 |
||
|
||
|
||
At its annual debate organised by
The Telegraph in Jamshedpur a couple of years ago, Saugata Roy of the Trinamool
Congress likened the press to the Sacred Bulls of Varanasi. They are well
known in the narrow lanes leading to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, flanked
on either side by tiny shops selling religious artifacts, handicrafts,
toys and flowers. The bulls are large, and have huge horns and single minded
destinations in the pursuit of which none can interfere with them. They
ram into the shops, overturn its wares, ruin its owner's businesses and
proceed to the next victim who happens to take their fancy. At times sheer
whimsicality spurs them to knock over a passing cyclist. Since these bulls,
decked in cloth, smeared with auspicious colours and embellished with bells,
flowers and necklaces are considered holy and therefore beyond reproach,
the wrack and ruin that they bring about is borne with silent despair.
Currently there is a debate on
about the commercialisation of the media. Alongside is an accusation that
the Government is acting in a vindictive manner against media persons who
expose the wrongdoings of people in high places. The latter also needs
closer examination since there is hype with a multiplier effect which enables
serious aberrations committed by certain sections of the press to go unchallenged
for the fear of offending it. However, without pointing out the follies
and the less-than-noble methods employed by an increasing section of the
media, no institution or individual can save itself from unwarranted destruction.
The Government was accused by sections of the media of incompetence when it gunned down terrorists at Akshardham Temple in Gujarat. There was hype about a "witness" after the terrorist shoot out at Ansal Plaza in New Delhi. When he was found to lack credibility the matter was quietly dropped leaving the reader wondering whether the whole story was a shocker, an entertainer or a genuine expose. Should the press inform or confuse; should it entertain or educate, especially in security related matters? Undermining the credibility of Government action in sensitive situations is quite different from exposing wrongdoing when credible evidence is available.
A brief look at the manner in which the press deals with public individuals and whether this adds to the credibility that politics must retain for democracies to survive, or for India to gain respect in various fields, is as important as the issue of increasingly advertisement dominated policies in the media. People in public life, whether in sports, cinema, politics or officialdom have become targets of denigration and negative comment motivated not always by the love of truth but for reasons ranging from promoting rival interests, callous sensationalism, a cynical attitude towards decency and accuracy, personal animosities of some editors and columnists, and the lack of time or interest in verifying or analysing material.
Suspected police officer Ravi Kant Sharma's wife had only to point a finger of guilt at Mr Pramod Mahajan to set the press after him for many days. Will this not encourage any accused person to mount allegations against high profile people in order to deflect public suspicion? Should it receive passing mention or a media trial, or will someone in the press take the trouble of gathering evidence to support it? A supposedly intimate liaison in the lives of civil servants in Chandigarh brought out a wholly unwarranted and untrue comment by a columnist in The Pioneer about the private lives of political figures. Compelling persons, especially women, in public life to repeatedly deny gossip is no different from expecting Muslims to demonstrate their patriotism at every step.
Sunita Rani, who lost her gold medals after being wrongly accused of doping lamented after she was cleared that no one stood by her except her family. The press printed all kinds of accusations without checking the facts or giving prominence to her denials. Were the accusations more interesting than the denials? Does a person in her position lose her basic rights in the name of the freedom of expression of the press? Regrettably, a situation has arisen that at times when letters to the editor arrive on news desks, they are relegated to the dustbin if a suitable line is not followed, denying others the freedom that the press treasures for itself.
Sunita Rani's experience points to the fact that in our society when allegations are made, even those who know better choose to remain silent. It is because this silence will harm the fundamental rights of others that even victims must exercise the right to speak at the cost of being accused of self-defence. If no one speaks up, media trials will take place unchallenged.
(To be continued)
=============================
Title: Presumption
of guilt
Author: Jaya Jaitly
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: March 27, 2003
The case of cricketer Ajay Jadeja is more convoluted. When the Income Tax raids were conducted at many cricket players' houses, it was claimed in newspapers and magazines that Jadeja had houses abroad, been gifted his car by an unknown bookie, and that his annual income was eight crore rupees. The Income Tax Department later found no truth in any of these stories, but this did not warrant publication.
The CBI had been asked to inquire into accusations of match-fixing in cricket after some garbled and edited tapes were made by none other than the famous Tehelka heroes with the help from a discarded cricketer. A preliminary inquiry was conducted and the issue of 55 phone calls having been made to Jadeja by a supposed bookie (whom no one has heard from again), before a match in Guwahati was highlighted on the front pages.
The fact that Jadeja's mobile phone service did not extend to Guwahati and that for a call to be proven as materialised, the telephone bills of both persons have to be produced, never occurred to the investigative minds. The fact that Jadeja was the best performer in the two matches that were supposedly fixed did not seem to matter. Heads had to roll once the media trial was on despite the fact that no team- mate deposed against them and no description of how matches can be fixed has ever been spelled out even by experts. The CBI report was leaked and screaming headlines said "Fifty five calls from a bookie" (The Statesman) and later "Jadeja a liar and cheat: Madhavan" (The Asian Age).
The BCCI and the Government claim that media pressure forced the release of the CBI report and the five-year ban on Jadeja. Neither did Mr Madhavan, the inquiry officer for the BCCI, nor the press ever consider Jadeja's detailed denials of match-fixing nor did anyone bother to read the CBI report's conclusion that no case was made out. Only a supposed "nexus-with-bookies" theory hung on a flimsy thread. No separate investigation by the press on these issues took place.
However, recently, the Economic Times made a strange analogy between this writer and cricket player Ajay Jadeja. While supporting his desire to play cricket again it asked why the rule book is only thrown at cricketers while politicians like his mother-in-law are allowed to carry on "politicking".
The presumption of guilt in both cases without any due process of law being applied or the results of an inquiry awaited is typical of the new abandon with which the media sits in judgment on individuals apart from demonstrating a bias against politicians as being inherently unworthy. Should everyone against whom unproven allegations are made remain idle or change professions till proved innocent? In this case, if there was no crime made out, no bookies publicly produced or punished for match fixing, no illegal or unaccounted financial gains found in the cricket player's accounts, and no matches proven as lost because of him colluding with bookies, how and why punishment was accorded should have been of interest to the press.
The press claims to be the guardian of transparency and rectitude. Natural justice should mean that if there has been no crime there can be no punishment but this does not apply in the case of media trials. It presumes that a person is guilty till proved innocent. This is still contrary to law, the Constitution and human rights in our country. If a judicial body declares a person not guilty because the process of finding him guilty was "illegal and against the principles of natural justice", editorials and articles are still published saying this is not enough proof of innocence. If presspersons choose to accuse individuals inspite of the legal position being otherwise, or even while inquiries are still in progress, the unjust public vilification of a person continues.
In a signed article in The Asian Age, in December 2002, its editor Mr MJ Akbar, writing about fundamentalism said: "When a modern 'liberal' distorts the privilege of freedom of speech and extends it into slander, he too becomes a fundamentalist. When he converts the right to expression into a right to abuse, he too becomes a fundamentalist". Will the high priests of the press today stop and look at themselves in the mirror and judge whether, in the atmosphere of growing fundamentalism across the world, they too are not taking on the same role?
(To be concluded)
|
||
|
||
|
||