Abstract
Journalism as a practice is mandated to disseminate information. It plays the role of an intermediary between the power ‘haves’, the power ‘less’ and the marginalized. This commentary considers how journalism, being a political activity, cannot be bereft of ideology, particularly in a country—India—where many journalists openly allow their ideological beliefs to be reflected in their reporting of political issues. Subsequently, the authors question the pedagogy of teaching political journalism in an environment in which there is a clear divide between the academicians and the practitioners.
Neutrality is considered a virtue among political reporters. Bias manifesting itself as opinion or perspective is frowned upon in news writing, but accepted among those writers empowered to produce commentary. In an evolved modern democratic set-up, journalism is organized and practised to empower people by ensuring ‘free’ and ‘unbiased’ flow of information (Deuze, 2005, pp. 442–464). Such information not only makes people aware of events but simultaneously equips them, bestowing people with the power to decide or to make choice/(s). The postmodern appreciation of power has already dismantled the understanding of power as a huge monolith. Power is more of a ‘fragmented inter-play of hierarchies within knowledge production or dissemination processes’ (Hall, 2001, p. 81). Journalism as a practice and praxis plays the role of intermediary between the power ‘haves’, the power ‘less’ and the marginalized. Journalism is an endeavour of and by civil society through which it negotiates with the political state. Thus, ‘doing’ journalism entails being both a part of and a participant in political activity.
Journalism as a Political Activity
Power relationships, both within and between groups, were a part of early societies, even before the establishment of the media. Today, the media are obviously interested in stories about sociopolitical relationships within and between societies, about the use and misuse of power and authority and about the government and its engagements with communities. For any journalist covering the political beat, stories can range from the ways and methods practised by individuals when competing for power, be it at a local, national or international level. In any newsroom set-up, it is very difficult to understand or map where politics ends and journalism begins because both journalism and politics are about and involve people (McNair, 2009, pp. 237–248). This nexus involves each and everyone who is a part of the decision-making process in the society—the government, policy makers, lawmakers, political and judicial bodies. It also involves those who execute these decisions and those who are affected by these decisions. Ideally, the job of a journalist is to tell people how the decisions taken at government level are going to affect them and their life.
In some countries, most of the news stories about political events/issues are based on individual opinion and ideology rather than factual reporting. In a country like India, if one watches television news, they will find that the journalist in a political debate/discussion seems to be endorsing the agenda of a particular political group or ideology. They come up with a particular perspective on the issue. The result: many senior journalists are involved in a conflict of interest between their professional responsibilities and their political affiliations. The television channels and newspapers frequently use politically loaded language, thus convincing the readers/listeners/viewers to take a particular perspective as the ‘true’ knowledge, ‘rational’ perception and ‘akin’ reality.
Reporting Politics: Governance and Government
There is a difference between explaining political events and giving advice on how to alter situations. Explanation is one of the roles of a journalist, but giving advice and being judgemental about the opinions are certainly not. In the last decade, political journalism in India has failed to take into account the critical intellectual tradition of an objective and fair journalism. Newsrooms are influenced and dominated by economic, political and ideological forces to promote the vested interest of political ideologies that decide how the power and wealth in the society will be distributed. Journalism is more like political activism that has started re-theorizing the concept of news and gatekeepers and gatecrashers in newsrooms (Schudson, 2003).
In journalism, ideologies must evolve out of specific sociopolitical contexts. They enable a journalist to understand and navigate the effect of events on people’s life. Ideologies help people understand social and political realities, help them to structure their own desires and also help them to shape their aspirations (Machan, 1992, pp. 159–167). In journalism, especially political journalism, an understanding of ideology is important as it influences the thought, judgement or inclination of a person towards a particular social and political order. Ideologies are cognitive phenomena, and they are socially generated and transmitted to influence people’s understanding of a problem and the decision-making processes. An individual journalist’s ideology, as reflected through their news stories, can be followed by a large number of people. This helps construct a public ideology among the readers, listeners and viewers who follow the individual journalist, helping them interpret and understand the information according to an emotional framework provided by the journalist/reporter rather than on the basis of objective and rational evaluation of the evidence.
The journalist being situated in the loci of a given spatio-temporal context would, in Mannheim’s analysis of ideology (Mannheim, 1936), be guided by both ‘Particular’ and ‘Total’ ideologies whereby the former would colour their perception by the local representation of things and latter would ‘build’ up their understanding by entire categories of thought and ways of thinking. Durkheim, in support of this view, states that, ‘it (ideology) is a system of ideas which express without reciprocity the more or less legitimate interest of an economic, political or ethnic entity’ (Durkheim, 1962), but his further appreciation of ideology as that ‘which expresses resistance to social change and disassociation of concrete dialectical totalities’ creates another problem associated with being or becoming a journalist with a view and vision. The journalist is presumed to have the ability to decode, analyze and critically appreciate the multiple relations and interrelationship of individuals among themselves, with society and the state, and in its manifestations in the form of a government.
In political discourse, government refers to the formal institutions of the state and their monopoly of legitimate coercive power, whereas governance is meant as a change in the meaning of government, a new process of governing and a changed condition of ordered rule (Rhodes, 1996, pp. 652–657). The process of governance is mostly seen as a result of the outcomes of parallel traditional institutions of government. Governance is more concerned with creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action. That is why the outputs of governance are not, therefore, different from those of government, but simply a difference in the process (Rosenau, 1992, pp. 1–30). The journalist and journalism must relate and simplify this for people to comprehend complex structures and procedures ‘governing’ their life.
