Twelve years ago when I passed out of journalism school....The only thing I remembered as a cub reporter were the five Ws and one H of a news report. These fives were: Who, What, When, Where and Why... And the lone H meant: How" The pundits of journalism those days believed that for a news report to be authentic and complete the reporter must follow this basic rule of 5W and one H.

I still remember my first assignment was for the Pioneer. My editor assigned me the task of filing a report on a flyover which was under construction. Its construction caused a lot of resentment in the saffron brigade as a temple was proposed to be razed to the ground to make way for the flyover. It was a straight forward story which any sensible reporter could have completed and filed the evening. But it took me more than six days to complete the story.

Day one went on discovering: The Who.

Day two went for: The What

Day three for: When

Day four for: Where:

Day five for: Why

Day six for: How.

And on the seventh I filed my copy.

Seven days of hard work and like any other young reporter I expected my editor to give me a by-line and slot it as a page one anchor for the next day edition. But that did not happen. To my shock and surprise the report was torn and thrown into the dust bin.

"What is wrong with my report, I argued with my editor. "All the facts are correct and I have done a lot of investigation!"

Pat came the reply, "You remembered the thumb-rule of journalism but forgot to apply basic reasoning."

My editor was right.

I interviewed the local priest and some Bajrang Dal activists who said if the government wants to shift their deity it should first give adequate compensation to them. I assumed that the temple was being shifted. I did not bother to find out that the design of the flyover was altered and now there was no need to shift the temple.

I had committed what is commonly known as the post hoc fallacy.

We often assume that if an event follows another event it has happened because of the former.

For example, if we catch cold we take lemon tea everyday and the cold goes away in a week. We tend to believe that having lemon tea cured us.

We see someone driving a luxury car and immediately jump to a conclusion how rich the guy is. We simply forget that he or she could only be a driver.

Well known economist Paul Samulson says, "If an event B comes after event 'A' we often assume that 'B' has come because of A."

In my case as the temple priest was demanding adequate compensation incase the temple was shifted I quickly assumed that temple was going to be shifted.

Post Hoc Fallacy is one of the most common and serious fallacies that we journalists commit every day. I will give you a few examples:

For example; Sachin Tendulkar scores three successive ducks in a series. Subsequently he is dropped for the next series due to knee injury. Sports journalists believe the reason for his being dropped from the team is bad form.

There are speculations in Bollywood about Abhishek/Ash marriage. At this moment Megastar Amitabh Bacchan goes to Varanasi for a puja with son Abhishek and Aishwariya. Film pundits cry: "they are definitely going to get married there."

Amidst speculations of President's rule in Uttar Pradesh, Governor T.V Rajeshwar goes to New Delhi to spend weekend with his family. Political journalists are quick to assume that the Governor will meet Home minister Shiv Raj Patil.

Crime reporters who get used to see murders every day always use the phrase 'died under mysterious circumstances' even if a person commits suicide.

The political journalists had been witnessing hung assembly after every poll since 1991 in Uttar Pradesh. So when it came to predict the 2007 elections even our experienced poll pundits (not to mention their poll surveys) quickly predicted a hung assembly. (Eventually all were proved wrong).

Thus very often even experienced journalists get trapped in the Post Hoc Fallacy; many a times out of sheer ignorance or sometimes simply try to overlook it on purpose. There are innumerable examples of the ghost stories that are often brazenly put on air by these 'rationalists' from the fourth pillar of democracy who are quick to give forth these arguments: "News is News" ; "let the public decide what they want to watch" ; or "Pictures tell the whole story."

But in my view pictures, no matter how powerful their impact may be, never tell the truth. In fact they tell only the half-truth.

For example: Often we see a child run over by a truck. Angry public beats up the driver, often sets the truck on fire and put up a road blockade. Because such incidents happen quite often we lose no time and blame the truck driver for reckless driving; sometimes even go a step further and blame the chief minister for the incident! We seldom bother to find out whether the incident happened because the child miscalculated the speed of the truck coming towards him and risked crossing the road. We never teach our children to cross the road and keep on blaming the faulty system (which is an easier way out).

In today's mad frenzy for news (read breaking news) it is indeed very difficult for a reporter not to be carried away by emotions (its true TV relies more on emotions while print more on rationalism) or for a news editor to keep playing a pin ball game in his computer while dozens to TV screens keep splashing a news which is blown out of proportion.

I have heard that a number one TV channel has hired a senior editor just to go through the footage sent by stringers across the country. The editor's only task is to decide: "kya hum footage se khel sakte hain" (can we play with this footage)."

I will give you one more example why the camera cannot supersede a reporter's eye. During the all important Agra Summit when all the reporters chased officials for their sound bite; a reporter of a TV channel broke the news much before others that talks between Mushrraf and Vajpayee had failed. When asked by the anchor how he came to know others he replied that he read the body language of the officials who looked a little disappointed and restless and quickly picked that something had gone wrong. I don't think any camera has been invented so far which is programmed to read human emotions; cameras can record 'where' the event occurred but it should be left best to the reporter to decide 'why' it occurred.

So if in future if a Neta gives lectures on morality will we jump to a conclusion: "This man will do something""

Or if a person gives lectures on ethics of journalism will we simply say: "This guy is a complete professional""