Friday, October 9, 2009

Who causes more damage?: floods or bad reporting

 తెలుగు జర్నలిజంలో దౌర్భాగ్యం ఏమిటంటే...బుర్రతక్కువ, వెర్రి ఎక్కువ బాపతు జనం జర్నలిస్టులుగా చలామణి కావటం. కొంతమంది మంచి రిపోర్టర్లు, సబ్ లు సి.ఈ.ఓ.లుగా కాగానే గంగవెర్రులెత్తి ప్రవర్తిస్తున్నారు. టి.ఆర్.పి.రేటింగ్స్ పిచ్చలో పడి ఒళ్ళు మరిచి...వినూత్నత్వం పేరిట చెలరేగి పోతున్నారన్న అభియోగం వుంది. టీవీ ఛానళ్ళు క్షేత్ర స్థాయిలో ఎంత పేట్రేగిపోతున్నాయో ఒక సుశిక్షుతుడైన  సీనియర్ రిపోర్టర్ కామెంట్ గా రాసి పంపారు. చదవండి.

I know that the TV channels had deployed all their forces to cover the floods. But, after watching all the channels for about five days i failed to understand what they were trying to cover. There was no homework done by the reporters nor by the presenters. I presume that they were considering it as a cyclonic flood. In the case of a cyclonic flood, the situation would be completely different.

This flood is mainly due to increased inflows to Srisailam with heavy rains lashing the neighbouring state. The overflowing reservoirs have caused the damage. So, a reporter with good knowledge of the flows would be able to easily assess the damage and also decide how to cover it. In a way the coverage was pretty amusing. There is no doubt in saying that the damage caused due to the floods is significant. I have been touring some of the affected areas in the last five days and the last point i toured is Alampur on Wednesday.

I think the damage caused by bad reporting is more than the damage caused by the floods itself. Interestingly, all the channels kept the official machinery busy preventing them from focusing on the rescue and relief operations. Unable to shut the doors on the media, the officials too had spent more time on briefing the media than reviewing the situation. We can talk about the language part later. but, I will i will leave you with a thought. On Thursday, a TV reporter was asking a district official to explain the 'measurements' being taken by the government to handle a particular situation. Now, what does that mean?