Famous for his liberal whimsicality, short attention spans, distaste for politicians, and gift for stirring lively debate, Vinod Mehta has been an iconic editor. Looking back at 10 years of Outlook, he speaks with disarming candour to Shoma Chaudhury

We make mistakes in our lives. In Outlook there have been mistakes. Our Ayodhya cover would rank as one of our biggest mistakes. We also got our Gujarat poll cover completely wrong

You had a reputation for leaving publications. With Outlook you’ve clocked 10 years. Why?

My reputation for being a hit and run, boy scout editor was underserved. I was with Debonair and Sunday Observer for 7 years each. It’s only between ‘88 and ‘91 that I had a bad run. I’m basically a reasonable person. My fights with proprietors have all been pretty civil and they’ve always been over editorial. When a proprietor has too many interests, it becomes impossible to function. I asked one proprietor to give me two or three names who were no go in the paper, but the list he made was endless. In this case, the present proprietor — Rajan Raheja — is such a self-effacing man and has so few friends I can work virtually unhindered.

What about Outlook’s commercial success? Doesn’t that impact your editorial freedom?

I’m not saying I’m completely unhindered. But small compromises I was always prepared to make. I was not unmindful of the fact that editors have to defend proprietors’ interests.

Pankaj Mishra criticises the listings Outlook does sometimes — 10 best schools, 10 best restaurants. It’s a common criticism.

We haven’t done one in a while. I’m not happy with those covers but it’s a bit of populism. One has to do it.

What are the strengths of Outlook?

Openness. Of course, within a certain ideological framework (laughing). I don’t deny that. We are against communalism, aggressive Hindu nationalism. But within that framework, I run an open magazine. When I don’t get dissent, I invite the disagreeing voice. After we carried Arundhati Roy’s essay on dams, I met George Verghese. He wanted to write a counter. I latched on to the idea. Both the critical pieces in the anniversary issue were invited.

And Outlook’s weaknesses?

(Long silence) For one, our follow up. Like everybody else, we go to a certain place in the news, cover it, then don’t go back. Sometimes we also don’t go into details; we are in a big hurry. Sometimes, quite frankly, there are marketing pressures to do a certain kind of story. Our sex cover, for instance. That sort of thing sells extremely well. The other weaknesses is inherent in the formula of the newsmagazine. It’s a very boring formula.

What has been your darkest moment in journalism? The raid on your proprietors under the BJP…

Yes, that really threw me.

Did it blunt your teeth?

See, Raheja is very nice. The first thing I asked him is, do you want my resignation, he said no, but get the hounds off. Those were very dark days. I had to go to these politicians. Brajesh Mishra, Yashwant Sinha, Atal Behari Vajpayee — I didn’t go to Ranjan Bhattacharya. We knew who was doing it. The very people who were raiding told us whose instruction it was being done on. It was no secret, but I still had to go and listen to them saying, “Really? This is happening? But we believe in free press…” I remember Brajesh Mishra gave me a big speech about how he thought Outlook was a great magazine, and I know he’s the person who’s behind the raids yet I had to listen to him and say yes, yes, I have no doubt. It was the worst moment in my career when I had to ask these guys to lay off Raheja. A 1000 people had come to raid us — of course Tehelka knows better than anyone what harassment is. So on one hand I was doing that, on the other, for the next 12 to 18 months, I didn’t know how to cover stories. People would come up with good story ideas — the BJP was still in power — sometimes there were stories on the same people, or other characters, but my reaction became very defensive. I think I may have actually killed a couple of stories at that time. It was a very unhappy period — asking for favours and not knowing how to politically run the magazine.

Your Ayodhya cover raised a lot of eyebrows — the story which claimed your correspondent had found signs of a temple at the spot. What would you say about that?

We make mistakes in our lives. In Outlook there have been mistakes. Our Ayodhya cover would rank as one of our big mistakes. We got our Gujarat poll also completely wrong.

In fact did your coverage of Gujarat suffer after the raids?

Not so much Gujarat, but our criticism of the BJP and the PM’s office certainly suffered. I didn’t know how to handle it.

You mentioned the newsmagazine formula. Why would you not break it and try something new?

