Development Journalism: Antithetical to development?

Media activism with respect to developmental issues carries an inherent contradiction: Activism in favor of development or against the developmental schemes/projects which are always wedded to conflicts with Nature/natural resources. This confusion which is so dominant even among the most knowledgeable media persons was echoed by Krishna Prasad, Editor of The Outlook , during a book launch program in Bangalore today morning.
One of his many questions with regard to development journalism was the risk of it becoming antithetical to development without which we could not have seen a KRS and the neighboring affluent regions like Srirangapattinam, Nanjangud and other regions around Mysore which now reap the benefit of the construction project.
Of course, the issue takes back to the old argument over what is development; building big dams at the cost of ecology OR the micro/organic development which many say is the most suitable for country like India. The issue also centers around similar debate over if it is justifiable to 'affect' certain number of people (like the displaced who lose their land and homes to pave way for dam and highway construction, etc.) in order to benefit certain other number of people, who generally form the majority.
These very fundamental debates over 'development' apart, the lack of understanding/confusion among the members of the media fraternity over the role the media ought to play when it comes to developmental issues is misguiding their coverage wrt development. Somehow the readers/viewers feel that there is a tendency among majority of journalists, especially young ones, for hyper-activism in issues relating to development. The readers/viewers can confidently say that if there is a report on say, a newly proposed dam in some part of the state, it is definitely against the proposed project.
And this activism sounds very similar to that of NGOs spearheaded by activists like Arundhati Roys and Medha Patkers and the motto is to oppose, oppose everything that talks about development, because it hurts ecology and the natives. One can not just jettison these arguments, of course they are really valid and are the essential questions for the human race. But, it is essential for the media to have clarity with these questions. Instead of just echoing reflecting/repeating the views of firebrand activists, the media fraternity should do some do some "limb-work" and study the issues "personally and professionally" (as Krishna Prasad put it) to see the things by themselves. Maybe, such exercises bring clarity for the arguments over perennially debated question of 'what is development'