Author:
Publication: Organiser
Date: July 2, 2006
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=137&page=15
Can't the media at least once in a while prove
to be serious and concerned with issues that matter and not with issues that
trivialise life and make people the laughing stock of the country?
Vulgarity is not news.
There is something fundamentally wrong with
our liberal, secular, Hindu intellectuals running the media, that calls for
an explanation. They seem to suffer from a fear complex that calls for analysis.
Consider this: The Pioneer (June 9) had a
full editorial on reports from Dhaka that the Khaleda Zia Government is considering
relocating the Dhakeshwari Kali Temple -the millennium-old shrine in the heart
of the Bangladesh capital that gives the city its name-somewhere else at the
suggestion of the Islamist parties that are partners in Khaleda's coalition
government.
There has not been a single voice of protest
from any English media. The only Hindu temple in the Pakistani city of Lahore
has been demolished to pave the way for construction of a multi-storeyed commercial
building. Our secularist intellectuals have again remained quiet.
Sometime ago there was a report that a temple
in Malayasia has similarly been demolished, but the reaction in India is a
resounding silence. Do we all remember an alleged documentary made by a cynical
secularist showing the alleged dismemberment of a Muslim women carrying a
baby in her womb? There was a hue and cry in the English media about the inhumanity
of Gujaratis or the Narendra Modi government.
How on earth any decent self-respecting journalist
would watch such a scene without interrupting is beyond imagination. The photographer
and the reporter standing by should have beaten up the alleged terrorist for
indulging in the most beastly criminality and forgotten about filming it.
In fact the reporter and photographer should have been sentenced to twenty
years Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for watching a killing and not attempting
to stop it. There is something beyond journalism and that is humanism. The
photographer who took pictures of the disembowelment of a woman has brought
disgrace to the profession. He doesn't deserve to be called a photo-journalist.
The usual excuse given is that it is not the
photographer's job to act as policeman. Of course, it is not. But it is a
photographer's duty to be human at all times. For any photographer to stand
by filming the disembowelment of a pregnant woman-presuming that the story
is true-without bludgeoning the murderer brings dishonour to the profession.
An issue somewhat along these lines was recently
raised in The Hindu,(June 12). The Hindu, as is by now well-known at least
to its readers, has an editorial monitor, a sort of ombudsman, who listens
to readers' views on what the paper prints and publishes and both the views
and his comments thereon are published by that distinguished paper. All credit
to it.
Recently, the question arose about the coverage
of suicides, especially of farmer in the villages and of students following
publication of examination results. The problem facing reporters was: should
suicides be covered at all? If it is a public figure who has committed suicide,
that's quite another story. But why report the suicide of one farmer or ten
farmers? Is it the number that counts? As H.Narayan, The Hindu ombudpsman
wrote: "Even when writing about a large number of suicides of one group,
where does one draw the line?" The Hindu used to have a policy of not
reporting suicides by students after examination results were announced, fearing
that such reporting may act as a trigger for more such suicides. That was
a right policy, but Shri Narayan says that it is "no longer feasible".
He also quotes Dr Lakshmi Vijayakumar, Trustee
of Sneha that total blackout of suicide stories is not desirable and what
is needed is responsible reporting of this "multi-dimensional malaise
with social, religious and cultural reasons". The point to remember is
not to sensationalise suicide reports. Incidentally, Shri Narayan quotes comprehensive
guidelines issued to journalists by the World Health Organisation (WHO) through
its Suicide Project (SUPRE) and also by the Presswise Trust-a UK based media
ethics charity organisation. The American Society for Suicidology and the
US Department of Health Centre for Disease Control have also evolved jointly
a set of rules which are worth reproduction.
The point is made that there are three ways
of covering suicide: in graphical detail (as many newspapers in the US still
do), not reporting at all and reporting cases only when they are genuinely
newsworthy-the last being a thoroughly subjective approach. Who is to decide
that a particular suicide is newsworthy?
According to the Presswise Trust "reporting
in an appropriate, accurate and potentially helpful manner by which an enlightened
media can prevent tragic loss of lives by suicides". The WHO points out
that reporting in an appropriate accurate and helpful manner too should be
acceptable except that, as it sees the situation "it is not coverage
per se, but certain types of news coverage that increases suicidal behaviour".
This is a very debatable issue.
Suggestions made by these top organisations
include the following: Avoid sensationalism and a description of the method
of suicide; do not offer simplistic knee-jerk explanations such as attempt
to cope with personal problem, point out that the cause may be not a recent
event, but complex factors; take account of the impact on the families and
show sympathy, understanding discretion; describe the consequences of non-fatal
attempts as a deterrent; and provide links to a helpline. Very commendably,
when examination results were about to be announced this year, The Hindu ran
two features on the work in Chennai of Sneha which has been active for two
decades offering support to the suicide-prone. You might call it responsible
journalism. Suicides in recent time have been taking place with painful and
shocking regularity and there must be some way in reducing the number and
a heavy responsibility therefore rests on the media, both at the national,
regional or local level. What else is social service? And what else is the
relevance of the media if not to encourage the growth of a healthy and both
economically and mentally strong society? And what a shame is it for the media
to highlight the case of an indecently dressed actress who goes as an invitee
to a birthday party and get bussed by the birthday boy let us say somewhat
lustily-and then complains? Who will believe such a story? For all, one knows
it was a preplanned action intended to draw media attention. Sadly one often
notices that the media turns out to be such suckers. Can't the media at least
once in a while prove to be serious and concerned with issues that matter
and not with issues that trivialise life and make people the laughing stock
of the country.? Vulgarity is not news.
