Today’s
Newspapers in English
#newspaperinlearning
#litforlife
How
to Separate the Narrative from the Story!
‘Doing’
Literary Theory through the Daily Newspaper
8th
February 2026
Well,
three news reports on the same story, have been ‘presented’ to the
reader in today’s three reputed Newspapers in English, namely, The New
Indian Express, The Hindu, and The Times of India.
Or
rather, three distinct “narratives” of the same “story” - have
been presented.
While
the core story - a driver died after his truck fell into the sea at Chennai
Port - remains constant, the “truth” of how and why it happened shifts
dramatically depending on which report (narrative) we read.
We find that, each
of the three reports differ significantly, in their ‘narrative’ style to the story!
The New Indian Express specifically states that,
the container was transporting solar panels; returning to Tirunelveli, and also
mentions the legal specifics like BNS Sections 281 & 106 (1).
The Hindu mentions that, it was a pick-up a container;
meant for Thoothukudi.
The Times of India states that, the truck
unloaded a container; entered a restricted/unauthorised area, and claims that
workers “warned him not to proceed.”
The New Indian Express presents the narrative
frame from a labour perspective or a working-class perspective! By citing
“fatigue” and his “return journey,” it paints a picture of an overworked
driver. Also, it is the only report to cite the specific new criminal laws
(BNS), and it also cites the police, as sources.
The Hindu presents the narrative from a bureaucratic
perspective. It is quite concise and detached in its tone. Notably, it contains
a significant factual discrepancy regarding the day (Thursday vs. Saturday),
suggesting it may have been based on preliminary or unverified inputs., and
doesn’t quote or cite its sources as well.
The Times of India presents a ‘dramatic’
narrative from the corporate perspective! It uses terms like “freak accident”
and details much on the “cabin detaching.” It also introduces a “blame the
victim” narrative by stating he entered a “restricted area” despite warnings, which
contradicts the “fatigue/wrong turn” narrative of the Indian Express. It also
cites port authorities as its sources.
So why-oh-why do they carry such different / differing
views of the same news story?
In literary theory and in journalism, there
is no single, objective view from nowhere schema!
So
what then is a narrative?
In literary theory in general, and in
narratology in particular, the term narrative represents two distinct layers of
a text - the distinction between content (what happened) and form (how it is
communicated).
The story refers to the raw material of the
events in their chronological sequence. It is the timeline of actions as they
presumably happened in the fictional reality, irrespective of how the author
chooses to reveal them.
The narrative is the specific way the author or creator
chooses to present the events to the audience. This includes the ordering of
time (flashbacks, flash-forwards), the point of view, the medium (text, film,
oral), and the pacing. The structure is often non-linear or artistic!
Coming back -
Variations in the narrative might have occurred due to several
factors -
The Indian Express musta spoken to police
officers filing the FIR (hence the BNS codes). ToI likely spoke to port workers
or eyewitnesses on the ground (hence the detail about the cabin detaching and
workers warning him). The Hindu likely relied on a preliminary press release or
a brief police update!
Added, usually, it is the Editor who finally takes the
call on what is “newsworthy,” and how it has to be presented to the readers.
Hence, while, ToI prioritises the “freak” nature of the
accident to grab attention, Indian Express prioritises on the “fatigue” angle,
perhaps to highlight labour conditions. The Hindu probably doesn’t seem to
prioritise anything here. 😊
Now let’s try and look at the presentation / representation
from the viewpoint of literary theory -
Well, post-structuralists argue that a text (or
news report) does not have a fixed meaning or truth. The “signified” (the
actual accident) is obscured by the “signifier” (the words used to describe
it).
The fact that the driver is 35 in one report and 36 in
another, or that the accident happened on Thursday in one and Saturday in
another, destabilises the reader’s trust in the ‘truthfulness’ or the
‘reality’ of the presentation.
The “texts” given here to the reader prove that we cannot
access the absolute reality of the accident, only “versions” of it. That’s
because none of us saw the accident. We only see the “texts”. Therefore, for
the public, the texts are the reality. The original event has dissolved,
replaced by these three competing simulacra.
Jean Baudrillard in his seminal text titled, Simulacra and
Simulation (1981) argues that in the postmodern world, the representation of
reality replaces reality itself, which he terms the Simulacrum. And the state
of existence where this substitution is complete - where we can no longer
distinguish between the reality and the representation - is what he calls
Hyperreality.
The news report simulates a “truth” to hide the fact that
there is no single truth to be found. In essence, then, when the Simulacra (the
news reports) become more real to us than the physical event itself, we are
living in Hyperreality.
Three distinct “realities” now exist in the public
imagination. Did he die because he was tired? Or because his truck broke? Or
because he went where he shouldn’t have?
All three are now “true” in the datasphere.
The New Indian Express has written a legal/human
interest story. The Hindu has come up with an administrative report, while The Times of India has got a sensationalist feature.
This
collection of reports is a perfect example of how media does not just reflect
reality - it rather “constructs” reality for us!
Now, and finally at that, let’s do one last theoretical
“work” on the “texts”😊
Let’s for a moment try and connect the three
news reports to Catherine Belsey’s lovely book titled, Culture and the Real
(2005).
Belsey’s work focuses heavily on the Lacanian concept of
The Real - that which is outside language, unrepresentable, and traumatic.
To Belsey, culture (including news reports,
language, and art) exists to shield us from the Real, or to try and make sense
of it, even though the Real always resists symbolisation.
To Belsey then - interpreting Lacan, as a Lacanian
devotee herself – the Real is the raw, unmediated, traumatic event itself - the
physical moment the truck hit the water, the metal crushing, the water entering
the lungs, the cessation of life. This is the trauma that cannot be fully
expressed in words. It is absolute, terrifying, and resists meaning.
However, culture (journalism, language, literature) tries to
“paper” or “text” the horror of the Real by turning it into a story we can
understand by means of language.
The news reports turn the traumatic Real into a narrative.
That’s hence Belsey argues that, culture works to tame the real. By naming the driver (Muthu Marriappan), giving his age (36), and citing
the law (BNS 281), the newspapers are trying to bring the terrifying chaos of
death into the orderly world of language.
Belsey argues that culture always fails to
fully capture the Real. There is always a “gap” or a “lack” (Reminded of the
Lacanian ‘lack’, here, anybody?) 😊 where language
falls short.
When we observe carefully, we can also notice how the
reports contradict each other.
Was it Thursday or Saturday?
Was he 35 or 36?
Did the cabin detach or did he take a wrong turn?
These contradictions, to Belsey, are the fissures
where the Symbolic order fails. The “truth” of the accident escapes the
journalists. They cannot pin it down. This “slippage” of meaning (where the
signifiers don’t match the signified) is exactly what Belsey and
post-structuralists highlight.
The “Real” of the man’s death is absent; all we have are
imperfect, conflicting cultural scripts, hinting at the terrifying
“unpredictability” of the Real. That’s hence Peter Barry in his Beginning
Theory would have us believe that, ‘reality is relative!’
To sum it up then, the three news reports are in fact
cultural mechanisms attempting to “symbolise” through “language” a traumatic
event (The Real). However, their contradictions and variations prove Belsey’s
argument that, Culture can never fully grasp the Real. The “truth” of
the driver’s death is lost in the gap between the three different stories,
leaving us only with “culture” (text), not reality.
What,
then, is culture? 😉