“Journalism died long back, rebirth possible if…”: Uday Shankar tells EGI editors

New Delhi: Nearly two decades after leaving the news business, JioStar Vice Chairman Uday Shankar on Friday told news editors that "journalism was dead."

Shankar was addressing a small gathering of news editors who had assembled to hear the Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture from the journalist-turned-entertainment tycoon, organised by the Editors Guild of India at the India International Centre in New Delhi.

"The world changed, and journalism—either the craft of it or the business of it—refused to change at the same pace. And that's the real problem," Shankar reasoned.

"In my view, news was the world's most successful and powerful business of intermediation. Between what you wanted to see and where you could not, who you wanted to be and who you could not, journalists were the link," he said.

"Then came a time when both journalists and audiences started going to the same sources, namely the internet. Everybody who had a cell phone became a journalist. Instead of innovating and finding a solution for this fundamental crisis of disintermediation, journalists started to go to the same sources that ordinary people had access to. This is how the power we had as journalists became severely undermined," he added.

The intermediaries are no longer as valuable as they once were because technology has disintermediated the entire process of communication, Shankar said, adding that as the world was changing, journalists refused to even adapt to technology.

Second in Shankar’s line of fire were Indian managers and journalists. "I have had the opportunity to see managers from different countries and all sectors of business and industry. I think the worst quality of managers exists in Indian media, whose only qualification seems to be ignorance," Shankar highlighted.

Next, Shankar blamed journalists too for the crisis. "Journalists want good money, but they don’t want to talk about money for the company. They live in this make-believe world where you should get a lot of money regardless of whether the company makes a lot of money or not. And if you participate in helping the company make money, somehow that is a betrayal to the cause of journalism," Shankar noted.

"The whole world innovated on monetisation models except for the business of journalism. And that’s a huge crisis. I think there are opportunities to do that," Shankar added.

"Journalists need to wake up to the fact that they are essentially responsible for building a robust business. Being in denial about the realities of the business will deny your existence someday. So I think that is where the crisis is."

Shankar also highlighted that the news industry is marred by a crisis of talent and capital.

"I’ve always found it ironic that the same editors who pontificated about ways to open up foreign direct investment for India were very firm on the fact that foreign direct investment should not be allowed in the media sector. It was a 1948 Cabinet resolution that blocked foreign direct investment in news, and that still exists. The global news business hasn’t suffered. Global capital hasn’t suffered because of that. Indian news businesses, Indian consumers, and Indian societies have suffered," Shankar added.

"I always feel that in a country where 65% of the population is under 35 years of age, 65% of newsrooms are almost 65 years of age—at least in leadership positions. If you’re not young and if you’re not innovating with technology, it’s tough to keep in step," Shankar pointed out.

Recalling a serious conversation around Aaj Tak going "pay" in 2002-03—a plan that could not take off—Shankar highlighted that news cannot compete with entertainment, drama, or sports if it continues to depend on advertising.

Shankar defended his substantial investments in cricket, stating that without them, India would not have built the kind of sports ecosystem it sees today.

"It’s easy to say that the world of non-news or entertainment is rich and makes a lot of money, but look at the amount of investment that has gone into that. Had we not invested in cricket, we would not have the resources to invest in kabaddi, football, badminton, and many other sports that are not profitable yet. But the margins of cricket allow you to invest in other businesses," he said.

Highlighting how artificial intelligence has already penetrated deeply, Shankar said the news industry must decide whether to board the train called AI or get run over by it.

Rebirth of News

The good news is that the average viewer’s desire to consume content is growing disproportionately, Shankar said, adding that an increasing amount of time is being spent on content even in the remotest parts of the country.

"Whether we can muscle our way or sneak our way into that space is a factor of just creativity and strategy. Journalism, as I said in the beginning, as we want it to be, is dead. Let’s not cry over that," he said.

Shankar believes a rebirth is possible. "There was a time when the film business was totally dead. Look at how the film industry in southern India is expanding its audience with investment, technology, and innovation," he said.

"We have, over the years, consistently narrowed down the space in which we operate. I think that needs to change, and that change can only come from journalists. Journalists are not cost centres, which is something I always used to hear and it annoyed me. Journalists are the ones who create the product. Journalists are the reason people look at a screen, a newspaper, or a magazine. Instead of feeling frustrated about it, I think the time has come for journalists to take charge and innovate the content model and then follow through with innovations in monetization models," Shankar said.

Shankar gave examples of Angry Birds and virtual farming to show a way forward. "If somebody can create a product called Angry Birds and make billions of dollars, if somebody can do virtual farming as a game and every day sell buckets of water, seed, fertilizer, and virtual pesticides—all of it—and literally make billions of dollars from the same consumer, it’s just because of the power of innovation. They have innovated and found different ways of driving engagement," he said.

Calling "Wirecutter" an innovation from The New York Times wherein they review consumer products, Shankar noted that it could easily slip into the domain of paid journalism but does not because they maintain journalistic standards.

"They’re very transparent. If you want to buy a kettle, they will review 10 kettles and tell you the best ones based on various parameters. They will make money from that, but it’s all transparent," Shankar said.

"They offer rigorous examination of facts and conclusions—not opinions—and inferences based on those facts. Society values that," he added.

Despite expressing optimism, Shankar noted that AI models can create most content and that those AI models are growing at a speed that’s scary.

"We need to stay ahead of that and innovate on the models of our product and offering and build credibility. We know we can’t report on everything because some of it is too uncomfortable for a lot of people. But what we report must be credible. Lack of credibility is what is killing the value in this business," Shankar concluded.