Budget 2012 coverage prompts a re-look at editorial strategy

From the late 1950s until 1994, one looked forward to Nani A. Palkhiwala’s post budget analysis through lectures to de-mystify financial jargon for the common man. Then came the era of cable TV networks where expert analysis of the budget was made available almost instantly. We are currently in the era of social media where information is not just available at the click of a key but it is also focused towards individual concerns. Despite the changes spanning these 50-odd years, the financial dailies’ approach to covering the Union budget has changed little.


Does the budget still need to be covered the way it is? Definitely not, if newspapers intend to make an impact. There are three ways in which the coverage can be improved to suit the needs of new age readers.

1. Focus – Most newspapers are unable to identify the key outcomes of the budget and consequently identify a list of stories. Instead, they are in rush to give space to every piece of information connected with the budget, no matter how small or big. A case in point is the fact that reams of newsprint is dedicated to covering the impact of the budget on investors. This year, all financial dailies dedicated at least 4 pages to covering this aspect, when less than half of India’s tax payers are investors. (The Income Tax Department puts the number of tax payers in India as of 2011 at around 3.5 crore. The National Securities Deposits Limited, which maintains demat accounts of all investors in India, says there are around 1.2 crore active accounts as of March 2012). Unless the newspaper’s subscriber base comprises largely of those actively trading in the stock market, such news can possibly be wrapped up in a page at the most, focusing on the key impact such as I-T deduction of 50% to first time investors in shares and the removal of exemption on infrastructure bonds. Instead the impact of the “no-show” budget was detailed across sector specific stocks, with traders saying how they were neither positive nor negative outcomes in the budget.

Amidst the clutter of advisories made available by brokerage houses or other private advisors, the editorial team needs to indentify a set of meaningful questions to probe potential interviewees with. These questions should go beyond the routine “how do you think this move will impact the investor”. This story is a good example of how such news should be researched and covered. Not only does this story give the reader options, it also explains the modus operandi of why they may consider these options. One such piece can substitute a dozen other views from experts.

2. Structure stories better – In the enthusiasm to cover as many views on the budget as possible, newspaper often carry similar opinions voiced by multiple industry bodies and business leaders. A little bit of time spent by the editorial team looking at the stories filed by reporters, will help identify similar stories and club them into one article. Further, if the stories offer differing views on the same topic, those too can be combined into a larger sector focused story.

For example, these two stories on recapitalization support to banks could have been combined into one comprehensive story by seeking views from other banks and exploring how many banks would really need this support and if adequate CAR would indeed make banks competitive. This story could have been made more compelling to read if the reporter had probed the interviewee further on his views.

An expert usually has responses to most questions backed by data and is often happy to connect the reporter to other sources who can provide more information on the subject to make a story interesting. If not, the reporter can be assured that he/ she is talking to the media primarily to gain publicity and not to offer meaningful insights. In such a case, it is best to avoid quoting such people.

3. Link online content to offline content –The online editions of newspapers can be used for more than just relaying news faster. For budget day coverage and analysis, online polls can be hosted on the newspaper’s website. Questions such as “how would you rate the budget on a scale of 1 to 5?”, “what is the most significant outcome of this budget?” and “If you can change one thing in the budget, what would it be?.” Questions can be developed to include industry as well as individual perspectives and these poll results can be published in the newspaper. The Economic Times, had a module on their website for users to share their opinion post budget. However, none of these opinions were carried in the print editions and nor was there any mention of such a module. None of the other financial dailies had any polls/ interactive modules on their websites.

Along with news reports, the online news team can also have charts/ infographics to make it easier to understand the implications of the budget. Such charts can be imported into the print edition replacing verbose articles. Newspapers currently use graphs and charts only to supplement a story and not as replacements to a story. But news organizations such as CNN IBN have shown how infographics can be the story itself. The New York Times has used a comprehensive infographic to showcase the US budget 2012.

Blogs are an underutilized area for newspapers. A contest could have been organized inviting all experts to write a blog on the impact of the budget. The editorial could then pick the three best blog posts for publishing in the newspaper.

Besides these measures, newspapers can reach out to different cross section of people/ entities for their views on the budget. These include B-School students, foreign business councils and Ministries which are impacted by the budget such as Ministries of Coal, Shipping, Chemicals etc.

To stay relevant in the era of social media, newspapers need to offer more than just information, especially while covering critical events such as the Union budget. They need to shape perspectives. This can be achieved with a re-think of the current modus operandi and by actively leveraging social media elements in their coverage.

The Insider Reports: For Anna or against him? Do I have a choice?

Should the media always take a stand on every issue? At the end of my first journalism class one message was drilled into my head - "Journalists report. They do not give opinion." While I have considered this sacrosanct and tried to support views with facts for every story I have written, most of the media fraternity today seems to think it is their birth right to voice their views.

Media reporting of the Anna Hazare campaign is testimony to that. My piece in the Hoot attempts to highlight this new trend. The piece can be read at http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=5458&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=1&valid=true.

Those who are unable to read it, please find the complete version below:

The Indian English media (mainly TV), perhaps influenced by the American media, seems to want to take sides on every issue worthy of public consumption. Covering the Anna Hazare campaign has been no different. Every prominent English news channel has resorted to taking sides on the issue to such an extent that journalists are falling short of putting words in the mouths of the guests they interview. The frenzy on news shows could rival the emotions on display at the Ram Lila grounds.

A glance at the reportage of the last 10 days indicates that most news organisations felt compelled to take a stand on the issue, perhaps without adequate thought over whether this was sustainable.

