The Leader Stinks – The Times of India
I picked up the market leader Friday morning and looked at page 1, and I was, like, whoa! I can’t believe my luck! What great material for my blog’s first potshot at crappy journalism!
But then again, what’s new about the market leader being among the shittiest news writers?
Yes, I’m talking about the big cat, The Times of India. So here is exposing CRAPPY JOURNALISM in India’s largest selling English newspaper.
Just scroll down and check all the things I said in my first post on why India’s 94.7% journalists are trashy – that they don’t know the story, they pedal the event as story, they are poor at language skills and write big words and clichés and long sentences… remember? Right. Read on.
Below is the second big story on The Times of India P1 Friday, April 21:
Nepal at war, but Gyanendra refuses to blink
India’s Message: Cede Power
By Indrani Bagchi & Bhaskar Roy/TNN
New Delhi: A blunt message from India to cede power notwithstanding, Nepal’s embattled ruler Gyanendra on Thursday refused to make any commitment that he would hand over the reins to the seven-party alliance without dictating who heads the government.
All that he agreed to do was to make a statement on the official TV promising restoration of democracy. He refused to offer any details on the form and content of what he has in mind. On the Indian conditionality, too, that he should leave the choice of prime ministership to the pro-democracy alliance, the monarch remained non-committal.
The royal cussedness during the two-hour meeting with India’s special envoy Karan Singh and foreign secretary Shyam Saran even as Kathmandu streets erupted in fury, left India on tenterhooks about the shape of things to come.
Karan Singh and Shyam Saran delivered a blunt message to Gyanendra: he should transfer power to SPA to bring his country back from the brink. This was also the essence of a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the monarch, which was delivered by Karan Singh.
The essential demand by India was that Gyanendra should let parties choose their own leaders rather than being appointed by him; in short, the new government should have full executive powers. The subsequent details of a constituent assembly, polls etc will be worked out by the SP government, said the Indian roadmap that covers release of political prisoners.
What garbled shit! Reads more like a spy message, doesn’t it? Not for common folks, is it? Don’t blame yourself if this story has confused you. It has rotten grammar, poor language and trashy jargon, and it assumes readers already know the issue in detail. It reads more like a very bad piece for an international affairs journal than a dispatch for a mass newspaper.
Like most Indian journalists, TOI reporters Indrani Bagchi and Bhaskar Roy suffer from vanity. They write not for the common millions but for themselves, fellow journalists, government honchos and their sources. Any teacher of journalism at a halfway decent American university will tell you that the above piece is sheer journalistic incompetence.
Of course, the story turns out to be untrue. Bagchi-Roy virtually say the king refuses to shed power. On Friday, the king did exactly that – asked the political parties to form the government.
But let’s not jump ahead but stay with the story and tear it apart. Let’s start with the big words – notwithstanding, embattled, commitment, restoration, conditionality, noncommittal, cussedness and tenterhooks. Cussedness??
Now count the clichés (in green) –
A blunt message from India to cede power notwithstanding, Nepal’s embattled ruler Gyanendra on Thursday refused to make any commitment that he would hand over the reins to the seven-party alliance without dictating who heads the government.
All that he agreed to do was to make a statement on the official TV promising restoration of democracy. He refused to offer any details on the form and content of what he has in mind. On the Indian conditionality, too, that he should leave the choice of prime ministership to the pro-democracy alliance, the monarch remained non-committal.
The royal cussedness during the two-hour meeting with India’s special envoy Karan Singh and foreign secretary Shyam Saran even as Kathmandu streets erupted in fury, left India on tenterhooks about the shape of things to come.
Karan Singh and Shyam Saran delivered a blunt message to Gyanendra: he should transfer power to SPA to bring his country back from the brink. This was also the essence of a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the monarch, which was delivered by Karan Singh.
19 clichés in all! That is not counting that in the headline: Refuses to blink!
(The story says the king would speak on “official TV”. Is that a TV set or a channel broadcaster? Is there such a thing as “unofficial TV”, too?)
The first paragraph is one sentence with 38 words as is the third with 37 words. Never studied English grammar or what?
Then, the story is full of assumptions –
“A blunt message from India to cede power notwithstanding” – assumes the reader knows that India has sent the king a message to cede power.
“…The seven-party alliance” – assumes reader knows there is a seven-party alliance that, presumably, opposes the king, a fact not mentioned anywhere in the story. The alliance is later very casually referred to as SPA!! Indian journalists love acronyms!
“This was also the essence of a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the monarch” assumes readers know Singh sent the king a letter.
And how is the country “on the brink”?
What do you mean by saying “Kathmandu streets erupted in fury”?
The story totally skips its context– that Nepal’s millions are protesting for democracy and against the monarch for more than two weeks!
And who the hell are Karan Singh and Shyam Saran and how are they relevant to the story?
How is the story relevant to the readers of The Times of India anyway?
