This is a subject so oft-debated in our circles that it is beginning to lose its significance. The basic factors responsible for the virtual non-existence of environmental/wildlife issues in the news media are the same today as they were some years back. Recycling the same issues again would do nothing more than fill up space for Green Voice.
It is time to take things further, to develop a strategy, and work on – not towards – it.
The fight for news-space is not a battle, it is a game. It is a ruthless mind game. What we keep forgetting is that it is not we who set the rules for this game. We indulge in too much rhetoric and create a ballyhoo about ethics and all that. Who cares? Trust me on this one – no one does; for if they did, things would have been different. If we are to play this game, then we have to do so by the rules that are not to our advantage.
It is true that the media today is a whopping big business. But it is not market compulsions alone that decide what news ought to be carried where and when. The other side of this market-driven coin is one we discern as populism. It is also populist myopia that today drives news in the media. It is the darker side of democracy at play – people get to see and hear the news that the majority wants to.
Face it – we live in a world that is more escapist than ever. People suffer from the ostrich syndrome and hence turning a blind eye to a problem is the best way they think will solve it. Don't believe me? Fair enough, hand around a newspaper and see for yourself how many people even go beyond the headlines of the "negative" stories, and how many hungrily devour the seamier ones.
Facts are facts, and numbers don't lie. Demagogues take recourse to numbers to make their lies appear as the truth. Now, for some numbers. A survey, a year or so back, found that 61 per cent of Indians yearn for news about entertainment, 56 per cent sports, and 55 per cent current affairs. Environmental and so-called developmental stories did not even figure in the list. They didn't because to people they don't matter.
It is very easy to censure, say, television channels for the unadulterated trash that they broadcast 24/7. Oh, those callous, lucre-driven ones will do anything for their TRPs, is the general refrain. What critics conveniently forget to acknowledge is that these channels get their high ratings because people indeed see these programmes/clips. Be it about the game that 11 flannelled fools play, or those macabre crime programmes.
And, journalism is no more a noble profession – it is just a profession. Today, journalists are mass produced by universities, colleges, and countless dubious "institutes". Visit some of these and find out for yourself how many of these young ones are driven by passion, and how many by glamour and other vested prevarications.
These are not very encouraging thoughts, you would agree. But giving up hope would be the easiest thing to do under adverse circumstances.
One must not forget the lone rangers – the minuscule number of journalists in many newspapers and channels who pursue environment as a beat, not out of coercion but zeal. They plough a lonely furrow in their respective establishments. There do exist a few e-mail networks for such journalists, but most of these have outlived their utility. Exchanging links and stories are not the same as trying to do something.
Environmental organisations and professionals too must put in some more effort in media relations. Many are hopelessly under-staffed to even think about disseminating information. There are others who have not requisite skills and dole out info as if they are doing a favour to the press. And there are few who are interested more in securing media mileage for their executive directors than what they actually do in the field.
If we, as a concerned and alarmed lot, are still talking about this, it means our efforts of the past have failed miserably. It is time to junk the policies, theories and strategies that have only wasted time, money and energy. There are many things that can be done, and discussing them threadbare would be beyond the scope of this write-up.
There is one that I want to broach – an information clearinghouse. The International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) (www.ifex.org) is a classic case in point. IFEX is decentralised and helps coordinate the work of its members, reducing overlap among their activities and making them more effective in their shared objectives.
One of the key elements of IFEX that can be emulated is its vibrant Action Alert Network (AAN). Member organisations report free expression abuses in their geographic region or area of expertise to the Clearing House which, in turn, circulates this information to other members and interested organisations all over the world. It also provides updates on developments in ongoing cases and circulates important freedom of expression press releases. Action Alerts are the mainstay of IFEX's work for the simple reason that it has seen coordinated letter-writing campaigns help unlock prison doors, lift publication bans and even save lives. The point is – it works.
I also know what will not work – yet another embassy-funded portal, or yet another non-governmental organisation.
Can blogs and so-called citizen journalism work? To a certain extent, yes. The clear-thinking and committed ones do work, but unfortunately remain in the alternative realm. Right here, right now we are concerned about the monolithic, big, bad mainstream media. Moreover, blogs add to the media clutter and citizen journalism is a Web 2.0 hype that is too shamelessly populist to deliver the goods.
There is another thing that will not work anymore, for times have changed – if we keep talking from ivory towers, no one will buy what we say. Take it, or leave it. If we have to survive, we have to fight for it. Darwinism rules.
