I LOVE getting my students to watch a movie about journalism. I usually give them an assignment wherein I ask them to examine how or whether the film conveyed three to five lessons about journalism.

Last year, we had a lively discussion about She Said, a film based on the 2017 investigative work of two New York Times reporters who exposed Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. Their story is often seen as a starting point for the Me Too movement, though it was started by activist Tarana Burke in 2006, as a way to empower survivors of sexual abuse. More women came forward to share their stories of abuse at Weinstein’s hands.

While the class was divided on many aspects of the film, they all thought it was a validation of the power of investigative journalism. It reminded them about journalism’s basic tenet, which is to hold the powerful to account. They said the movie also demonstrated the journalistic process well, from challenges in getting sources to speak on the record, to having to wait until they had a comment from Weinstein to having to work with the paper’s editors and lawyers, who carefully vetted the story. It takes an entire team to produce solid investigative work that stands up to scrutiny — as many films about journalism have shown.

I plan to update my syllabus to include the Indian film Bhakshak, currently streaming on Netflix. It is based on a true story about a horrific incident of sexual abuse at a government-funded shelter for girls in Bihar in 2018. The case came to light after a report detailed allegations of exploitation, sexual and physical abuse of girls aged seven to 17, by the shelter’s staff and director, who was also a power-ful politician.

Journalism is ultimately about integrity.

The commitment shown by journalist Vaishali Singh and her cameraman Bhaskar Sinha to expose the corruption and abuse at the shelter is the heart of this film. (Their roles have been fictionalised in the film.) They face numerous challenges, professionally and personally, in getting to the truth. One poignant part (and I promise, it’s not a spoiler) is when other people tell Vaishali to join a mainstream channel if she wants viewers but she refuses saying she can’t compromise on her principles.

Journalism is ultimately about integrity. I bring this up because, as always, everyone under the sun has opinions about what journalism is and who is a journalist and who is a lifafa. The latter is always someone whose views they disagree with.

There is a clear and rather simple distinction between a journalist and an analyst and someone who sets up their YouTube channel. Are these individuals practising the principles of journalism, as defined by press organisations — journalism’s first obligation is to the truth (not your truth), its loyalty is to citizens, its essence is a discipline of verification, its practitioners must maintain a distance from the people they cover, and it must serve as an independent monitor of power.

Over the past few years, we have seen many journalists take to YouTube to set up their own channels, sometimes because they were unable to report independently on their employers’ networks. Or because they wanted to enhance their personal brand and reach out to new audiences. Or for monetary reasons because you can earn substantial amounts on YouTube.

The latter is why many stray from journalism’s principles.

It’s why I won’t sign petitions calling for the release of imprisoned ‘journalists’ on trumped-up charges. I condemn their detention and support everyone’s right to free speech, but I do make the distinction between what they do and journalism. Advocating one side of the story, without any effort to substantiate claims or include another perspective, is not journalism. I recognise mine is a tou-gh stance, and one that will likely re­­sult in me being the first voted off the island, but it’s important to separate fact from far-fetched theories.

There are innumerable journalists in this country doing incredible work, but who may not get the shares on WhatsApp because it doesn’t suit your viewpoint. I believe people will demand better journalism when they see the impact it can have on strengthening democracy.

While journalist Iftikhar Ahmed’s interview of the former chief justice Naseem Shah wasn’t the sole reason for the filing of a 2011 presidential reference into the trial and execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, analysts believe it played some role. Ahmed’s tough questions led to Shah admitting judges were under pressure to award Bhutto the death sentence. It took many years for the Supreme Court to declare that Bhutto indeed did not get a fair trial and while it may not seem like justice, hopefully it will lead to a sense of righting wrongs.

We must remember journalism had a role to play in this.

The writer is an instructor of journalism.

X: @LedeingLady

Published in Dawn, March 10th, 2024