Films like Corporate (top) and Page 3 (above) do not really mirror present-day media in India

With media bashing having become the new sport, we PR professionals who also have a double role as columnists are feeling like flaccid lettuce in an otherwise wholesome communication sandwich. We have to jump to the defence of media imperatives, and yet answer to companies if there is a media disconnect.

l this has to do with the Aarushi case. Temporarily quelled, but with the public still baying for media’s blood. Why? If it had not been for the media chasing a story to the ground, doing its investigation, breaking its back to get to the bottom of the crime, how would you, dear reader, have had your curiosity satisfied? Did you not flip channels to know the latest about the alleged scandals, the motivations for murder, which set the whodunit adrenalin pumping inside you? And did your eyes not go first to the developments in the unfolding story, well before you could come to terms with the implications of the nuke deal?

Set aside the “accountability” factor for the moment. Sure, there has to be some self-regulation for irrresponsible reportage. For jumping the gun. For sensationalism. Criticism taken and noted.

But why regularly bash and bruise media reputation when it is the very newspapers, magazines and television programmes that keep us going day after day?

The sad fact of the matter is that companies often do exactly what the man on the street loves to do. Reproaching reportage that does not fit in with the facts released at a press meet, or denying statements that were made in an exclusive interview. I have had occasion to be at the receiving end of accusations, when a particular news report had been headlined badly to give the opposite signals. Was I supposed to actually tell the sub-editor laying out the story how to title it as well? Yes, yes, you should ensure that your friends at the desk give an appropriate heading. And what would the media think of us? Wilting lettuce?

A negative piece of reportage is attributed to a correspondent’s lack of comprehension. Don’t you suppose it is also the duty of the corporate head to communicate, even explain the facts correctly?

With media objectivity under the scanner, how about companies looking inwards and asking themselves whether or not they are doctoring information that goes out to the press? Is the media supposed to investigate or merely to inveigle itself in the affections of the piper who puffs up advertising revenues of the newspaper?

Just juxtapose films like Corporate and Page 3 and find where the truth really lies. Or let’s go back to the Bachchan-starrer Coolie, where the somewhat comic reporter bumbles into a big-time exposure of wrongdoing.

Don’t they have a duty, as much as companies have their obligation to a transparent sharing of facts? Is the media a watchdog or the pet pug that follows you?

If media unravels crime, it also uncovers corporate scams. If it unearths uncomfortable truths, it also gives the corporate world its solid analytical backing. Wresting credibility is the prerogative of companies and individuals; giving it coverage the privilege of the media. Let’s keep our nose clean before we give the media its bloody nose.