What can we learn from the Zee episode?

[OPINION]

Whether the sting was operated by the editors of Zee News or Naveen Jindal, congress MP and steel tycoon, the legal system will tell – maybe after years. But what can the media learn from this episode?                           

Prima facie, both Jindal and the Zee News editors appear to be at fault. As per unconfirmed media reports, Jindal offered Rs 20 crore to the Zee editors and the editors in turn demanded Rs 100 crore. From a journalistic standpoint, the editors’ demanding any amount money from any business in return for any favour is unacceptable and is against the basic ethics of the profession.                            

"Assuming" this to be true for a moment, the next question is what made the editors cross their limits? Is it because they are the proprietors of the business? Perhaps yes. Ideally, editors should not be the proprietors of the media house they are working for. If they wear the dual hat, they will be tempted to employ such tricks to meet their revenue targets. There are however, excellent examples globally, where the editor is the owner of the media house and yet it is run ethically.

Many proprietors also try to push their editors/ journalists to favour a particular company assuming it would get them that extra buck. Sorry guys, that model didn’t work yesterday and it will not work today. The best-run publications or media houses give complete editorial freedom and there is a thick line between the editorial and the business. This line cannot blur until you are blind or pretend to be so.         

So, how can the media ensure ethical journalism? Empowerment and self-regulation would perhaps solve most of the issues. Senior editors need to be empowered such that they are part of the company’s board – not responsible for bringing in revenues but responsible for ensuring good journalism. This would not allow business heads to arm twist the editors to play the sales game. The second solution lies in self regulation wherein an independent panel of retired journalists and senior editors (who have no interest/stake in any of the media houses) would have the full authority to “fire” any employee of any media house who is found indulging in unethical activities.                    

Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Express said in a recent debate in CNN-IBN that journalists today are more ethical and professional than ever before. I agree with him on this. I am in the industry and I know it for sure that by and large, today’s modern-day journalists are ethical, smart and more professional. It is perhaps because most of them have attended journalism schools and they survive in a competitive environment where talent shines.

On that note, let us commit ourselves to creating a system where journalism is sacrosanct. Let me take you back and remind you once again of my favourite tagline and the gospel truth that good journalism is good business!  

(The purpose of this write-up is not to judge who's right or wrong, but only to turn the gaze inwards into the profession of journalism, in general)   

Is Good Journalism Bad Business?

Is good journalism bad business? It’s a topic I have been obsessed with since college and why not? The topic is as relevant today as it was many years back. The owners of many media houses have always had tough time dealing with credible journalists. The question boils down to this. If company X is one of the prime advertisers with a magazine or newspaper, should the journalist be stopped from writing a negative story about it? Should company X get even an iota of special treatment? The answer clearly is a NO in all caps and bold. Alas, many of those in the business feel the answer should be YES.

There is no denial that revenues are important to sustain a media house or a publication. The big question here is: Will partiality towards company X bring in the required profit? The answer is No. Readers are quick to decipher what’s real news and what’s an advertisement or an advertorial or a PR gimmick. They read a publication because they trust the content and consider it sacrosanct. The moment the reader discovers that you have restrained covering company X negatively or favoured it in any form because it advertises with you, they are bound to stop reading your publication.

Some sales guys also believe that giving editorial coverage is a good way to sell an ad and bring in revenues. They can’t go more wrong than this. Companies advertise because they know it’s hard to find editorial space. The moment editorial coverage becomes easy, which fool will spend the moolah and advertise? So, in the long run, such strategies will only hit back on the face. Needless to say, advertorials and all custom publishing initiatives are perfect examples of brand dilution and will not work in the long term.

Consider this example. Dhirubhai Ambani bought the Sunday Observer from Ashwin Shah of Jaico and launched a daily paper called The Business and Political Observer to act as their mouthpiece. The Sunday Observer was successful in its Jaico avatar but it never worked as an Ambani operation. Why? It’s because our readers are more intelligent than what we assume them to be. The daily paper became an embarrassment and in no way it saved Ambani’s company from all the negative publicity. The publication actually became a liability for the Ambanis and had to be closed down.

Ravi Dhariwal, CEO of The Times of India Group said in one of the forums, “A good product will always sell…Marketing begins with a good product.” I completely agree with him and I am overtly glad to hear such words coming out of a marketing guy.

My final verdict: Good journalism is good business. Media is the domain of the public and people want fair, truthful and unbiased news and views. There is no scope for any hidden agenda here. We should create a strong editorial-driven product and build revenues around it. It cannot happen the other way round where we build an editorial strategy based on the revenue target.