This is a
follow-up to my previous post
on fake debates by CNN-IBN about the Social Media (SM). First the TV channel
grandly put out a report on the debate held on the sidelines of the Ramnath
Goenka journalism awards. One shouldn’t forget that the debate was anchored by
Sagarika Ghose whose hatred for some people on SM knows no bounds. The host of
the Goenka awards, Indian Express, then came out with its own report about the
event. Quite flattering about SM I must say. The thing to remember is most of
these media celebs dismiss SM as a nuisance or at best concede that it’s here
to stay. They have forgotten how they themselves arrived on TV. But before we
move on, people should recall Sagarika’s famous Look-Live debate that featured
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar back in November 2011. Seems their parent company in the
US, CNN, is the inspiration for Sagarika and CNN-IBN. Someone pointed me to
this hilarious Jon Stewart video. Just watch the stupidity of CNN and how they
fool audiences:
Stewart calls it CNN "News slaughtering". That’s right
2 correspondents reporting from the same “parking lot” and delivering the “illusion”
of reporting from separate locations. That’s news TV for you. They keep on
delivering illusions in the hope that others will be fooled while they can live
comfortably in their fake TV-lives. So after CNN-IBN it was the turn of Indian Express (August 4) to deliver some
fake story. The IE reporter was in the same parking lot, or should I say the
same hall as CNN-IBN where the SM debate was held. So let’s read what their
report said (excerpts in blue):
Who's
afraid of social media? As the applause for winners of the sixth Ramnath Goenka
Excellence in Journalism Awards died down, this question took centre stage.
Less than a year after messages on social media spread panic in the Northeast
and two girls in Mumbai were arrested for views posted on Facebook, it was a
compelling question, with no easy answers….
I&B Minister Manish Tewari called the Internet "the most
audacious experiment in anarchy", a "vast, ungoverned space"
teeming with individuals who had multiple identities. Democracies and
governments had to learn to accommodate voices from this "virtual
civilisation".
Anant
Goenka, head of New Media at the Express Group, felt that the influence of
social media may be overstated. "You
just have to look at the numbers," Goenka said. "Twitter reaches the influential. But it
reaches less than 10 per cent of the people that conventional media reach."
But it could help improve stories, Goenka felt, and it could help journalists
find sources online.
So what did
you make of that? Now, if you aren’t careful you are likely to miss some lies
and some lack of prudence in some of the sentences in the report. Anant Goenka
(wonder if he’s a descendant of Ramnathji) reflects a terrible lack of
foresight and vision. Oh… but he’s the head of New Media at IE. Any surprise
that IE is doing so badly in sales? Those who don’t learn from history are
likely to repeat silly mistakes in the future too. Technology doesn’t wait for
anyone. It forces change on those who are unwilling to adapt. The typewriter is
mostly gone. The concept of “stenographers” in offices has largely disappeared.
But we have “stenographers” in the media who report stuff like a box of
parrots.
Anant fails
to understand how TV itself grew when he claims that Twitter reaches only 10%
and that you have to look at SM numbers. Fine! He should remember that TV
itself grew from a modest number of lakhs in 1982 to over half the population
now owning TV sets. Some states have over 90% TV penetration. While there is no
accurate figure for the number available, a fair state-wise estimate can be seen
at Wiki. What about mobile
phones? When it arrived around 1995-96 people were still dealing with the tiny
pagers. Pagers have disappeared. From as much as Rs.16 or Rs.20 per call in
1996 mobile phone-calls are now less than a rupee. Currently estimated at 696
mobile connections, mobile penetration is expected to touch 72% by 2016. Smart-phone users
are already 27 million says Nielsen.
These estimates are not very off the mark. So why does Anant Goenka believe
that the same 10% will remain for SM or Twitter? This is living in a cocoon and
unwilling to accept that there will be millions of SM users in the next 2-3
years and it may grow to the mobile-penetration size too. Either this worries
the MSM to hold frequent debates slamming the SM or provoke regulation of SM.
That is the problem they face.
But the
bigger LIE is in the very first paragraph of the IE report. And they expectedly
believe that most people will overlook this and move on to the rest of the
report. It says: “Less than a year after messages on social media spread panic
in the Northeast…” Is that so? How cleverly IE passes fake reporting
and one has to wonder what the alleged editor, Shekhar Gupta was doing with
such lines. The NE panic wasn’t spread on SM or Twitter. On the contrary SM was
helpful in clarifying many of the rumours that were being spread on SMS. Yes
the rumours were being spread through SMS and one Anees Pasha and four more
were arrested for sending out over 4000 SMSes. In the wake of these SMSes the GOI also banned bulk SMSes for a long time. So why does IE get its
kicks with a fake report that SM created the NE panic? Well, if you’re in the
same parking lot as CNN-IBN anything will go as long as it helps to slam the SM
given the nature of their debate.
Once again,
it looks like the only ones really afraid of SM growing are those in the MSM. Ideas
whose time has come cannot be stopped or throttled by fake debates and reports.
This is more so when technology can make many redundant. I haven’t seen Shekhar
Gupta being on the SM (unless he has some alias) but he likes giving lectures
about SM. No problem! That’s like a guy who still uses a typewriter commenting
on the evils of computer. Anything to survive.
