0
The last few days have been fairly excruciating, to say the least. But a perverse culture of voyeurism, perpetuated by the hysterical electronic press corps, is poised to become the greatest tragedy of these times. It is a ‘watch dog’ that is turning on us and on the values of progress and protection.
From callous and rampant speculation over individual upheavals to the cold blooded, almost savage, coverage of the colossal Bhoja Air catastrophe, it has been all about graphic, vicarious coverage. The macabre footage was littered with charred bodies and body parts; detailed coverage of officials conducting searches for identification documents of victims and ill-trained, excitable reporters shoving cameras in the faces of hapless families to ask ‘how they felt about their loss’. Clearly, the time has come for the entire media corps to indulge in some introspection with a view to develop a conscience.
In this context, the plane crash is a symptom of a malignant society. Hence, the current raging debate cannot be allowed to centre on an isolated tragedy or the television channel that was the most graphic of them all. It must target the core predicament — a media that panders to an already voyeuristic social reality. The fact that there was negligible consideration for mourners, under-age viewers or for the consequences of such shocks is a malaise in itself.
“My mother suffered a minor heart attack and her blood pressure shot up when a relative called to inform us that my brother was no more,” says a sobbing Sadia. Then another lady, in the throes of hysteria, expressed complete disbelief at not just her family’s fate but also at the fact that “people cannot be protected from the media as it comes flooding in so brutally.” “I lost one brother-in-law in the Air Blue crash and another one in Bhoja Air. My elderly parents saw it all and we didn’t get a chance to break it to them,” laments Laila.
Disasters and personal loss is hardly the stuff of Reality TV and simply cannot be treated as fodder for supposed ‘enactments’. A particular channel actually had the gall to advertise ‘exclusive and special’ coverage of this misfortune, flouting all ethics of the Fourth Estate in the ghastly name of ratings — a clear result of turning true tragedy into a pawn in the game of ruthless competition. Hence, investigative journalism whereby significant issues such as corruption, political scandals, breach of national security, are exposed with an aim to educate the public and castigate criminals is a dying genre, overshadowed by this kind of demented hyperbole.
Another animal that is an uncontrollable one is the social media. It may be crucial to individual and societal survival as it is a means of livelihood for scores and a tremendous vehicle for the import and export of cultures, debate, information and economic activity, it is proving to be lethal on an insensitive individual level. On one side, personal vendettas end up in scarred lives and human credibility and on another front, the chase for a higher number of ‘followers’ and tweets that can catapult one to the hallowed zone of Twitterati (yes, it is as meaningless as that) keep all sensitivity and basic human courtesy at bay.
At the risk of stating the obvious, no media can take on the role of a spy agency, the police or the jury. Hence, today, media moguls belong in the dock. For the simple reason that careless, callous reportage or faux sting operations cannot be permitted, especially in a fractured, conflicted and bigoted society where Jerry Springer clones (read new age reporters and anchors) will only ignite prejudice, social alienation, hate crimes, coercion and other transgressions. Above all, they are guilty of pain and grief.
The end result of such misuse merely jeopardises the very bedrock of both electronic and print journalism — the freedom of expression and speech. Therefore, harm cannot be the price of good. Press freedom can only strengthen society, curtail prejudice; promote public justice and socio-economic growth. So perhaps what we need is India’s Kharak Singh vs the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, to spark a movement that demands the endorsement of the inalienable right to privacy, integral to the ideal of liberty.
This nation is a long way from being ready for supposed trials by media. They pit a free press against individual dignity. The journey towards basic sensitivity for the citizenry and societal norms must begin with an insightful, aware treatment of events and people. And constructive re-enactments for programmes vying for ratings — there are orphaned families because their faith is not Islam; there are people who stay alive by selling their organs, there are lives lost in places of security such as a police station. Is it not time that all players in the media played out the real issues of a society in transition?
Truth and ethics cannot fester on editing floors to inflame societal sanction. Public trust must be held supreme; otherwise public interest will be little more than a cynical joke to serve commercial objectives. After all, the existence and purpose of the media rests on the very public it now abuses.
A final thought: how do authorities that still relish bans and are considering censoring ‘objectionable’ websites, intend to curtail what is fast taking on the seedy shape of ‘calamity porn’?
