Indian papers

Indian journalists sometimes complain that the best stories about India are done by foreign papers. To an extent, this is true. Many foreign newspaper journalists are trained writers, whereas many Indian journalists are more attached to the great "reporting" tradition that leads to breaking stories. (This is not to suggest that American papers don't know how to report, but it does mean that Indian journalists are more prized for their reporting abilities.) Even for a great story like the one linked below, which ran on page A4 of the New York Times, there wasn't that much groundbreaking reporting done.

Here's the story about the Delhi radiation leak by Jim Yardley of the New York Times. Yardley writes beautifully, particularly when it comes to the scene-setting that the Times is famous for and that most Indian newspapers seem to consider a waste of time and space. Yardley's observation that the site of the radiation leak is merely 10 miles from Parliament is particularly nice. I'm not a fan of the word "squalor" - which appears in the first sentence to describe the industrial area. Yes, India's industrial areas are messy, but that particular word smacks of judgment and belongs more in "Slumdog Millionaire" than a paper of repute. (Far better is Yardley's actual description, which follows)

Unlike most Indian journalists who have covered this story, Yardley has clearly spent extensive time in the Mayapuri scrapyard, not just gathering soundbytes but actually listening to the stories of the people affected.

Actually, he hasn't. Yardley may not ever have been to Mayapuri. At the bottom of the story, a single italicized line attempts to solve the mystery but in fact only thickens it: "Hari Kumar contributed reporting."

Who is the mysterious Hari Kumar? Throughout the story, I wondered who had translated between Yardley (whom I picture as a tall, sunburned white man in a hat) and the scrap dealers (painfully thin and uniformly brown). Apparently it was Hari Kumar.

Is the New York Times being generous by giving Kumar an input credit when in fact all he did was translate? If so, this would be a step in the right direction for major international papers, who often fail to thank the locals who make their stories possible.

Or is the Times being a jerk, and exploiting Kumar's language abilities while giving the main story credit to the white boss who actually just polished the prose? (Normally prose polishing is done by an editor, who doesn't get a byline, although the distinction isn't always clear cut anymore, esp with big multipart projects that involve several reporters)

The media is by and large transparent, but there are still areas where we serve ourselves by allowing the audience's ignorance to continue. The average reader is completely unaware of the wheeling and dealing between reporters, soldiers and government that goes on in warzones, for example. (The government's official PR people are still a journalist's main source of information during conflict, but how often do papers admit that? How often do they tell the truth about embedment, embargoes, etc? These are things that get a hot following on Romanesko, but remain trade secrets of which the wider public is largely unaware)

The New York Times, as well as all American media, have an advantage when it comes to getting Indian sources to comment on the record. Indian journalists, even from the most reputed papers, have to stalk, squawk and bang on doors to get quotes. But even the most camera-shy Indian politico will drop the Emily Dickinson act when he hears "New York Times." This isn't just my hang up. I freelanced a story or two from India for American magazines, back in the day. The magic phrase "American magazine" opened all the necessary doors and ears. Now that I'm living in India and working for an Indian paper, I realize how unusual that was.