What is Star News' take on election programming? What is it that the audience can expect from the coverage?
We want to give a fresh perspective to the election; tell people about the great Indian election. No where in the world are there so many voters involved and the nature of the process so diverse; we want to give people a slice of that. Also, it is the first heavily televised parliamentary election.

So how is the competition?
Competition is good, strong. But we don't believe in competing. We are looking at the election, the way a voter looks at the election. We want to help them make a more informed choice.

Since it is the first time that the channel would be covering the parliamentary election, how did you go about grooming the journalists?
In a news channel, there is no specific need to groom the journalists for an election. Political coverage is our bread and butter. Also, the assembly elections in November-December were actually the dry runs. Star News has done a lot of its progression around the assembly election; whether in terms of concept or resources or organisation of production like graphics, the foundation was laid. So when I came in the middle of February, I found that preparation had already been done, I just needed to take the baton forward. The Star News journalistic team is a sound team and we have some real experienced people on air and off air.

Being a mentor to the journalist team, is there a list of do's and don'ts that you lay down?
Not really. But during elections, the environment is more competitive. Also with the viewers getting mature by the day, the journalists need to work towards improving reports and that is where my role comes in. I have asked my anchors to constantly monitor every bit of political development in the country. To make the task easier, we have divided the entire work force into functional units, each looking after specific programmes, for more cohesive and focused responses.

My job, as the team leader, is to constantly review and interact with the team and see where we need to pull up our socks or refocus our attention. Ours is a very open system, everybody can pitch in their ideas, and wherever a little sharpening is needed, we do it.

What is the unique thing that you have to offer, especially in your election coverage? What would you like to have established with the election coverage?
Star News is a very youthful channel, and it has set new standards of coverage in many directions. Our motto is viewers before anything else. So far, the elections coverage has been done from the point of view of the political leaders. Our focus is very clearly the people. That is one big difference.

By the end of the election coverage, we expect that we would have contributed towards better understanding of the Indian political process and the Indian democracy. If we succeed in doing that, then we would have got in a very committed set of viewers who would trust the channel for explaining politics and political process both in a language and from a perspective that they find useful.

And how exactly would you go about doing that?
We take any event happening, deconstruct it, analyse it, give the ramifications and leave the viewers to decide. We don't want to tell them whether a party is better or a politician is worse. We just want to show every little side, unknown facets, and news that other media gloss over. We just want to investigate, dig and present the whole spectrum. And then, Indian television viewers are mature enough to make up their minds.

Is this approach incidentally because the target viewers belong to SEC A, B, C groups?
No. It is irrespective of that.

Does TV journalism have an edge over print?
To a great extent, yes. In print, it is the word as understood and expressed by the writer that people see, so they have only his word to go by. TV gives you the word, the picture and the sound. The biggest strength of TV is that rather than bringing the news to viewers, it takes the viewer to the news. Audiences are transported to the spot where news is happening.

But isn't television far more superficial a medium? Owing to the constraints of the medium, you tend to skim over the news rather than offering an in-depth analysis.
I would disagree. What passes off as analysis or depth of coverage in print is actually a lot of unsubstantiated opinion and bias. In television, there are no informed sources. Also one needs to understand that TV, unlike print, is a background activity. It has to be sharp, pithy and focused. It cannot afford to go into laborious, detailed rambling descriptions, which print can.

Will the habit of reading newspapers every morning ever be replaced by switching on the television?
No, both cater to different audiences. While the national newspapers are becoming more regional, more local, TV is becoming more cosmopolitan. TV and print are not competing. Although morning is a prime time for news channels, TV is not much watched as heard in the mornings. Only if you find something interesting would you crane your neck.

TV journalism is always about being first. So how do you maintain a balance between speed and accuracy?
That is the challenge and I take pride in saying that Star News has never been wrong on that. We have been fast and we have been accurate. That comes from the training we put our journalists through, the filters we apply in the news room to insure that while we do not compromise on the speed, we do not go wrong either.

As for speed, we ensure that the journalists who are gathering the news are allowed to move fast. People who support them, are trained to work equally fast and in tandem.

What about the time during the Mumbai blasts last year where Star News initially reported that there were six blasts, where as there were only two?
That was not a mistake. Look at what happened on 9/11 in the US, figures varied from one news channel to another. When you are reporting live news, there is no way that you can verify it; you have to rely on the official source. You are not there on the location when it happened.

Star News reports were based on two authoritative sources, the cops and the eye witness. There was panic and sometimes during panic, even echoes are often mistaken for actual blasts. Also, the channel didn't say that there were six blasts in different locations; Star News said that there were six blasts on two locations.

Would you say that accuracy was compromised because of the need to be first?
There is no need to be first. Although TV news' basic philosophy is speed and to be first is a necessary condition, nobody compromises on accuracy. It is accuracy that brings you credibility.

Two or three years ago, some news channels got a couple of stories wrong. Their credibility took a beating and they haven't yet recovered from that shock. Credibility is most valuable but speed is what you are.

Doesn't television have the power to sway people's opinion?
I would like to believe that television does. It makes me feel powerful. But by saying this, I would be saying that people are incredibly stupid, which is definitely not the fact.

Even if you want to promote her candidature, you could not. Since you are governed by the election commission?
There are no EC laws to govern the news channels. Channels are governed in the same way as print is, by its own laws. To broadcast a channel, you need a license from the ministry of information and broadcasting. During that process, the channel can enter into a certain agreement, which is about journalistic integrity, fairness, and ethics, that's it.

The EC has decided to assume big authority, but it has none. EC's mandate is very simple - hold free and fair elections that's as far as the Indian government allows...