The dispatch is from New Delhi when it should be from Kathmandu. Don’t need to explain that, do I? Or are Times of India reporters watching TV to write reports?
The principle of journalism is: Keep it simple, stupid. If it’s complicated, it only means the reporter hasn’t got it. This story, too, is actually rather simple, and this is how it should be written, of course, from Kathmandu:
Kathmandu: Nepal’s King Gyanendra is fighting hard to retain power despite bloody nationwide protests against his rule. On Thursday, he reportedly told two Indian envoys he will “restore democracy” but gave no timeframe.
While the envoys visited the palace, troops killed three people when they fired at thousands of unarmed protestors marching toward the national secretariat.
The envoys gave the king a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asking him to immediately transfer power to an alliance of seven Nepali parties.
India wants this alliance to freely choose a prime minister from its leaders, who are mostly in jail, and plan general elections.
The envoys, foreign secretary Shyam Saran and politician-diplomat Karan Singh, warned Gyanendra his refusal to shed power will bring anarchy to Nepal.
Gyanendra said he would appear on the state-run television and promise a return to democracy, but would not give the envoys more details. Sources in New Delhi said the king’s position had put India “on tenterhooks”.
Massive strikes across Nepal since April 6 are pushing the 58-year-old king to revive democratic rule he abruptly ended 14 months ago.
He had then sacked the elected government and seized power vowing to fight a Maoist revolt that has killed 13,000 people in a decade-long civil war.
The Maoists say they could back the opposition alliance if it takes power in the Himalayan kingdom of nearly 30 million.
This write-up has 230 words. Bagchi-Roy’s has 236 words. That’s six words less than Bagchi-Roy. And notice the loads of extra information and perspective in the new write-up. Notice how the new write-up has no clichés, hardly any big words and no long sentences. Notice how it’s written in the active voice and it doesn’t assume its readers are experts on Nepal’s violent political crisis.
Basic principle: write good English for tight copy.
How many of you are aware of the concept of “first reader” in journalism? What do you think it means? Let’s hear you.
But then again, what’s new about the market leader being among the shittiest news writers?
Yes, I’m talking about the big cat, The Times of India. So here is exposing CRAPPY JOURNALISM in India’s largest selling English newspaper.
Just scroll down and check all the things I said in my first post on why India’s 94.7% journalists are trashy – that they don’t know the story, they pedal the event as story, they are poor at language skills and write big words and clichés and long sentences… remember? Right. Read on.
Below is the second big story on The Times of India P1 Friday, April 21:
Nepal at war, but Gyanendra refuses to blink
India’s Message: Cede Power
By Indrani Bagchi & Bhaskar Roy/TNN
New Delhi: A blunt message from India to cede power notwithstanding, Nepal’s embattled ruler Gyanendra on Thursday refused to make any commitment that he would hand over the reins to the seven-party alliance without dictating who heads the government.
All that he agreed to do was to make a statement on the official TV promising restoration of democracy. He refused to offer any details on the form and content of what he has in mind. On the Indian conditionality, too, that he should leave the choice of prime ministership to the pro-democracy alliance, the monarch remained non-committal.
The royal cussedness during the two-hour meeting with India’s special envoy Karan Singh and foreign secretary Shyam Saran even as Kathmandu streets erupted in fury, left India on tenterhooks about the shape of things to come.
Karan Singh and Shyam Saran delivered a blunt message to Gyanendra: he should transfer power to SPA to bring his country back from the brink. This was also the essence of a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the monarch, which was delivered by Karan Singh.
The essential demand by India was that Gyanendra should let parties choose their own leaders rather than being appointed by him; in short, the new government should have full executive powers. The subsequent details of a constituent assembly, polls etc will be worked out by the SP government, said the Indian roadmap that covers release of political prisoners.
What garbled shit! Reads more like a spy message, doesn’t it? Not for common folks, is it? Don’t blame yourself if this story has confused you. It has rotten grammar, poor language and trashy jargon, and it assumes readers already know the issue in detail. It reads more like a very bad piece for an international affairs journal than a dispatch for a mass newspaper.
Like most Indian journalists, TOI reporters Indrani Bagchi and Bhaskar Roy suffer from vanity. They write not for the common millions but for themselves, fellow journalists, government honchos and their sources. Any teacher of journalism at a halfway decent American university will tell you that the above piece is sheer journalistic incompetence.
Of course, the story turns out to be untrue. Bagchi-Roy virtually say the king refuses to shed power. On Friday, the king did exactly that – asked the political parties to form the government.
But let’s not jump ahead but stay with the story and tear it apart. Let’s start with the big words – notwithstanding, embattled, commitment, restoration, conditionality, noncommittal, cussedness and tenterhooks. Cussedness??
Now count the clichés (in green) –
A blunt message from India to cede power notwithstanding, Nepal’s embattled ruler Gyanendra on Thursday refused to make any commitment that he would hand over the reins to the seven-party alliance without dictating who heads the government.
