Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: Afternoon Despatch and Courier
Date: April 07, 2006
URL: http://cybernoon.com/DisplayArticle.asp?section=fromthepress&subsection=editorials&xfile=April2006_mediawatch_standard138&child=mediawatch
If media would treat 'celebrities' as ordinary
people, journalism would have greater credibility
When will we ever have structured, mature,
objective reporting - and editorial writing? Yes, we do need heroes and we
have them in plenty in the film and sports worlds. But the trouble is that
everything that they do is so hyped-up that when they fail they get slapped
in the face in the most undignified manner.
Sachin Tendulkar's case illustrates this as
few such cases do. The media turned him into a super-hero, one who could be
trusted to hit a century in every innings in every match. As 'The Hindu' (March
21) noted this in a column, the media "turned him into a sort of superhuman
phenomenon, where none exists in the known world". The column rightly
pointed out that "at no time in his remarkable career did Tendulkar tell
us that he was immortal", but then who said that? The media, of course.
The media wants a hero every day. Dravid has
become one now. Let him do poorly at some point in time and he will get just
the kind of boos which Tendulkar received when he was out for just one run
in the third and last Test against the Brits. It is well to remember that
Bradman was out for a duck in the last match that he played. If only our media
would treat 'celebrities' as just ordinary people who have their good and
bad days, journalism would have greater credibility.
Freedom of expression?
One also expects from the media some understanding
of history and the meaning of words. When 'The Times of India' (March 11)
publishes an article by Yoginder Sikand that said that just over three years
ago "Gujarat witnesses a state-sponsored genocide that culminated in
the deaths of some three thousand Muslims, and led to a complete breakdown
of inter-community relations" one wonders whether there is anything like
editorial responsibility.
In the first place in the entire article there
was no reference to what happened in Godhra. In the second place the figure
of Muslim deaths has been deliberately raised; in the third place, it was
by no means a "state-sponsored genocide". Should an editor permit
such lies to be propagated any when anytime on grounds of freedom of expression?
One may or may not like Narendra Modi, but
some self-responsibility should be shown by editors when deliberate efforts
are made at character assassination. 'The Tribune' obviously believes that
the two coaches of the Sabarmati Express, which went on fire on 28th February
2002, had nothing to do with any Muslim conspiracy.
If one believes that one would believe anything.
'The Tribune' has accepted Justice U.C. Banerjee's report which sought to
prove that the fire was accidental, refusing to accept the fact that a Muslim
mob over 2,000 strong was seen openly to throw stones, acid bulbs, petrol
cans and fire rags at the coaches. If 'The Tribune' thinks all that is purely
imaginary, it is its business, but how ill again that adds to the paper's
credibility? In one's hatred of Modi and the Sangh Parivar if a paper says
that "questioning the competence of impartiality of Justice Banerjee
in totally unwarranted" what, then, is let of truth?
A U.P. legislator (actually he is a Minister)
announced the other day at an open public meeting that he is setting up a
contribution fund to collect Rs.51 crore as a reward for the assassination
of a Danish cartoonist who had depicted the Prophet in the poorest of tastes.
The Muslim Minister should have been hauled over the coals. But nothing of
that sort has happened.
Writing in 'The Times of India' (March 11)
columnist Jug Suraiya made an important point. "That he (the Muslim Minister)
is walking around scot-free suggests a form of self-censorship, a self-composed
timidity of response (the Hindutva brigade would call it appeasement) where
Islam is concerned", Suraiya noted, adding: "Indeed it was to protest
against precisely such self-imposed restraint vis-à-vis Islam that
the Danish publisher elected to print the cartoons which led to the conflagration!"
Suraiya wanted to know "why is Islam
so thin-skinned that it cannot take in stride the slings and arrows of sometimes
outrageous democracy and the often provocative discourse it can engender and
why must Muslims be singled out for preferential treatment in such cases?"
Hindus, of course, get angry when their gods
and goddesses are painted in indecent ways as does M.F. Hussein, but nobody
is out to kill him. What is sad is that the Muslim community has not come
forward to condemn him, in no uncertain language.
Suraiya blames the media saying that "a
large part of the problem is that it is only the radical, intolerant aspect
of Islam that is projected by the media. As he put it, "The lives and
opinions of the many millions of devout Muslims the world over who follow
their faith in consonance with the laws of the land, and indeed who condemn
the excesses of their fanatical co-religionists, don't make for headlines
or prime time news; riots, fatwas and terror attacks do". Correct.
How many newspapers, one wants to know, thus
reported that in Varanasi, Muslim women staged a dharna to protest the March
7 serial bomb blasts in the temple town's Sankat Vimochan Temple demanding
issuance of a fatwa (edict) seeking death for terrorists? The women, wearing
burqa demanded that Muslim religious leaders issue an edict against perpetrators
of terror in India and seek death penalty for them. That story should have
become lead story in every self-respecting paper.
Courageous Free Press
About the only paper to carry the news was
'Free Press Journal'. That shows how responsible our English media is. Actually
'The Free Press Journal' is among the very few English dailies that show courage
to editorially stand up to terrorists and face truth boldly.
It had the courage thus to trash the Banerjee
Commission Report (March 6) and say that the retired judge "has singularly
failed to provide a cogent explanation for the fire which consumed 59 kar
sewakas". Pointing out that "the most unfortunate fall-out of the
final Banerjee report is that it needlessly opens afresh wounds" the
paper said that the "fact that the Godhra fire led to widespread communal
rioting in Gujarat in which nearly 2,000 persons, including 300 odd Hindus,
lost their lives does not seem to be reason enough for the partisans to end
their nefarious games".
"A seemingly tailor-made report by a
retired judge, hand-picked for the job by a minister keen to burnish his pre-Muslim
image can only undermine faith in the Commission's of inquiry" the paper
added.
Actually, Justice Bannered has done worse
than undermining faith in his report. He had consciously damaged the judiciary,
which has long been known for its objectivity. His colleagues should disown
him. People are beginning to lose faith in retired judges at all levels because
of Justice Banerjee's efforts to cover up truth. The man probably either does
not know - or couldn't care less - of the damage he has wrought on his profession.