I’m very scared because nobody has touched it. time, Newsweek — no one has touched the formula. For example, when I carry Arundhati Roy’s pieces — 10-11 pages sometimes — I am extending the boundary. No international newsmagazine would do that. It’s a very tight formula and since it’s working for us I’m too scared to muck around with it too much.

Is it all only about length, why not fresh topics?

I’m not writing for Jamia academics or only core readers. That would constitute just 30 percent of our circulation. I’m very scared of losing the other 70 percent. I get feedback all the time from marketing — don’t put Mayawati on the cover, don’t put Mulayam. Do softer features. So you are always being pushed. Not to upset 60 -70 percent of the people.

Those were very dark days. I had to go to Brajesh Mishra, Yashwant Sinha, Atal Behari Vajpayee and listen to them saying, ‘Really? But we believe in free press…’ It was the worst moment when I had to ask these guys to lay off Raheja

Are we losing the balance in trying to make news sexy?

Yes, the media is obsessed with a fake, false India. We cater to an urban audience — it would be stupid to forget I sell only 10 percent in mofussil India — but to believe urban India is disinterested in the rest of India is the easy way out. If they’re disinterested, we have to force them to be interested. But people are just getting beguiled by ‘shining India’ — forgetting that one of the most important roles of the media is to monitor public performance, be a kind of audit. Forty percent Indians earn less than a dollar a day. One has to constantly hammer home this point that we’re a fake superpower.

But if it weren’t Arundhati making issues like dams and poverty “sexy”, would you carry stories on them?

I agree with you, possibly we don’t do enough. I’m prepared to accept we should do more. But we certainly do more than others. We cannot be accused of not doing at all. But that is why it’s important to have young people with social conscience on your team constantly reminding you these things are happening.

What are the biggest pitfalls in media?

Too much cosying up to politicians and power. Access is seen as a very big thing. But access should not come by being close to power, it should come because the powerful feel they need you as the editor of a paper. In Delhi, the whole culture of sycophancy is at its worst. In 30 years of journalism I have never seen the benefits of being close to power. You think you are getting benefits, but the buggers are only planting stories on you. I think this whole trend started with Girilal Jain.

What impact has television had on media?

I don’t want to say too much, but TV has done more damage than good. Obviously there is some good, you reach everywhere, disasters get covered better. But professional practices in general have been harmed. I’ve identified the reason for that. No TV channel has any editors. Their reporters are kings, they can say anything. They have producers, but nobody who can tell their reporters this is a bad story, take it back. In fact, the electronic media has become a bit of a joke when it comes to breaking stories and exclusives. How can you get a Sushma Swaraj exclusive?! She’s the BJP spokesperson, she’s in the business of talking!

Can you comment on your contemporaries? India Today? ht? toi?

How can I talk about India Today? People will say my views are motivated. But I’m very happy with the way things are at India Today, (laughing ironically) that’s all I can say.

Ha! Can I quote you on that?

Ya... I don’t want things to change there at all. ht? I’d say it’s an improved paper. Even toi is an improved paper. ht jolted toi into improving. But see, what I want to say is no city in the world has as many papers coming out of it as Delhi. New York has one broadsheet, one tabloid; Washington one broadsheet; London 2-3; Boston one, Chicago one. This whole idea of 12 papers, and 3-4 big ones coming out of one city is crazy. Many papers in Delhi are published for the wrong reasons.

What about DNA?

It’s too early, but I think DNA has realised there’s no magic marketing mantra. Forget editorial, some marketing magic will get you three lakh copies. They’ve been disabused of that notion. They thought sending distributors to Chicago or massage parlours in Bangkok would be enough, but in 30 years I’ve not yet known a single paper that has survived on marketing alone. DNA is a salutary lesson in that respect.

What are the big stories in Indian journalism for you?

The biggest story in Indian journalism is the Tehelka story — undoubtedly. Then the match-fixing story, toi’s Mayawati-Taj story. The Indian Express story on the Dubey guy. But if you are a publication that says once in 60 days I’ll produce a big bang and rest of the time anything goes, then the reader can say, ok, I’ll buy the paper once in 60 days. I think breaking stories is very important but a certain editorial excellence has to be maintained. At Outlook, we’ve never been obsessed with the big bang, for us what’s more important is consistent editorial excellence.