One issue that has confused me repeatedly and has led me through the entire gamut of options and has not left me any the better, is on how we bureaucrats should be dealing with the Fourth Estate. Bureaucrats are traditionally seen as the behind-the-scenes executioners of Government Policy. In fact, it is even considered a virtue for bureaucrats to remain invisible from the glare of the media. I am a supporter of the invisible bureaucrat school, but with certain reservations. These reservations arise from the fact that we are today living in a changed world with diverse challenges, each requiring different solutions and options.
What is the context? There are a multiplicity of news channels active today. Newspapers which hitherto were confined to mostly global concerns, have now become more local-centric, with tabloid editions for each district and even cities. The plethora of television channels, especially the 24 hour news channels, with their ubiquitous continuous scrolls, have brought debate on public issues straight to people's living rooms. Within cities too, the cable operators have all started local news channels, which bring visuals about local issues.
The Fourth Estate, consisting of the print and the electronic audio and visual media (the internet media are yet to start playing any role) are important stakeholders and increasingly influential partners in the public domain in which we operate. In the league of opinion makers, the media have always been influential players, but their importance has increased manifold in the past few years.
So what should be the yardstick for our relationship with the media? There is no dispute on the fact that we ought to share information, especially those which are necessary for the citizens to be informed participants in debates about public issues. We are living in an age when massive changes are taking place, radically altering the fabric of our society, economy and polity, and exposing all of us to its consequences in our daily lives. It is therefore imperative that all citizens are informed about these issues, and we as bureaucrats have surely a major role to play in this.
We also have a critical responsibility in making citizens aware about social and civic issues. We need to make people aware about changes that are taking place around them and how best they can themselves or we can help them confront these changes. We need to spread awareness about reforms in the functioning of Government and how the citizens can better use or adopt these reforms. Citizens need to made aware about how they can adapt modern technology and processes to facilitate accessing public services.
I will stick my neck out and argue that the touchstone for our relationship with the media should be promotion of this objective. Any message should primarily focus on promoting these issues, which increase public utility, instead of projecting individual achievements. It is not out of place to remind ourselves that in so far as these achievements are all the policy objectives of the Government, there are other participants in the system who have have the specific mandate of promoting these successes.
Thus, instead of giving far disproportionate importance to press conferences held to proclaim 90% Property Tax payments, we ought to be showcasing those methods adopted to recover tax dues from longstanding defaulters. While the former will only serve to promote the achievements of the individual concerned, the later will surely send a strong deterrent message to would be defaulters. Instead of diverting attention away from the parking problems by giving disproportionate focus on a cellar demolition drive, we ought to be paying more attention to publicize the magnitude of parking problem and the options available for citizens to address this challenge.
Another example, instead of parading the master car thief, with the entire fleet of recovered cars, before the glare of camera, we ought to be showcasing methods and technologies that can help the police pre-empt such theft or catch such criminals. The former has little utility value to the public except satiating the immediate and trivial curiosity surrounding the event, but will have significant personal value to the police officer in showcasing his achievement. Some may argue that it reassures the public about the effectiveness of the police machinery. I seriously doubt it, but even granting that, it still is no explanation for the disproportionate share of such media interactions. In fact, even if such interactions have to take place, it should primarily seek to communicate some strong deterrent messages to other car thieves. (A universal message that they will be caught if stealing cars is of no deterrent value to them for obvious reasons. If it were, no body would be stealing cars!)
But showcasing methods and technologies that help pre-empt car thefts and even help catch criminals have tremendous utility value. For example, a press conference to showcase a device like the Lojack, which would help us trace out stolen cars using a radio transmitter with a GPS device fitted randomly at different locations in cars, will go a long way in spreading awareness among the public about how to protect their cars from theft and a strong deterrent on the criminals from indulging in car thefts.
It implies that instead of catching and parading offenders and criminals, or those pilfering civic services and claiming the credit for the one-off success (invariably we are catching and displaying, maybe one-in-ten such offenders), we ought to be highlighting the mechanisms in place to control such offences.
To conclude, it is safe to say that the focus of our interaction with the media should not be the outcomes of our actions, which rarely have more than limited public utility, but should if any, be on the methods adopted to achieve the outcomes. The later, besides making people more aware of what they should be knowing about that particular issue, would also be strong deterrent message to those lurking offenders, defaulters and criminals within the audience.
So next time, we hold a press interaction, focus on the issue not the outcome! The sole yardstick should be, does my message promote public utility? If of course my objective is different, then the test naturally fails!
No comments:
Post a Comment