New Delhi: Uday Shankar, vice chairman of JioStar and co-founder of Bodhi Tree Systems, had a question for the packed conference hall—“Journalism is dead. The question is who killed it.”
In the audience were veteran journalists Rajdeep Sardesai, Ravish Kumar, Shankar’s former boss at Aaj Tak, Aroon Purie, and academics and other media professionals.
They listened intently as Shankar, a former journalist turned media executive, walked the audience through how journalism had evolved over the years, and what threatened the profession today.
He was speaking at the Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture at the India International Center (IIC) in New Delhi. The event, held in celebration of the former editor of Navbharat Times, was held after a five-year hiatus by the Editors Guild of India (EGI).
EGI President Anant Nath, editor of The Caravan, gave the opening remarks for the talk titled Reflections of Journalism, Technology, Business of Media, and the Future, before introducing Shankar on stage.
“The eroding standard of ethics in journalism and equally worse, the way journalism has become subservient to the cause of nationalism, are issues we are taking up,” said Nath, adding that the mission of EGI includes elevation of journalistic standards, protection of journalists’ rights and defence of freedom of speech.
He went on to say that since its inception in 1978, EGI has played a pivotal role in safeguarding press freedom.
Nath asked how journalism would survive in India when newsrooms are shrinking, AI-generated content threatens news and technology platforms control distribution. These were the questions he was looking forward to hearing Shankar’s views on.
Also read: AI is coming for doctors, teachers, creatives. Can India protect these jobs?
Reluctance to change
Uday Shankar, by his own account, isn’t much of a public speaker. Neither does looking back on life come naturally to him. But he started by reminiscing about his time as an intern with The Times of India.
“I went to cover a press conference by then Chief Minister of Bihar, Bhagwat Jha Azad,” said Shankar, adding that he was on cloud nine because of the opportunity. “Jha said, ‘Now the media has arrived, so we can start ’.”
That was the power of the media at the time. They were seen as intermediaries between political figures, sportsmen, celebrities and the public. But that world changed when online platforms emerged. Now, prominent figures could just post their thoughts on Facebook, Instagram or X.
“This was the fundamental crisis of journalism. The world was changing, but we journalists receded further into our ivory towers,” said Shankar, clarifying that politicians, governments, and institutions are also part of the problem. “The intermediaries are no longer as valuable as they used to be.”
He recalled another time at TOI when a well-liked, senior journalist decided to shift to a regional publication, unable to handle the percolation of the internet and computers.
“He just didn’t trust the new technology,” said Shankar. “He only wanted to write with his pen. That reluctance to change has cost us dearly.”
Also read: AI is a silent spectator to hate speech. It doesn’t know how to moderate regional languages
Technology shifts
Shankar spoke fondly about his time at Aaj Tak, as Purie watched on. To Shankar, Aaj Tak had the most advanced newsroom at the time, not just in India, but anywhere in the world.
“The journalists were the ones who were most miffed by the technology,” said Shankar, adding that his biggest job was to convince them to leverage that technology. “Technology succeeds in every society when there is a broader need for it.”
Outside Broadcast (OB) vans brought the next big technological shift, enabling remote broadcasts. This resulted in the production quality of all news channels looking the same, offering the audience no differentiation.
“They had the most devastating effects on the idea of news journalism. Suddenly, the entire editorial judgement became irrelevant. The logistics manager became more powerful than the editor,” said Shankar.
Shankar finally got into the race behind ratings, the holy grail of television news channels. He called it a “race to the bottom”, where channels fight for viewership and produce content that garners the most eyeballs.
“The most damaging thing that came out of this is that advertising became the largest source of revenue. Advertisers don’t care about quality, they care about reach,” he said, adding that dependency on advertising was the worst thing that had happened to Indian media.
To him, restricted Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in media is also a problem since it stifles innovation, results in cost cutting, and only allows for corporate capital.
On the advancement of AI and the shifting consumer trends, Shankar warned that journalism needs to innovate, both in terms of business models and the type of content that is being produced.
“The train of AI is already coming. We have to decide if we board the train or get run over by it,” said Shankar, getting nods of approval from the audience. “Is a re-birth of journalism possible? Yes. But we need to get creative and innovate.”
The author graduated from Batch 1, ThePrint School of Journalism.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)