A bustling media house , where Vikram, a seasoned editor and mentor, sits with Veda, a young journalist eager to learn about ethical governance. Intern Sowndarawali, sharp and practical, occasionally chimes in with her grounded perspective. They’re discussing how the Bhagavad Gita’s holistic perspective can guide their media house’s decision-making.
Vikram, I’ve been reading about corporate governance, and it’s all so dry—numbers, frameworks, compliance. How does the Bhagavad Gita fit in? Krishna’s message to Arjun seems so… spiritual.
Vikram: Lovely question, Veda. The Gita is not just spiritual, but it’s practical. Krishna teaches Arjuna to see that all beings are interconnected and to act for the greatest good, not personal gain. In governance, that means considering the desires of all—shareholders, employees, readers, even society, and measuring if we are building a story that reflects the big picture. As a media house, are we even thinking about the implications of our stories on those groups?
Veda: Hmm, the big picture… So, you mean we can’t just think about impressions or clicks? What do we know about how we’re considering all stakeholders?
Sowndarawali (interjects, holding notepad): Sorry, Vikram sir, Veda, sir. Just an example. Last week, we published that exposé on factory pollution. It received lots of clicks, but then the factory closed, and the workers lost their jobs. Did we consider those workers? Sure, we did help the environment, but what about their families? That’s what you mean by stakeholders, right?
Vikram (nods head): Right, Sowndarawali! That’s a great example. Ours was story was dharmic; we revealed environmental pollution and that’s good, but we didn’t consider everyone, especially the workers. To govern holistically means to deliberately consider everyone the impact of your work stands to affect: the readers, the workers, the environment and even the advertisers. Veda, what do you think? What might have been an alternative way to approach that story?
Veda: Well we could’ve looked for ways to push for solutions—i.e. instead of going after the company we could have implored them to clean up the pollution. But Vikram, it’s almost impossible to satisfy everyone. What do you do when you’re sometimes forced to pick a side?
Vikram: Remember that Krishna’s advice to Arjuna was to act with complete detachment from the outcome—he was encouraging Arjuna to focus on which action was right; there was no expectation to push for a specific outcome. In governing, this means creating processes for everyone, or wherever possible, instead of allowing decision making frameworks to default to the loudest voices in the room—like shareholders and advertisers. To illustrate this further, is there any active process to ensure input from junior reporters, ad teams or the general audience? Are we potentially ignoring the voices of minority groups and small community impacts in our stories?
Sowndarawali (raising her hand): So, when we did that piece about urban development, it was all pretty much about the big builders and city planners and urban renewal. But wait; what about the slum dwellers who were displaced? I mean, I’m just an intern, but I was surprised that no one included them in the talk. Maybe we could have a feedback form on our website or speak with community representatives before posting content?
Veda: That’s a fair question, Sowndarawali. But isn’t that a lot of extra work? We’re already a stretched group. How do we include diverse voices without disruptin’ the flow?
Vikram: It’s not about creating disruption; it’s about building systems where inclusion is intended. Yoga is about integration, right? And in governance, this could mean consistent stakeholder meetings or having a diverse editorial board. For instance, some media houses establish community advisory panels to mirror their readership. There are also a lot of statistical data we could use: surveys or social media metrics to understand what our audience cares about. Veda, which frameworks do you think we could use to assess decisions on a higher, societal level?
Sowndarawali: So, you’re saying we should be open about why we pick our stories? Yeah, I get that. My buddy at this NGO keeps raving about something called a decision matrix—basically, you write down everyone who’s affected, score how much each option messes with or helps them, and then, boom, you pick the one with the least drama for everyone. Maybe we could try that out? Like, for our next big story, just scribble up a chart: readers, our team, advertisers, even society at large, and see who wins or loses depending on what we publish.
Vikram: Honestly, Sowndarawali, that’s genius. A decision matrix isn’t just geeky—it’s a solid way to actually see all those moving pieces Krishna’s always on about. And, hey, it keeps us from just following our gut or playing favorites. We could totally take it for a spin with our next investigative story. Veda—anything on our plate right now that could use this trick?
Veda: Oh, big time. We’re still arguing about whether to go ahead with that series on gig workers. It’d call out a lot of shady stuff, but let’s be real—some of those delivery apps could bail on their ads. If we matrix this out, maybe we’d see the real impact on workers, readers, and, yeah, our bank account. Who knows? Might even find a way to tell the story without nuking our revenue.
Vikram: Right? That’s the Gita in a nutshell—see the whole picture, don’t just wing it. Running a newsroom isn’t about keeping everyone grinning. It’s about smart, gutsy choices that actually matter in the long run. Sowndarawali, got any mic-drop wisdom to wrap this up?
Sowndarawali (grinning): Just this—Krishna didn’t tell Arjuna to chicken out, he told him to do the right thing. We’re not gonna please the crowd every time, but if we actually think about everyone involved and use simple stuff like a matrix, maybe our calls won’t just look good—they’ll feel right, too. Oh, and here’s the kicker: “Balance isn’t slicing up the same old pie—it’s figuring out how to bake a bigger one for all of us.”
Comments are closed.