One of the tasks I perform as the Readers’ Editor is to follow what Walter Lippmann prescribed in his 1920 classic, Liberty and the News : to share news about the news-making process. He wrote, “I have made no criticism in this book which is not the shoptalk of reporters and editors. But only rarely do newspapermen take the public into their confidence. They will have to sooner or later. It is not enough for them to struggle against great odds, as many of them are doing, wearing out their souls to do a particular assignment well. The philosophy of the work itself needs to be discussed; the news about the news needs to be told.”
Balance and fluxSome of the queries regarding the failure to get the civilian nuclear deal between India and Japan during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Japan open up the space for discussion on issues relating to journalism itself. A good media outlet is a site where two streams of journalism — access journalism and accountability journalism — are in a constant state of balance and flux.
What exactly do these terms mean? Access journalism is a practice where journalists secure inside information from people and institutions. It reveals the mind of decision-makers and the rationale behind their decisions. Access reporting gives a ringside view and, at times, comes with a caveat of not revealing the sources. Nonetheless, it offers us the details of what is happening, what the stated positions are, what the policy imperatives are and generally gives an idea of the direction in which a leader or an institution is heading. In an ideal world, there should not be any hindrance to access to information.
On the other hand, accountability journalism aims to critically evaluate the information obtained through access journalism. It checks the veracity of official claims, the feasibility of plans, assesses their strengths and weaknesses, provides the context and makes sense of complex issues. Accountability journalism provides space for dissent and keeps the space for elucidation from shrinking.
Dean Sparkman, an editor with Columbia Journalism Review , dealt with this tension and constant war of attrition between these two streams in his recent book, The Watchdog that Didn’t Bark . He wrote: “I’ve done both access and accountability reporting and understand the necessities of both. The problem for journalism and the public, however, is that accountability reporting is at once the most vital and at the same time the most vulnerable.” Mr. Starkman’s book is an attempt to secure a future for accountability reporting in “whatever journalism emerges from the digital disruption — because without accountability reporting, journalism has no purpose, no centre, no point.”
Indian contextIn the Indian context, access to information is fast drying up. Oral gag instructions lead to an atmosphere of reluctance to part with vital information. In the case of the Indo-Japan civilian nuclear deal, we know the preamble. For instance, on September 13, 2013, this newspaper’s report after the seventh India-Japan Energy Dialogue quoted the then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek Singh Ahluwalia: “We are making progress and let’s see how it goes. It is very complex set of issues that we have to address.”
Those remarks came barely days after the two countries resumed their negotiations after three years. The discussions, which began in 2010, had been on hold since the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011. The last round was held in November 2010. But the summit meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo¯ Abe in Tokyo in May 2013 resolved to accelerate the talks. This led to the fourth meeting of the Nuclear Energy Working Group in Tokyo. At that stage, reporters were told that an agreement with Japan was important because Japanese companies had a virtual monopoly over the supply of reactor vessels, a critical component of civil nuclear plants. Without an agreement between the two countries, these firms cannot supply to French and American companies that have won orders to install nuclear plants in India.
The official pre-tour briefing on August 29, 2014, talked about high expectations from the visit. It was reported that enhanced military ties, a deeper strategic engagement, business-to-business ties, and Japanese assistance in creating smart cities in India and nuclear issues would all be on the agenda. But, when the civilian nuclear deal did not materialise, there was no formal briefing. What were the sticking points? Was there any progress on this issue since September 2013? Were the negotiators optimistic that they could iron out the differences between the two countries before the summit meeting? These questions should have been answered by access reporting. In the emerging culture of silence, access to the players dealing with these vital issues is denied. If access reporting is curtailed and converted into a privilege, accountability reporting would also fail. The consequent information deficit will soon metamorphose into democratic deficit.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