CNN IBN's Karan Thapar in his last interview with Digvijaya Singh on the JanLokPal Bill in April, conducted a fact based interview that was surprisingly devoid of any frenzy. Perhaps Mr. Thapar for once did not want to take sides? Or was he going gentle on Singh because he, like Singh, believed that the Anti-Corruption movement would not reach the proportions as it has today?

Then Thapar hosted a show on Aug 19^th to analyze the media reporting of the Anna Hazare Campaign. Perhaps taking a cue from the discussion there, which indicated that the media had made Anna Hazare an icon without attempting to delve deeper into the issue that he was standing for, Thapar launched an Anti-Anna tirade in his show Devil's Advocate on August 21st. He attacked (which is now considered his style) Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan with questions whose answers were available in the Indian constitution and in the beginnings of the Anna Hazare movement in December last year.

 To make up for the lack of thought-provoking questions, Thapar kept interrupting Kejriwal and Bhushan while they tried to respond to him. From taking a neutral (almost disinterested stand) in April to going anti-Anna now, I am not sure if taking sides was necessary.

NDTV's Barkha Dutt on her program We The People on Aug 21^st attempted to re-establish that the Anna Hazare campaign was a largely middle class driven movement. How this piece of information would help or disrupt the protests is unknown. However, instead of spending one hour debating on the issue, taking a look at the way the campaign has progressed would have yielded results. The movement encompasses the middle class and grass root society (those taking to protests on road, fasting and galvanizing others) as well as the upper middle class and elite (showing support via social media such as Twitter, Blogs and Face Book). Strangely, in April this year Dutt aired a two hour special show where through a Vox Populi she established that the LokPal Bill would change the lives of middle class Indians.

Had the Jan LokPal Bill progressed beyond the stage of protests, say for enactment or dismissal, Dutt's stand on Aug 21^st, in retrospect, would have been fruitful in determining how public sentiment (or social strata specific behavior and attitudes) can mobilise a cause. That in turn, could provide some insights into consumer behavior for entities (media houses, government, corporates etc) to improve their relationship with the consumers. An example of this is the Enron scam in the United States that was extensively reported and garnered public sentiment for 'zero tolerance to fraud'. Post Enron, the US has seen good models of corporate governance emerge and increased conviction of cases involving white collar crime.

Times NOW took a clear pro-Anna stand with Arnab Goswami not taking kindly to any comments against the Anna Hazare campaign. His discussion with Abhishek Manu Singhvi basely accused the government of procrastination. Further on a debate titled 'Pro and Anti-Anna", when all panelists on the show agreed that perhaps galvanized by raw emotion people were failing to focus on the larger implication of what the Bill would achieve, Goswami accused them of being unable to empathise with middle class sentiments and hence the Anna Hazare campaign as since they were not from that strata of society. A news channel taking such an objection to individual (or perhaps collective) opinion is in bad taste.

Leading English language newspapers too have taken sides in the Anna Hazare campaign, albeit in a more dignified manner (perhaps the lack of a camera and a collar mike does make a difference).

On Anna's arrests, the New Indian Express said that democracy was defiled and covertly indicated that the government would have to pass the Jan LokPal Bill, in order to reverse the damage of reputation.

The Times of India was more restrained while the Hindu indicated that the UPA government was on its way out. The Statesman likened Anna Hazare's arrest to the government's cowardice and pronounced the Government's version of the LokPal Bill to be ineffective and one that would not deliver the results sought by the people.

Subsequent editorials have focused on the need for the government to get its act together and focus on dialogue with Team Anna.

What has this tangled mass of reportage resulted in? A friend recently told me his driver was wearing a 'support Anna' T-shirt. On being asked what he felt about the Jan LokPal Bill, the man answered, "That I don't know. But I know Anna is against corruption and so am I".

While the media reportage has largely focused on the Anna-Government stand-off and the manner of protests, it has not shown as much enthusiasm to peruse the nitty-gritty of the Bill itself. Aside from the points of discontent (such as the inclusion of the Prime Minister and the Judiciary), there has been little else highlighted.

Is this is the only Bill of its kind? What will be the real implications of this Bill from a law and order point of view? Would the scope of this Bill include NGOs, corporate and other entities? Will the enactment of this Bill negate the reasons for us to look at other existing legislation such as the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Prevention of Money Laundering Act? Aside from the Anna version and the Government version, could there be a third, more amenable and still as effective version of the Bill that can be enacted? Will India have the manpower to deal with cases brought to notice through such a Bill? What additional resources would we need to fulfill any gaps?

Such questions have largely gone un-debated. Perhaps a look at similar Ombudsmen provisions across the globe and their effectiveness would have helped develop a more holistic perspective. After all, many developed nations such as the Scandinavian countries, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong have an Ombudsman with varying degrees of power. The effectiveness of such Ombudsmen is also well documented through annual reports at the respective websites.

The role of the media in a democratic nation is to make people more cognizant of issues, focus on facts and provide a variety of perspectives, irrespective of whether or not they agree with those perspectives. By focusing on only the means adopted for the protest, many senior commentators  such as Arundhati Roy seem to indicate that they have no opinion (and perhaps little knowledge) whatsoever on the contents of the Bill, leaving it for the likes of lawyers to comment upon.

It is the responsibility of news editors to pick and publish (or air) perspectives that are holistic and balanced. For every article that criticizes the way the protests are being conducted, there could be another that lauds that same. If someone supports one of the provisions of the bill, a report objecting to the same should also be voiced so that users are left to shape their opinions while being aware of both sides to an issue.