Is “Public Interest” Misunderstood? A Critical Look at News Selection in Indian Media
Gustakhi Maaf Haryana – Pawan Kumar Bansal
By our enlightened reader Dr. Ranbir Singh Phaugat
Public Interest, Newspapers, and the Question of Perception
A serious debate has emerged over how newspapers define and present “public interest.” According to Dr. Ranbir Singh Phaugat, a keen observer of media trends, a large proportion of news published—particularly in Hindi newspapers—tends to be negative in tone.
He notes that four to six pages dedicated to district or local coverage in Hindi dailies often contain more than 60 percent negative news. Of the remaining coverage, nearly 30 percent consists of routine beat reporting with limited public relevance. Only about 10 percent, he argues, carries content that is truly meaningful to specific readers. This pattern, he suggests, has persisted for years without significant change.
Dr. Phaugat raises an important question: On what basis do editors select certain stories for publication while rejecting many others received through news agencies? If editorial choices were uniform, newspapers would appear identical. Yet visible differences exist—not only in story selection but also in presentation, tone, and emphasis. He attributes this diversity to individual editorial judgment, professional training, language proficiency, and the intellectual environment in which journalists operate.
A Case Study in Science Reporting
Recalling an incident from three years ago, Dr. Phaugat describes attending a scientific review meeting at the ICMR’s Regional Medical Research Center in Gorakhpur. The institute conducts specialized research on vector-borne diseases such as dengue, Japanese encephalitis, and kala-azar.
Following a detailed discussion on communicating research outcomes to the media, he drafted a comprehensive two-page Hindi press release and circulated it to news outlets. While several Hindi newspapers published reports based on the release, they included barely a fraction of the scientific content. Critical details about research findings and their implications for public health were largely omitted.
In contrast, Amrit Vichar, published from Lucknow and Bareilly, carried a more balanced and informative version of the release. Dr. Phaugat clarifies that the issue was not ignorance on the part of local correspondents, but rather a limited understanding of scientific depth and significance.
He points out that most reporters in Hindi media come from humanities backgrounds, with very few trained in science or specialized journalism. As a result, science reporting standards remain comparatively low. Dedicated science correspondents are rare, and few science graduates enter journalism.
The Myth of “Public Interest”
Dr. Phaugat challenges the commonly held belief within media circles that newspapers publish only what aligns with public interest. In reality, he argues, public interest is often shaped by factors such as advertising revenue, political connections, market pressures, and social considerations.
Investigative journalism, he says, is narrowly confined to corruption and crime. The politics of science, research methodology, and institutional accountability in scientific domains receive little attention. While some English-language newspapers have recognized the importance of science reporting—especially with India’s expanding scientific footprint—the shift came relatively late.
He credits the foundation of science journalism in India to Dr. K.S. Jayaraman, former head of PTI’s Science Service, who drew inspiration from the global journal Nature. Under editor John Roydon Maddox, Nature advanced a tradition of reporting not only scientific discoveries but also the politics surrounding science.
In India, however, there is no comparable commercial scientific journal with global reach. Though institutions like the Indian Academy of Sciences and CSIR publish journals, most are publicly funded and avoid engaging with the politics of science. Consequently, such perspectives seldom enter mainstream media discourse.
A Call for Reform
Dr. Phaugat observes that even well-prepared press releases from scientific institutions and the Press Information Bureau often fail to receive proper coverage. He concludes that public interest is ultimately filtered through the perceptions of journalists and editors themselves.
Excessive focus on crime, corruption, and politics, he warns, has weakened public discourse. “The diagnosis is available, but the patient is unwilling to seek treatment,” he remarks metaphorically.
While acknowledging exceptions, he admits that many Hindi newspapers no longer sustain his interest beyond a brief glance. Some regional papers have improved in recent years, but even established English dailies, he feels, have witnessed a decline in standards.
The larger question remains: Can Indian media redefine public interest to include deeper engagement with science, policy, and constructive reporting?