"A good newspaper or magazine is a nation talking to itself." -- Arthur Miller
Around this time five years ago, we tremblingly put out the first issue of Outlook. All sane advice had warned us that we were embarked on expensive and monumental folly, and for me personally the venture would, I was assured, lead to certain professional death. All because our illustrious rival, India Today, was deemed invincible. Most of the country's leading publishing houses had planned newsmagazines but funked and abandoned their projects, unwilling to take on the 'giant'.
To add to our troubles the satellite TV boom was at its zenith, the ad market seemed unpromising, the debate whether print publications were in the entertainment or knowledge business was going decisively in favour of the former, brand managers reigned supreme with editorial content and presentation being dictated by focus groups and market research. This was the hostile environment in which the "weekly newsmagazine" was launched.
For us, therefore, this fifth anniversary is a moment for slightly immodest self-congratulation. Consider, first of all the data, the advertising and circulation figures, the consistent growth curve—all of which testify to what, even our enemies concede, is a remarkable success story. However, for me and the editorial team what is most satisfying about the success is the motor designed to achieve it.
Nothing fancy. No McKinsey hot-shot was hired to guide us in product conception. Instead, we went back to basics: we built a better mousetrap. This old-fashioned but time-tested journalistic tool became our pilot. Defying prevailing wisdom, we invested in the product.
From the outset Outlook was determined to be seen as the best newsmagazine in the country. In terms of reporting, comment, analyses, investigation, photography, copy-editing and design we set ourselves the high hurdles. These, admittedly, were not always jumped, but quite often they were. Thus, our self-selected route to birth, survival and final victory was carefully chosen.
Naturally, we were not unmindful of the marketplace. Outlook had to be sold and sold aggressively using all the techniques, even gimmicks, of sales promotion. We were not stupid or arrogant to assume that a superior magazine required meagre merchandising. But we did not put the cart before the horse; we did not believe that marketing skills alone could sell "the stuff between the ads".
How does one define journalistic excellence? This is one phrase which trips off the tongue rather too easily. At any rate, even if you asked the editors of Organiser or Muslim India, not to mention Stardust, all three gentlemen would swear allegiance to the aforementioned practice. I can, therefore, only present to you my understanding of the idea.
We begin with the conviction (central, incidentally, to all great journalism) that there is no issue in India which cannot be critically examined. If the rich and powerful are enmeshed, the urge and urgency to examine must escalate, not diminish. Whether it is A.B. Vajpayee or Sonia Gandhi or the Chief Justice, or Dhirubhai Ambani or Amitabh Bachchan or Jagmohan Dalmiya, they must all realise that some "pain in the ass reporter" will discover the truth. This fear, one trusts, will impel those who exercise and control power in the name of the people to be more alert and less venal.
Solid professional reporting lies at the core of such journalism. At Outlook, I can declare with confidence, the reporter is King. His word in our office is law, but he is also made aware of the onerous responsibility he carries and the standards expected of him.(That renowned American anchor of Sixty Minutes Don Hewitt once said he knew he had a great story in hand when he examined it and said, "I didn't know that.")
The other king at Outlook is the Outlook reader. We don't believe he is a moron. We don't think we should always "give him what he wants". If he knows what he wants, why is he reading our publication?
The scourge of modern-day media is triviality and the cult of celebrity masquerading as "reader-friendly" journalism. At Outlook we like to over, not under-estimate the intelligence of those who buy our magazine. Mainstream editors live daily with the challenge of making serious journalism popular. It is relatively easy to write an unputdownable cover story on fashion in India, more difficult to write one on primary education. If you check our old numbers you will discover we have attempted both genres, but at all times we have resisted the temptation to dumb-down. In our vocabulary, serious and popular are not mutually exclusive.
Of course, there exists a body of opinion which insists Outlook should shift its offices to Karachi with a branch at 10, Janpath. We enjoy reading the angry letters since they add to the gaiety of our working environment. To counter the Karachi brigade with a passionate declaration of independence is scarcely original. A complete absence of bias in any journal staffed by individuals with lively minds is impossible. Nevertheless, one of the indisputable strengths of Outlook is its openness, its commitment to multifaceted debate.
Yes, we abhor minority-burning. Yes, we believe the argument that Hindus are discriminated against and oppressed in their own land is bogus, a pretext for political mobilisation. Yes, I did light candles of friendship and peace at Wagah border. If that makes us biased, so be it.
These days when the foot-soldiers of the written word are sending dejected despatches from the trenches, the isolated success of a single, new publication is, I feel, a matter for celebration for all of us who work in the print media. We may have lost a battle, but not the war.
