept such an envoy. Appointing such an envoy when a principal party to the dispute does not want it, will destroy the goodwill which has been built up between India and the United States over the last 10 years. Secondly, prior to the last year, year-and-a-half of terrorist attacks, fact is that India and Pakistan have made considerable progress in the peace process and they've done so within a bilateral framework. Either this framework has run its course or no more confidence building measures are possible and, if that's the case, then there would be a case for outside mediation. But I don't think the bilateral process has run its course. I think the fact that Pakistani territory is used to stage terrorist attacks is an obstacle for normalisation of relations and I think it is incumbent on the Government of Pakistan to act against the perpetrators of these attacks, not just for the benefit of India-Pakistan relations but also for ensuring Pakistan's own stability. These groups (perpetrators), no matter what their origin, have ended up staging violence within Pakistan itself. So if the US, as it says, wants a better Pakistan, then it should be firm with Pakistan to to act against these groups. Hence, there is a role which the US can play and that's where it should focus, rather than trying to get India and Pakistan to start talking when the atmosphere is so sullied due to Pakistan's refusal to act against terror groups. 

So how do you think the US can put pressure on Pakistan and how long will it take for this India-Pakistan stalemate to end?

It is an uphill battle as India has little leverage over Pakistan. War is not an option. Cutting off diplomatic and people-to-people ties is not an option. Cutting off cultural exchange is not an option. These are decisions India can take but it won't help in achieving the ultimate goal i.e. to end terrorism once and for all. So India needs to lean on countries like America to apply requisite pressure on Islamabad and that's the direction in which Indian diplomacy has been going in the last six to eight weeks. And that will continue because, by itself, India has limited options and after initial rhetoric, things have improved as Pakistan says it has appointed a high-level investigative team to look into the information India has given it. It is possible that Pakistan may take some action. India needs to give it space for the process to work rather than issuing rhetorical statements. I think it is important to tone down the rhetoric and not make accusations through the media everyday. And this is true for both, India and Pakistan

Finally, Barack Obama is now in office with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. How do you see US foreign policy shaping up over the four years?

Unfortunately, I don't see a major shift in America's foreign policy because Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary, are people who stand for continuity in foreign policy. Now, Obama has spoken a lot about a dialogue with Iran and a more consensual approach but in his inaugural speech he kept talking about America's leadership role. The world is a bit sick and tired of America being the world's leader and the debate is not whether you lead us in a unilateral or multilateral way but the fact that the world doesn't want your leadership. It wants to you realise that there a lot of unsolved issues and conflicts should be resolved using democratic means. Such as respecting the Palestinians' right to self-determination rather than supporting Israel all the time. These are the kind of tough decisions America needs to take but I don't see any sign of that happening under Obama. When he was President-elect and Israel was unleashing the most brutal kind of violence on the people of Gaza, I don't remember a single statement he made condemning this. Israel committed terrible war crimes against Palestinians, but Obama remained silent. I think that's not a good sign from the Obama administration in bringing any fundamental change in foreign policy.

Firsts

I guess I should begin by saying hello. And sorry, for being late. This blog should have started a long time ago but my laziness got the better of me. But, as the famous saying goes der aaye durust aaye (you were late, but at least you've arrived). And now that I'm here, I'll straight away get started and write about an issue which has been perturbed me since the past few days.

Slumdog Millionaire-the latest movie based on India is winning awards and accolades worldwide. Trainspotting director Danny Boyle's venture fetched A R Rahman his first Golden Globe amongst other awards. The media continues to heap praises on the movie (and justifiably so) with some sections even calling it the "film of 2009". But in its brazen endorsement of Slumdog, the media conviniently sidestepped (and, in some cases, even forgot to mention) one small little point. Slumdog Millionaire is a cinematic adaptation of Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup's maiden novel, Q&A. Except for an NDTV report and a story which appeared in the Times of India today, I don't think I've come across too many media reports which even mention this small, but important, fact.By all means, the film deserves publicity, praises, awards et all, but does that mean the author and his book should be sidelined?

And its not just this particular instance that worries me. 

Over the past few months, I've observed that there's a trend in the Indian media to either ignore Indian writing or to abstain from giving it due publicity. How many times does one see a books discussion on a national news channel? Most book reviews today are confined to weekend newspaper supplements and newsmagazines. Fewer newspapers/news channels have a books editor. And this at a time when Indian writing in English is gaining immense popularity. One can only hope that such a trend does not last for too long and, sooner rather than later, authors and their books are given their due.

P.S. In addition to commenting on my posts, do feel free to recommend any changes regarding the layout of this blog. I've tried to keep it as reader friendly as I possibly can.