Normally print media’s sports writers place themselves morally above their counterparts in the television domain. This is despite the fact that most of the screen people migrate from the print. One of the reasons why the print guys feel superior, i suppose, lies in the differing nature of their job demands.
Television has no time left to deeply think about before flashing the news; that too nowadays every news is considered a breaking news. Mostly, as far as Olympic sports are concerned, TV people go by the agency reports or the interviews they take and have no time to go into the veracity of the news or the words (bytes is the better word) at their hands. With no literature or statistics readily available, especially from web searches, pertaining to Olympic sports these TV guys hardly go for any research. They have to just flash. Mistakes do occur. This is reality. This is their situation.
This is where the print media bounces on. Print media work leisurely, and have a hell of time to look at the info at their hand. Therefore, they commit less mistakes; their write up gets vetted in different layers. On many occasions, again in the realm of Olympic sports, TV lets go important events unnoticed, do not maintain continuity, mainly for want of bytes or shots, but takes up in a big way once the print media highlighted. Proof for this lies in the fact that most of those journalists who break news in the newspapers are in the studios next days, if not immediately. We get to witness more and more print media persons in the variety of television shows while the vice versa is few and far between.
These factors unwittingly give the print media a false sense of importance, rather self importance, and quite often one gets to see them berating at their television counterparts. They always assert, with some reason to boot, print media impact the television. May be or may not. That is not anyway the subject matter of the piece here.
The important point is, who makes impact in the mind of public and policy makers?
I hardly see in hockey any print media piece making an impact in the recent times. Normally, same people follow particular sport in a newspaper and his views are normally known, and on predictable lines. So, the byline decides the seriousness of the matter or lack of it. May be at an odd occasion, the Indian Hockey Federation might have taken or forsaken a decision based on some media reports, but again the focus here is not the Federation – but, the public and policy makers at large.
Here only the television counts. That is what it matters.
Be it a demonstration by the protesters down under the IHF office in the Delhi’s National Stadium in the early 2004 against Dhanraj Pillay’s sacking, or the alleged hunger strike call by the hockey players now, television made it an issue and got it in the consciousness of the country. While n number of articles in the print could do nothing beyond enlightening the already enlightened ones.
When the television did not take the issues seriously even the big events fail to impact. Classical example for this the Olympians march against the IHF early this year. Yes, some of the channels showed the rally, but not vigorously followed it up in the form of sms poll, chat shows, interviews with public or luminaries. The Olympian rally in the end cut no ice in real terms. Despite the fact the rally was a fact while the hunger strike was only a call, which may have materialized or not, even may not have taken place at all.
So, let us in the media do not let our TV brethren down. At least here and there they change the world, change the perception and bring desired results. When TV takes up a matter in a frenetic pace, it does not just cut across the educated elite, but down to every section of the society. So, news channels in many ways are breaking ground than the newspapers. One agrees or not, this is the fact. And, it is proving good for the sport of hockey.