The Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards are pretty sought after. There is no metric to measure that sentiment or to measure the credibility (of an award or a journalist) but it is fair to come to the conclusion, after having spoken to news media professionals, that the Ramnath Goenka Awards matter.

To be clear, I myself consider The Indian Express an excellent newspaper, especially over the past year or so, it has improved dramatically. It has positioned itself as a platform that features diverse views across ideological spectrums. Also the caliber and quality range of its columnists is wide, which is great really, making it readable for all intellectual bands.

And then there is Ramnath Goenka’s legacy.

This, more than anything else, gives the Express an edge. The Emergency is an episode from our political history that has been written about and discussed threadbare, and The Indian Express and its late owner come out looking great. He was a man who stood up for journalistic principles and was combative, as news media should be.

Not just political pressure, Goenka also stood up to corporate bullying at a time when many were kneeling before the big R. Most still do.

Ramnath Goenka Awards are built on giant reputations. So, I was surprised if not blown away when I heard that Sudhir Chaudhary from Zee News had won this award. I am aware this sounds unfair considering many people may have differing and very critical views (justifiably so) on the ability of many other recipients as well. Why single out the editor of Zee News? But this one stands out for me.

Mr Chaudhary, for those who came in late, is one of the people involved in the Zee-Jindal fracas that involved, stings, counter stings and allegations of extortion. A video of the conversation between Jindal executives and Mr Chaudhary and his colleague is available online. This episode included being in the clink and not for noble reasons like standing up to the Emergency, defending freedom of speech or for flouting Section 66A (of the IT Act) and defending independent India. I must point out that Mr Chaudhary informed my colleague in another interview that the case of extortion against him has been dismissed.

In the past, Mr Chaudhary and Zee News have demonstrated their journalistic finesse in the way they have covered several stories. Many are too ridiculously over-the-top for us to even mock on our news satire shows. These stories were nothing short of C-grade, Kanti-Shah-film-type drivel.

What Mr Chaudhary won an award for is this: The interview of Awindra Pandey, friend of Jyoti Singh who is remembered as “Nirbhaya”. I had not seen the interview when I reacted aloud in office to the news of Mr Chaudhary winning an award. My colleague, Manisha Pande, said it’s a good interview and that in all fairness, going by how big the story was, the award is not unreasonable.

I’m not convinced of that. So, is journalism like making a movie or acting or writing a book where the performance or product is seen in isolation? In journalism, too, are you only as good as your last report like in the showbiz you’re as good as your last film? Or is it more similar to an academic pursuit where all your past work determines how your current work is received?

In today’s day and age, the rehabilitation of journalists after an episode or scandal that damaged their careers does not seem so difficult. Maybe that’s fair if you believe everyone deserves a second chance. But is that good for journalism?

One often hears the cliché that a journalist’s currency is his or her credibility. So is that no longer true? And is that okay?

I figured I would reach out to three journalists with formidable reputations and bodies of work, journalists who don’t need awards to endorse their careers. I chose the generation that is not moulded by the immediate and hysterical nature of TV. Maybe this will help me get some answers and do atma chintan to decide if I am being unfair and prejudiced.

I sent questions to The News Minute Editor-in-Chief Chitra Subramaniam Duella, who investigated the Bofors scam; columnist and journalist for over three decades Neerja Chowdhury; and Newslaundry Editor-in-Chief Madhu Trehan, who also founded India Today and Newstrack.

I sent each a set of three questions. Here are the questions I asked and their answers:

Is an award like the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award a recognition of a particular report/interview like the nominations announce, or a recognition of the body of a journalist’s work?

Chitra: They go together (specific report/story and past body of work). The award recognises our métier in general and it is also a salute to individual enterprise, approach and work. For example, you can share the same information with a group of journalists and someone will get it faster than the others. Someone will be able to connect the dots faster and secure the confidence of sources swifter than others. That builds the body of work and level of confidence on all sides – sources, journalist and readers/viewers. Good journalism is fair and frank – it is an enabler of facts – not an enforcer (judge or jury). It does not adopt dubious means like using sex-workers, financial or other inducements. Journalism is a public good which has to be accounted for every day. Period.

Neerja: In my view an award like the Ramnath Goenka award should be for the body of work and not just for one story or report. This is because Ramnath Goenka was a giant figure in Indian journalism, who fought against censorship and for the freedom of the press, displaying an unusual courage in taking on the powerful. It would be in the fitness of things if an award named after him would also take into account the performance of the journalist. There can be awards given for a specific story or a path-breaking interview, or a scoop. But this award should also recognise the overall contribution of the journalist.  

