What is news? At the simplest, most basic level it is a sociological phenomenon that directly or indirectly affects the lives of those who consume it, whether by reading or listening to it or watching it. News can change with time, context and geography. What is newsworthy in one location or in a given framework may not be in another.For example, 35 years ago the fact that Dhirendra Brahmachari, Indira Gandhi's favourite yoga guru, was given a regular slot on Doordarshan was big news. It was all over the front pages. Today, it would not even be a single-column item. Dhirendra Brahmachari is long dead and forgotten.News is value-neutral. It has little to do with the morality of the person making news and whether you agree with him or not. A blockbuster event involving the Dalai Lama could be as deserving of coverage and make as much news as a blockbuster event involving Hafeez Saeed. Never mind if one is an embodiment of virtue and the other a terror mastermind.It is vital to keep this background in mind while debating whether the Vijay Dashami address of Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the RSS, was worthy of news coverage or not. Mr Bhagwat, like previous RSS chiefs, gives an annual address on Vijay Dashami. As the head of a large social organisation, which is associated with a major political party, his address is always of news interest.In times when the BJP is in power in New Delhi, it is worthy of exponentially greater coverage and news interest. As such, the curiosity about and news value of the RSS chief's Vijay Dashami speech would be more in 2014 or 2015 than in say 2010 or 2011, when the BJP was not in office.The RSS is an organisation and the RSS chief is an individual with influence over the political party that runs the government of India. A speech of this nature could offer clues as to pressures and concerns that may affect policies and approaches of the government. This has nothing to do with whether one likes or dislikes the RSS or supports or opposes the BJP.All this is not a deep and recondite discovery; it is a plain fact. It explains why a number of privately-run news channels exercised news judgement and covered Mr Bhagwat's speech live. If Doordarshan News, the state-run news channel, exercised the same news judgement and also covered Mr Bhagwat's speech live, precisely what did it do wrong? Should it have ignored news?Consider an analogy. The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation organises a National Convention on Livelihood and Development and invites Rahul Gandhi to address it. If this convention were to be held in December 2014, with the Congress in opposition and down to 44 Lok Sabha seats, it would have a relatively minor importance and news-worthiness. If this hypothetical convention had been held in December 2009, with a Congress prime minister in South Block, it would have acquired a much greater salience and would have had television cameras thronging and TRP meters rising.As such, the issue of Doordarshan News telecasting Mr Bhagwat's speech live is scarcely controversial or reflective of "naked state majoritarianism", as an excitable intellectual put it. What is worthy of assessment is the design of the news programme and of the coverage. Should Doordarshan News merely have shown the entire speech live or should it have followed it, even interspersed it, with commentary and analyses? What of the content of the speech? Was there any attempt to decode it and point to differences in nuance and perception, if any, with statements and policies of the Narendra Modi government?

All of these would have been meaningful endeavours on the part of critics and analysts. Alas, they need effort. Why bother when it's so easy to cry "Fascism!" - and demand free speech must be upheld, even if this means the RSS chief must not be heard.