This is a reprint from NewsBred.
Times of India in a recent editorial has cried bucketsful on the "harmful" influence of social media on the "news-professionals" like them, and other mainstream media. It offers a sanguine advice to Facebook to wake up to the "fake and misleading news that are downright fabrications." The editorial writer has no doubt that the US polls have been influenced by false information posted as "news" on social media.
For too long, news professionals--of which I was a part for three-decades and more--have believed that they know best. For a large part of my career I was an international cricket writer and believed only insiders know what's happening. There was an air about me which suitably got punctured when CricInfo came on to the scene. There was initial mocking, disdain which turned into grudging acceptance to downright admiration for their language, insight and imagination in due course. Men like Rahul Bhattacharrya, Dileep Premchandran and Sidharth Monga earned deep respect with their work.
Sport was one such instance. There were separate fields like politics, social commentary, historical references which began receiving fresh winds of change. Many of us "professional news gatherers" began picking up the minds on social media. Our copies were better for it; our insight only got richer. Most of my fellow print journalists reading this piece would admit, if they are honest, that a lot of their "reporting" happens on the phone only. This claim to being "professionals" is so stupid. At least 99 per cent of we "professional journalists" wouldn't have read 10 books in our lifetimes.
The Times of India editorial increasingly begin pontificating. It says that social media may lead to "medievalisation" of the global community. "It would give spurt to tribal instincts--in the form of racism, xenophobia or communalism--that is exploding around the world."
Really, how stupid can you get? Newspapers, at best, offer a bridge of communication between public and public institutions. It ought to put both viewpoints in perspective. But the mainstream media of today completely eschews this role. In its worldview, the unheard must not be heard; the unspoken must not be allowed to speak. The "have-nots" of this world have no reason to question the "haves" to which the modern media is a part. These ivory towers of the world are increasingly being smashed as BrExit and US polls reveal how removed they are from reality. The credit for it squarely goes to "social media" where people are connecting, sharing information and forming their own opinion. You look at our newspapers and you would know who is promoting "racism" and "communalism."
So troubled are mainstream media with their shaken foundations that they refuse to examine the evidence that is out there in open in social media. For example there is this piece which completely exposes Arvind Kejriwal in a sting operation called K-files. But you wouldn't find our mainstream media taking it up. Or that most of our mainstream journalists are offered "cushioned" posts by the Delhi government. Again, you wouldn't hear a murmur. There are pointed referrals to how mainstream media is giving disconnected headlines with the text. NewsBred has relentlessly exposed this "misinformation" and "spreading of lies" but you would never find a Times of India putting the lens back on its tribe.
A few of the NewsBred links below would offer dozens of such deliberate "misreporting" and "twisting" of facts. If this is what Times of India has in mind by way of "professionalism" the readers are better off without it. The mainstream media is increasingly becoming not worth of our time and certainly not of our buy. This closed shop has crumbled but the rats can't feel the boiling water in the tub.