Madhu: I guess this particular award in question is for a specific story but I wonder how a person’s history of alleged extortion caught on tape can be ignored when giving an award. The infamous tape was much like a Chota Rajan versus Dawood war. Neither party were innocent babes. 

Can the two even be separated, past body of work and latest writing/production or show?

Chitra: In journalism, I would say no. You cannot be half-pregnant – ever. Either you know what you are talking about or you don’t. Your conversation with the audience and the number of people interested in your work can grow only if your method is also recognised as correct and ethical. You cannot destroy everything around you as you look for evidence or information. Resilience and hard work matter and the process has to be as robust as the product. Good journalism is process good and product good.

Neerja: I don’t see how you can separate the two – past conduct and current professional work. For journalists who hold up a mirror to society, commenting on politicians, bureaucrats, policemen, judges and leaders of society, on how they should conduct themselves, the writing or work of journalists would have a greater impact if their own conduct was of a similar standard.

Madhu: My view is it should not be separated. Ramnath Goenka stood for integrity in journalism. If a person who was in a secret camera recording featuring questionable ethical activities does one good story, should the past be completely ignored? The Indian Express has published the criteria they use.

The possibility of the jury only looking at nominated stories forwarded to them and being unaware of any background and history of the journalist seems to be high. They may have the stature as eminent jurists, but do they know or understand current journalism?

Is journalism like cinema or novel writing? Are you only as good as your last film or book? Or is it more? How would you describe it?

Chitra: I would compare it to a live performance on stage. A good one has audiences enthralled, clapping and asking for more. A bad one sees people leaving the hall from the word go. Social media is the audience now -– good, bad and indifferent, but the reaction time is swift. It may be a wild place out there now and anybody with Internet access can comment irrespective of domain knowledge. But over time, this will mature. Of that I am sure.

Neerja: Credibility, I believe is the most prized possession of any journalist. It also has a bearing, in the long run, on the impact his/her work has. It is not only about one story, book, film.

Madhu: I don’t believe you can separate the integrity of a journalist from his work. In cinema and novels, it is your talent at stake so it can be said “you are only as good as your last film or book”. In journalism, your integrity is the core of your product. If a journalist’s integrity is destroyed, he should leave the profession and join telemarketing. In our country, rehabilitation after disgrace seems quicker than the disgrace.

Given that Chitra has been a recipient of the B D Goenka Award for excellence in journalism in 1989 instituted by Ramnath Goenka himself, I also asked her if she feels the value of her award has diminished given the current crop of recipients.

Her answer was a no. “When you have put in hard work (without seeking any awards) and it gets recognised, the value of that will always remain pure and close to you. However, I have wondered how journalists who cannot string a coherent sentence or others who use the métier to advance themselves, accept inducements or blackmail and threaten others receive prestigious awards. Journalism is a reflection of the society it lives in. Perhaps that’s an explanation,” she said.

Chitra added that returning to journalism after a gap, she is appalled to see how access has come to mean accountability when the reverse should have happened. “The car you drive, the farmhouse you own and the parties you go to are seen as accountability and credibility! Repeating private conversation, closeness to politicians, running single source stories without any fact-checking are seen as responsible journalism. It seems the day is incomplete if someone has not been abused. I run workshops on journalism and without fail there are people in class who ask what is the shortest route to becoming famous! Journalism, fame and power have made for a nasty mix,” she said

*****

After speaking to the three ladies and giving it some thought, I am convinced journalism is more complex than most other pursuits or professions. There is the element of skill, intelligence, general knowledge and hard work. There is the element of commitment to truth and taking on power structures. There is also an element of personal conduct and integrity – but to what extent?

Picasso was a wife beater but does that impact his art? Roman Polanski’s statutory rape case did not stop his being honoured with an Oscar. But does signing up for journalism require the occasional performance in a moment of creative surge or is one signing up for a way of life? Should a journalist’s personal conduct determine how we view his or her work? Or only up to the point where that personal conduct is part of doing one’s job as a journalist as opposed to being a good or nasty father/mother, husband/wife, son/daughter, friend/lover, businessman/negotiator and so on.

I guess a Facebook status describes journalism best – it’s complicated.

Postscript: I did speak with Sudhir Chaudhary while writing this piece to get his thoughts. He did not want to be quoted for this piece.