However, in political journalism, governance is used in a variety of ways and has a variety of meanings. Political journalists are interested in knowing and delivering how governance is used in a range of government practices and institutional settings to understand the shift in the thinking and working of government. These days, a lot of political stories are in and around governance and its potential for contracting, franchising and forming regulations. Journalists working on political beats are keen to know the capacity of government bodies to get things done or how government bodies are using or misusing their power and authority.
Political journalism is concerned about political partnerships and the distribution of power—at a party level and within the government. A government with a majority in a country like India deals differently with political negotiations at both domestic and international level than a government with the support of other political parties. It is interesting for political journalists to interpret the decision-making monopoly and leadership over the challenges of ideology. The establishment of a regime on a vested ideology is the ultimate act of power in Indian politics. The learners aiming to be practitioner or a participant in journalism must comprehend this to valuably contribute to the discourse and praxis.
Making of (an) Activist/Professional Journalist
Students in any Indian media school are basically trained for the media industry by ‘polishing’ their writing/presenting skills, by making them to practise their writing/presentation on current affairs and by encouraging them to learn the conventions and routines of the media through interaction with journalists and through internships. Almost all media schools at university and institutional level, both public and private, focus on developing skills in writing/presenting traditional ‘inverted-pyramid’ news stories. The focus on writing/presentation undermines critical thinking skills and deals more with ‘correcting’ the stories through grammatical revision and rewriting.
While scrutinizing the syllabus of some ‘reputed’ media schools of India, we found that there are few programmes that focus on critical thinking, discussion and debate about the state of politics and governance in the country. Most of the journalism programmes offered at undergraduate and postgraduate level by the state and central universities deal with journalism as a profession like medicine, law and management. By political journalism, they mean ‘fearless’ and ‘investigative’ reporting of political issues and government functioning. Political journalism as an academic discipline is more interested in studying political and social institutions, through a ‘liberal arts’ approach, whereas as practice, it is more focused on teaching the vocational skills required for reporting and editing news stories. The basis of journalism education, whether it is political or economic, is the teaching of how to write/present a news story in prescribed format. The journalism teachers are more oriented towards telling students about the ‘rules’ and ‘constraints’ of news writing and wish to train them in writing and selecting news stories through the elements like negativity, immediacy, meaningfulness and its interest for readers (Golding & Elliott, 1979). There is a conflict between the journalism practitioners and academia as practitioners focus on professional skills whereas the academic is more inclined towards the teaching of critical thinking skills. There is a clear demarcation between practical and contextual knowledge.
Unlike media schools within state and central universities, some institutions owned by media houses also offer journalism courses that focus more on ‘problem-based’ learning. In this environment, students learn both decision-making and conventional journalism skills while working with the media houses. These programmes focus on the technical aspects of journalism ‘training’ and stymie rather than promote the development of theoretical knowledge.
Whether the Indian media schools aim and attempt to make an activist or a professional journalist, there is a need to revamp the whole curriculum and pedagogy of journalism courses offered at university and institution levels. The problem of teaching political journalism is that academics wish to teach and train journalists without an understanding of the discourse, ethnography and political economy of the media. The conflict is between journalism as a ‘craft’ and journalism as a ‘liberal art’. The wider debate follows discussions on the changing patterns of ownership, advertising, news frames, political, economic and social constraints and their impact on the production of political and governance news in the newsroom and their dissemination.
Teaching Political Journalism
There was a time when it was clear who was a ‘journalist’: it was a person working for a newspaper or television news channel and who is employed to regularly engage in gathering, processing and disseminating news and information to serve the public interest. But, today in the age of Web 3.0, social networking sites and blogs, everyone who has a passion to drive a story over the edge wants to tell the story in whatever medium is handy. The people who believe that society always needs accurate information and fresh insight on issues believe that journalism depends on the perception, skill, empathy and honesty of the news provider rather than on the acquisition of technical knowledge and skills (Merritt, 1995, pp. 125–132). They argue that the techniques of reporting, editing and organizing them on software and delivering them on various applications and platforms can be easily learnt. The journalism schools can train a student not to take sides, to be balanced, to be accurate while giving data, but it is ultimately the human passion that makes up the better part of the world about which they write. Formal training in journalism provided by journalism schools can help journalists to write coherently, develop analytical skills and capture photographs with technical excellence, but the actual requirement is a passion for truth. That passion can only be developed if the individual displays a keenness to acquire knowledge about how things work, through a tempered scepticism, a restless curiosity, an instinct for storytelling, a quick and ready feel for human foibles and for the human condition (Örnebring, 2010, pp. 38–42).
The people who believe that journalism is a profession rely on historical, political, economic and cultural arguments to support their case, whereas those who believe that journalism is an activity argue it is an expression of citizenship, a manifestation of democracy (Weaver, 1998). A whole generation of journalists in India believe that journalism is a democratic activity, which should be pursued with vigour and should be executed with skill and should be free from a contextual framework and professional testing (Allan, 2005, pp. 6–13).
The new area of study in the Indian subcontinent is the complexity and autonomy of multilevel governance. To meet this demand, media schools have to understand the changing tendency of political leadership and to see how power is imposed in various ways and how it is affecting the people. The challenge for political journalism is to understand how the new forms of governance and government are facing the challenges from the past hierarchical modes of thinking (Reese, 2001, pp. 173–187). The media is required to focus on the paradoxes of governance—that is—to know the tensions and difficulties with political institutions, civil societies, and how the government is taking the initiative to bridge the gap between public, private and voluntary sectors in government. But rather than understanding and disseminating the information related to the failures of leadership, emerging social conflicts due to imbalances in the distribution of political power, the media in India is more interested in participating in political processes. Rather than monitoring the governance processes in the country and awaking people to the changing patterns of governance in democratic set-ups, journalists appear willing to participate as an actor in the political game itself.