The Hoot, a pioneering media watchdog, would be scaling down its day-to-day publishing operations, the website’s founding editor Sevanti Ninan wrote on Monday. In a note to friends and contributors, Ninan wrote: “It became evident some time last year to me and the members of the Media Foundation, which publishes The Hoot, that running the site has become increasingly unviable.”

Ninan was referring to the unavailability of senior editorial support, who would also raise funds. Ninan adds that “there is more competition for sources of funding, yes, but also finding support, in terms of journalists and academics willing to helm a venture which requires considerable daily gatekeeping and editorial rigour” has been difficult.

The Hoot was set up in 2001, under the auspices of New Delhi-based Media Foundation, and currently runs with a slim four-member editorial team, most of whom are part-time. Writing about the increasing operational unviability of The Hoot, Ninan wrote, “I had thought I would have to wrap up publishing contributions by the end of the financial year 2018, and focus on redesigning the site as an archive and database for the media and researcher community.  And now that is indeed the case.”

To speak about changes at The Hoot, the role of media watch sites, media ownership, the impact of social media on the conventional newsgathering process and the larger media landscape, Newslaundry got in touch with Ninan.

In an increasingly polarised time, The Hoot has been a pioneering media watch site. What would you say has been The Hoot’s legacy?

Legacy is a presumptuous word. But, when it started 17 years ago, The Hoot created a space for self-scrutiny of the media, which was an idea that people quickly warmed to. More journalists began to try their hand at media criticism, which, until then, had been limited to reviewing the content of TV and film. We helped build up a body of writers and writings on the media.

What does the future of The Hoot look like? Is there an alternative to scaling down operations? Will The Hoot continue to be under the Media Foundation’s wing?

The future of The Hoot to me, personally, is about reorganising and classifying what it contains so that it can become a valuable resource for tracking trends in media coverage in this century, as also tracking the evolving trends in media ethics. That’s one part.

The other part is to enhance its databases so that they become a useful information source for working journalists and other professionals, as well as for students. It contains a database on media ownership, it has a press laws guide for journalists, it has a guide on how to report rape, it also has annual free speech reports for the last few years. It is working on a database of media judgments.

The Hoot as a media archive and resource is unlikely to continue under the Media Foundation’s wing. I think that would require a bigger institutional home such as a media school or a university. Whether The Hoot as a website continues as part of the Media Foundation depends on what its members decide, and what editorial leadership they can find. That is still being discussed.

How have changes in the larger media landscape impacted The Hoot’s relevance in recent years?

There is now a huge amount of media to monitor and The Hoot is simply not adequately equipped to do it. It has even fewer people running it and working for it than before.

How will changes in The Hoot’s approach, affect its audience and viewership?

At this point, I have no idea.

Having observed trends in the media for over a sustained period of time, is there a particularly alarming trend that you have observed?

There is criminality in the media universe which is going unaddressed. TV channels (some of them patronised by the ruling establishment) can attack individuals and get away with it because there is no statutory penalty for such behaviour. They can peddle content which provokes communal sentiments and not be held to account. And surely paid news violates some law, if proven?

Speaking of media’s reportage on media, Cobrapost did an expose about news organisations publishing pro-Hindutva content for a fee. And Big Media completely missed this. What are your thoughts? What explains such media blackouts?

You are forgetting what Cobrapost did was an entrapment. You cannot “miss” a story based on a set-up that is staged. They did not publish content, they expressed a willingness to do so.

Does rampant use of social media as a source of news pose any threat? Are there any changes you have observed in the media, both print and television, with the advent of social media?

Social media is here to stay and you have to live with it and learn to screen for yourself what it puts out.

Technology amplifies minority opinions, gives them greater mileage than they would otherwise get, journalists need to guard against giving all things viral undue importance.

One influence on conventional media is that television uses social media to obtain feedback from people, reporters don’t go out and meet people on the streets as much as they used to, to find out what the public is thinking.  You can harvest opinions without much effort.

Speaking of media monitoring, self-regulatory organisations have consistently proven ineffective. Can media watch sites be an alternative in the long run? Or is there another alternative to be considered?

If media is an influential industry capable of misuse, it needs to be regulated. Period. Other democratic societies have formal regulatory bodies with statutory powers to impose penalties. India needs that too. Of course, the approach to regulation has to be sensible.

Media watch is not a substitute for regulation.

Multiple organisations have taken up media analysis and media monitoring. But the reportage is largely focussed on content, leaving structures, ownership and ethics unobserved. What are your thoughts?

That is not an accurate assumption. I thought Newslaundry also set out to build a media ownership database? As for ethics, the latest Cobrapost sting is about the ethics of media houses. The Wire’s video discussions on media are also about ethics. The Press Council looked at paid news.

The ad model on which the media is dependent is increasingly being questioned. Online sites are moving towards subscriptions. What are your thoughts? What could be a sustainable business model for news?

People in India who consume news, both English and regional, can, for the most, part afford to pay for it. The Hindu, for instance, recognises that and is making its readers pay more than they used to. It’s working. Others need to follow suit and reduce their dependence on advertising as much as they can.

With the takeover of Network18 and newer channels such as Republic, there has been a marked change in ownership patterns. How does media ownership impact media freedom? Is it good? Is it bad? And do you see it impacting the agenda in the newsroom?

It depends entirely on the kind of owners and the kind of editors you have. One of the country’s wealthiest men owns a newspaper. He does not interfere with its independence.  

What have been your learnings/takeaways after being at the helm of a media watch site for a sustained period of time? Is there any advice/learning you want to share with upcoming fact-checkers/media watch sites?

Media watch of the transient kind–catching bloopers and reacting to media excesses–is best done through social media. 

Then again, fact-checking sites are one of the best things that have happened in recent years. But what do their findings say about the due diligence exercised by the mainstream media?

Ideology now governs quite a bit of media watch, which is a pity. We need much more media scrutiny that is not coming from a politically biased source. Those who are eager to consume media criticism, and generate some of their own, need to watch out for the bias that may come with the criticism.