Today, when we are celebrating the 69th Independence Day, a substantial and influential chunk of intelligentsia is engrossed in constructing a narrative replete with psychotic trepidation. The arguments are so compelling that even a section of the media unwittingly peddles the malicious gossip. By the time a counter narrative emerges, it is too late for ‘gullible' journalists, whose minds have been conditioned to think only in a particular way, to have a second thought
Over a decade ago, while studying at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, we were trained in achieving the ethical ideals of journalism; that is, to ensure factual reporting with an aim of educating or informing the general masses, to scrutinise the activities of those in power and authority, to be sensitive when reporting or writing about the victims of natural or human tragedies, and finally to remain unbiased. These canons of journalism were formulated to keep media organisations accountable to the public who rely on journalists to report the truth. I remember being told that one of great achievements of our working democracy is “free, plural and vigorous” press.
Reality check
However, the reality is starkly different. The way news organisations and media persons conduct themselves, it seems the fine line between political activism and journalism is eroding fast. One can argue that there are compelling reasons for this inevitable change: unlike in the distant past, for example in the Gandhian era, journalism is no longer idealism, but a profession. large media organisations run for profit and naturally they are required to cater to the financial interest of their owners. The major reliable source of income for media outlets is advertising, and therefore it sometimes become impossible to defy advertisers’ prejudices. However, the problem arises when these interests become so constricting that truth is compromised.
The Indian media is often accused of being politically biased towards the Congress. But it is natural as the most of media organisations are owned by those belonging to the Congress, as their members or covert operators. Some of the greats are close relatives of top left leaders. In fact, almost all media firms are associated with some political parties. And there is no harm in that unless the allegiance becomes malevolent. For example, the great Ramnath Goenka was suppressed by the Indira Gandhi regime so much that he had to fire Arun Shourie from the Indian Express, the newspaper which had carried out an intrepid campaign against Emergency.
Recently, an “honest” State Government has resorted to blackmailing print media with threat to stop advertisements if they don’t publish the “truth”. This is a dangerous situation and if the media firms are not strong-willed, it will start a trend that will weaken journalism.
Journalists’ dilemma
The tragic story of South African photojournalist Kevin Carter is an apt example of journalists’ dilemma: to be first in reporting a tragedy or to be right. Carter was assigned the task of capturing heart-rending photographs of starvation in Sudan in March 1993. Following his job requirement to a T, he took photograph of a starving frail toddler who was struggling to approach a feeding centre when a hooded vulture landed nearby to make the child his prey. Religiously carrying out his assigned task, Carter took photograph and left the scene to an imagined consequence. He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the photograph. But three months later, Carter committed suicide out of remorse: he was not allowed to touch the child for fear of transmitting disease. His suicide note, as reported by The life and Death of Kevin Carter, Time magazine, on September 12, 1994, said:
“I'm really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist... depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners."
Carter’s suicide shows the human side of him, but his decision to capture the starving girl instead of providing her help must have weighed heavily on him as a photojournalist.
It is for a journalist to think and decide whether (s)he is a human first or a professional first. The recent story of CNN chief health correspondent Sanjay Gupta can be an eye-opener. Sanjay Gupta, who also happens to be a celebrated neurosurgeon, triggered a major ethical dilemma for journalists by recording and uploading his benevolent act of performing an emergency brain surgery on an injured in the Nepal’s devastating earthquake in April, 2015. Perhaps Sanjay Gupta went a step ahead than what is required of a journalist. What he did was human, but recording his benevolent act only smacks of hypocrisy as a bid for self-promotion.
A similar situation happened in the case of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The electronic media faced the dilemma between exposing Pakistani-trained terrorists’ sinister design and protecting the strategy of our defence forces. Probably, a section of the Indian media took an “ugly” leaf from the US media which had gained confidential Pentagon papers on America’s humiliating defeat in the Vietnam War. In 1971, the two major US newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, which faced charges of divulging State secrecy by reproducing part of the Pentagon paper on the war strategy, won a case against the Nixon Administration's bid to stop publication of the paper. The historical judgment set a precedent for unbridled journalistic freedom even at the cost of national interest.
There are times when objectives of journalism conflict with journalistic ethics. As taught in journalism schools, a journalist’s primary goal is to disseminate information, it is his duty to decide whether divulging privacy and confidentiality, especially when that has potential to endanger mankind and the country, is ethical or not.
Thankfully, most recently in the Yakub Memon case, the Indian judicial system, the media and journalists discharged their duties to a great satisfaction of the masses. While the Supreme Court ensured that all legal relief gates available to the 26/11 death-row convict were open for him till a few hours before his scheduled hanging, most of the media firms played a constructive role by giving space to those trying to save Memon and those seeking justice for the victims of the 26/11.
This was required in a plural society like India, where some interest groups and political parties paint the prosecution of anti-nationals and terrorists in communal colour to whip up frenzy as they have an axe to grind for their survival.
It is high time journalists saw their commitment to journalism as a form of worship to their profession, their nation and mankind; however, it depends on time, circumstances and individual journalist to prioritise among professionalism, nationalism and humanism. Neverthless, as the general public is influenced by news reports and opinions, and they pin their faith on journalists to disseminate only truth, it is incumbent upon us to take this great responsibility in good spirit.
(The writer is News Editor & Associate Editor, The Pioneer)