Building credibility is the key

For those in the media it’s always interesting to learn how newspapers or television channels are faring, who the movers and shakers are, what the buzz is like, what the grapevine is, what the managements are up to, etc. So, a headline on the front page such as ‘TOI bigger than next 3 papers put together’ draws your attention immediately and gets you hooked. It’s not strange any more to see how newspapers or news publishing organisations use surveys to their advantage, the objective being to impress on the reader who is King. What they don’t seem to understand is that readers today are a very discerning lot, much more than in the past, and all readers are not fools. What they also seem to care little about (in matters of numbers, rating and similar such) is facts being portrayed in the right manner and bringing clarity to the reader.

The Indian Readership Survey (IRS) came up with its findings for the last quarter of 2012. The IRS exercise over the years has come to be accepted as largely fair by media houses. The challenge nowadays when almost everything is viewed through the prism of competition, is how to use the findings to your advantage. Damn the real picture. It’s rather ironic because news is supposed to be sacred and when you use facts and figures to suit yourself, not revealing quite everything, you are not being truthful enough. 

According to The Times of India story, the survey found that TOI’s average issue readership (readership and circulation do not mean the same thing) of over 7.6 million dwarfed HT’s 3.8 million, Hindu’s 2.2 million and Telegraph’s 1.3 million. The report went on to say that in India’s eight largest cities (those with a population of more than 5 million), TOI’s readership was almost 50 per cent more than the combined tally of the other three papers. It pointed out that in Tamil Nadu, TOI’s combined readership in Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai had increased by 5000 readers over the earlier quarter, while during the same period The Hindu had lost 15000 readers, with Chennai accounting for 11000. The story went on about TOI’s leadership in several other cities.

The following day, The Hindu came up with its survey story on Page 1. It was a relatively much smaller and weaker piece about how it was No. 1 in the South and “rising” in the National Capital Region. The opening two sentences seemed to have been carefully crafted: “The Hindu continues to be the most popular English language daily newspaper in South India, staying ahead of competitors by a huge margin, according to just-released findings… it also retains its position at the national level with a readership figure of 21.64 lakh. The report added that The Hindu continued to dominate the Chennai market with a readership of 5.13 lakh, its figure adding up to more than the cumulative figures of the other English dailies.”

If the TOI report was true and The Hindu had indeed lost 11000 readers in Chennai, how could it “dominate” the market in the city! Or was “dominate” used to describe the lead it had over TOI in the same market? Now, this sort of juxtaposition is quite clever when you consider that most families buy only one newspaper. So, effectively, readers in a household do not know the other side of the story. But those reading both TOI and The Hindu must have been a confused lot. The reader usually never gets to know the actual figures in such reports. For instance, the TOI piece should have carried its readership figure for Chennai, based on the IRS. Generally, newspapers are happy using phrases such as “gained many more readers” or “readership grew by so much per cent”, or “staying ahead of competition by a huge margin”, but these do not bring clarity. 

Sometimes, it is best not to respond or react to a story related to numbers if you don’t wish to buttress your response with more facts and figures. The Hindu’s effort in this case is an example. The headline mentioned “rising in NCR”, but the point was hardly expanded in the text. All there was, was just one line saying: “It has also made impressive strides in the National Capital Region.” What were these strides like, the reader did not get to know.

Healthy competition is definitely good, but I think the battle should be more about earning goodwill and credibility, especially at a time when media has lost much of it in different ways. There are so many issues that confront the media today. For example, are journalists in India mostly law-abiding and respectful of the truth? Is self-regulation enough? At the core of your effort, are you having a good journalistic process? Do you believe in being ethical and having high integrity? And how do you stay relevant to the reader? I think these are the issues that newspapers and news publishing houses must discuss and debate and carry articles on. 

The energy used for one-upmanship (applies to all news publishing houses) can be far better used to provide a sense of direction to those working in the media. And The Times of India, the largest circulated broadsheet daily in the world, and The Hindu, perhaps the most respected, both of whom have served journalism well for well over a century, should take the lead and show others the way.