"The widening gap of media and journalism.."

We now feel so much mellowed over the conversations of media being a 'corporate lolly.' So much so that the phrase seem to be deserving of the most reflective cliches of the nation's psyche. The issues that erupt ever now and then like the pesky wayward weeds after the moisture of weather, take on media as a prominently growing platform for paid bits with extra effort in moolah to smarmily call them 'news.'

This has been accepted by the t.v journalists --while some also have the extra smugness calling them as 'video journalists'--themselves which is an etching thing for this pillar of democracy. It is a shame that journalists themselves talk in dismissiveness of each other as such a print journalist would call a t.v anchor as some coiffed 'cutesy' (mirthfully applicable for both men and women) with affected glibness while the t.v journalists poking fun at the print journalists calling them as hacks or ill-informed or less-resourced. In the mire, if anything is degraded it is the institution itself and if anybody innocently laughs, it would be the people.

Often, every media house of any nature print, radio or t.v would try to raise the bar for itself asking for a collective journalistic effort to 'introspect.' There have been those who have rebuffed each other making allusive remarks or gesturing subtly about the channels like India T.V, Zee News and the likes where the flavor is sensationalism. The point of mootness would be to reflect that while making such efforts to denigrate their lesser counterparts, the mainstream media dilutes itself in terms of credulity, posturing like a femme. IT IS RIDICULOUS. The audience of good channels would always know why they are 'good' and what happens at other panels. They need not be reminded certainly not that it be informed to them, as they know it much better having the special privileged (verily so without any bias of sort) to sit on couch with an open mind and zap on the remote. Why the stooping then? Barkhas and Deeps, discard these petty allusions. (You are the most we have so far and as per the referendum figures, if there are any, the standards need be improved by grave margins.)

For Barkhas and Deeps: The audience is always wise to know what would suit them or their appetite for news. Nobody would hog India TV when there is an attack on the national security and people expectably wish to know about the real time ruckus happening. You can not impress them by idiotic posturing and cheaply sly references as if you have dodged the lesser to make a point to the intelligent. That is so egotistic and best be avoided. There should be concerns about how--given that there is a controlling monarch with deep pockets from where would outpour the funds for running of channel-- to tell the truth convincingly in plain words. The boldness would be intimidating, as it has always been in the history, for those who would vulgarly wish to have a little reign over it. They won't have the same credibility without you and would not in any case will to loose the face they have so laboriously built. The advertising rates for popular t.v shows on news media is an ample proof that the marketers are more wiser than you or your bosses. Please would some wads of relief into this widening gap of accidental media and injured journalism.