We need reasons to accept a view point and logic to change our own. ‘Reasons’ are typically introduced as ‘facts that count in favor’ of an action or attitude* (from Philosophy, et cetera by Richard). However, reason to believe does not mean that the ‘reason’ is definitely a ‘fact’.
Last few weeks were full of news with reasons as well as logic to think over and challenge your point of views. Some logic can be seen in the IIM’s excogitation of cluster placement and Bajaj’s decision to terminate its scooters. The change is welcomed. We’ve also witness the change in bollywood’s approach with ‘3 idiots’. The 6.30 am show and more than 300 screens a day in Mumbai alone. I think B schools must take a case on bollywood’s innovative branding and communication. Interestingly, we’ve also witnessed changing reasons with the government stand on Telangana issue.
With the outline I am critical on television journalism. When news becomes a business strategy, it’s difficult to differentiate real facts with manipulated one. The manipulation of facts is hyped to sell and we buy with TRP or make morning show sold-out. Nevertheless, ‘3 idiots’ is worth watching to satisfy even hyped expectations. But the similar manipulations had disappointed audience of ‘Blue’. We are not even getting interpreted facts; most of the time its judgments already taken by new channels.
The worst example is coverage of opinion poll, where we see beyond statistics, the almost possible government, and coalition, based on voter percentages categorized in religion, cast, language and geography in so called democratic and secular electoral system of largest democracy in the world. Where is the real journalism?
Another important coverage is the cricket. India wins or loses, TRP will remain intact. And you will be presented interview of Virat Kohli’s 6 year nephew on Kohli’s maiden ton. The favorite of all cricket coverage is questioning and unquestioning of Sachin Tendulkar’s form again and again.
The word is flat but shows various altitudes on similar facts. Nike retains Woods as its brand ambassador and congress welcomes Tiwari’s resignation. I am not a journalist, but people will debate the issues of privacy and publishing of privacy. I am not sure of Nike’s strategies, but in view of recently publicized playboy in Tiger, I am not convinced. This will affect me as a customer of Nike. Fact is intact but whom to blame for? Nike acknowledges Tigers accomplishments more than his private life.
Perhaps they know more of concept of positioning and I am not their target audience. I’ll have to wait longer for quality of journalism in Indian television as that is linked with information revolution, literacy and rural growth.
SANTOSH SRIVASTAVA 
Really interesting article. It is. A little confusing, but thats how a debate sometimes is.
Just to mention the last paragraph. Look at some of the mature societies which have more or less attained excellent levels of information revolution, literacy and rural growth. Like USA, UK, Australia. What do you make out of their quality of journalism?
Do you really think that when India reaches the level of societal maturity that you argue, we as Indians will “consume” a more “truthful news” or “even more so called filtered (and breaking news) news”?
Thanks Arpit. I got confused too while diverting from reasoning to TV journalism. This post actually originated from one of posts, I am working on,on interpretation of facts by our brain in given set of emotions.