All that he agreed to do was to make a statement on the official TV promising restoration of democracy. He refused to offer any details on the form and content of what he has in mind. On the Indian conditionality, too, that he should leave the choice of prime ministership to the pro-democracy alliance, the monarch remained non-committal.
The royal cussedness during the two-hour meeting with India’s special envoy Karan Singh and foreign secretary Shyam Saran even as Kathmandu streets erupted in fury, left India on tenterhooks about the shape of things to come.
Karan Singh and Shyam Saran delivered a blunt message to Gyanendra: he should transfer power to SPA to bring his country back from the brink. This was also the essence of a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the monarch, which was delivered by Karan Singh.
19 clichés in all! That is not counting that in the headline: Refuses to blink!
(The story says the king would speak on “official TV”. Is that a TV set or a channel broadcaster? Is there such a thing as “unofficial TV”, too?)
The first paragraph is one sentence with 38 words as is the third with 37 words. Never studied English grammar or what?
Then, the story is full of assumptions –
“A blunt message from India to cede power notwithstanding” – assumes the reader knows that India has sent the king a message to cede power.
“…The seven-party alliance” – assumes reader knows there is a seven-party alliance that, presumably, opposes the king, a fact not mentioned anywhere in the story. The alliance is later very casually referred to as SPA!! Indian journalists love acronyms!
“This was also the essence of a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the monarch” assumes readers know Singh sent the king a letter.
And how is the country “on the brink”?
What do you mean by saying “Kathmandu streets erupted in fury”?
The story totally skips its context– that Nepal’s millions are protesting for democracy and against the monarch for more than two weeks!
And who the hell are Karan Singh and Shyam Saran and how are they relevant to the story?
How is the story relevant to the readers of The Times of India anyway?
The dispatch is from New Delhi when it should be from Kathmandu. Don’t need to explain that, do I? Or are Times of India reporters watching TV to write reports?
The principle of journalism is: Keep it simple, stupid. If it’s complicated, it only means the reporter hasn’t got it. This story, too, is actually rather simple, and this is how it should be written, of course, from Kathmandu:
Kathmandu: Nepal’s King Gyanendra is fighting hard to retain power despite bloody nationwide protests against his rule. On Thursday, he reportedly told two Indian envoys he will “restore democracy” but gave no timeframe.
While the envoys visited the palace, troops killed three people when they fired at thousands of unarmed protestors marching toward the national secretariat.
The envoys gave the king a letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asking him to immediately transfer power to an alliance of seven Nepali parties.
India wants this alliance to freely choose a prime minister from its leaders, who are mostly in jail, and plan general elections.
The envoys, foreign secretary Shyam Saran and politician-diplomat Karan Singh, warned Gyanendra his refusal to shed power will bring anarchy to Nepal.
Gyanendra said he would appear on the state-run television and promise a return to democracy, but would not give the envoys more details. Sources in New Delhi said the king’s position had put India “on tenterhooks”.
Massive strikes across Nepal since April 6 are pushing the 58-year-old king to revive democratic rule he abruptly ended 14 months ago.
He had then sacked the elected government and seized power vowing to fight a Maoist revolt that has killed 13,000 people in a decade-long civil war.
The Maoists say they could back the opposition alliance if it takes power in the Himalayan kingdom of nearly 30 million.
This write-up has 230 words. Bagchi-Roy’s has 236 words. That’s six words less than Bagchi-Roy. And notice the loads of extra information and perspective in the new write-up. Notice how the new write-up has no clichés, hardly any big words and no long sentences. Notice how it’s written in the active voice and it doesn’t assume its readers are experts on Nepal’s violent political crisis.
Basic principle: write good English for tight copy.
How many of you are aware of the concept of “first reader” in journalism? What do you think it means? Let’s hear you.
posted by अजित साही @ 6:24 pm
6 Comments:
i advise journalism aspirants keep a frequent watch on this blog...they might not need to join any journalism course...94.7% journalist should also try and go thru this...
Excellent blog for all those who want to make their carrier in journalism.........no matter print or electronic......what i feel, at the end, your written words matters in journalism along with your knowledge.
Hi,
I am not aware of the 'first reader' concept. PLease tell me about it.
The piece by Bagchi and Roy is, most certainly, a gem! Pretentious, affected language that leaves the reader none the wiser! The piece should be circulated among journalism students as an example of HOW NOT to write a story!
Caught ya! it should be would instead of will in that para!!!! Cheers for grammar
"The envoys, foreign secretary Shyam Saran and politician-diplomat Karan Singh, warned Gyanendra his refusal to shed power will bring anarchy to Nepal."
Laughed my head off reading your comments on the duo's story. They were so apt. The two need to go to a journalism school if they haven't been to one till now.
Post a Comment
<< Home