Wednesday, January 22, 2025
spot_img

Whose conscience is the media keeping?

Date:

Share post:

spot_img
spot_img

By Patricia Mukhim

The panel discussion at the 69th anniversary function of this paper followed by Union Information and Broadcasting Minister, Manish Tewari’s address thereafter, threw up several points for introspection by media practitioners. I begin with myself. The role of the media is understood differently by different people. Politicians believe they are newsmakers and that the media is their image builder. Some bureaucrats shun the media because they apply the term, “faceless bureaucrats” quite literally. Others who want their work publicised because they need to generate public awareness, often use the media for that purpose. NGOs and militant outfits have a voracious appetite for publicity. They exist because they are publicised. Research scholars need to be published to gain credit points. Individual thinkers and columnists use the media to spread their philosophy, ideology and politics. The word politics here must be understood in its secular meaning and not as party politics. It is a view that a person has about how development and governance is done; how economic models work for or against us. Politics is about the actions of people and their impact on society. Thomas Magstadt in his book “Understanding Politics,” says, ‘Politics is a gateway to a broader and better understanding of human nature, society, and the world.” I believe this is the organic meaning of politics. Politics is as good or as bad as its practitioners. And all of us practice politics at home, in our workplace, in the market place and wherever two or more people get together. So politics itself is a neutral term. It is the practice of politics which is good, bad or ugly.

Media persons have their own politics and their own fraternal groups. Hence it would be wrong to speak of the press as a fraternity or a homogenous entity. There is no such thing as a ‘brotherhood’ of journalists. This is cut throat profession. We have our own political proclivities although on the outside we proclaim to be pristinely non-attached scribes. We have friends in the government or the opposition. We are experts at labelling politicians as smart, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant, sly, high-handed and what have you. Trust the media to provide you with the adjectives. But these are personal quirks and penchants. We are not expected to allow our own affinities to influence our reports and the way we caption our stories. A cardinal sin for journalists is to presume anything. Every story is backed by facts and quotes from the person we are writing about. This buttresses our contentions and balances our stories. Those who work at the news-desk have a sharp journalistic sense to detect and filter out personal biases from a story. Hence they are expected to be wise and diplomatic. They must filter our views and sharpen the news content. But those sharp, incisive minds come at a cost. Journalism, unfortunately is not a paying profession in this part of the world. Hence quality suffers.

It is said by those who have a monolithic view of journalism that the buck stops with the editor. But if the editor were to go through each report and caption every story it would amount to micro-management since that’s the primary role of the sub editors. This is not desirable because the desk expects a certain amount of freedom in the newsroom. Unfortunately that freedom could turn to license. Stories are played up and sensationalised sometimes at great cost to the reputation of individuals and institutions. The problem with most of us in the media is that in our quest for what is wrong with the system and the individuals running it we have become extremely cynical and cannot believe that anything positive is possible. We don’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt, for that would be looked at askance. Some of our own colleagues would pass nasty comments that we have sold our souls. Hence peer pressure pushes us to do what is politically correct even if we don’t believe it to be in the best interests of journalism. In fact peer pressure is a double-edged sword because often news is narrated by one journalist to the other over phone. There is a quid pro quo that if one has covered one beat the other would cover the other and in the evening there is news swapping. Do we wonder then why all newspapers look like clones of each other and why there are no exclusive stories, barring some exceptions? Some reporters still walk the path less travelled. And one salutes them for holding on to the highest traditions of journalism – an almost declining trait.

Most people don’t want to get on the wrong side of journalists for fear of their poison pens. Others have cleverly cultivated them and provide stories every now and again. Why trained journalists should depend on a source with vested interests for free publicity is something inexplicable. But professional indolence does set in and we tend to become armchair reporters much to the detriment of our profession.

Perhaps our worst fault is arrogance. Once we have joined a news organisation we believe we have the power to pulverise reputations and incarcerate people on the basis of allegations. Often the stories planted on us by someone with self interest do not pass through the credibility filter. If the common man believes in rumours one can forgive him/her but a for a journalist to base a story on a political plot where no one is quoted by name but by the wide axiom of “complete confidentiality,” one of the oldest journalistic tricks to camouflage ‘my’ private opinion is revolting. And then we expect readers to endorse our views and thereby allow the canard to spread like wildfire! Some journalists who produce such trashy news not backed by any facts but tied together by a whole bunch of fictional strings do so because they believe they would capture eyeballs. Alas people soon see through such yellow journalism.

Coming to articles and letters to the editor, if we were to publish some of the letters that come to us, we would be spending more time in courtrooms than in the newsroom. I had said this once and I repeat it for the benefit of those who don’t seem to know the rules of engagement that no one has the license to demolish anyone’s reputation by taking refuge in anonymity. We had allowed comments on our newspaper website. But whoa…the kind of squalid remarks on individuals and personalities are something one would not write even on toilet paper. Such is the base nature of some of the readers that we had to discontinue the comments slot. Then we get letters castigating us for doing so. Readers can in fact be a very cantankerous lot and not always understanding and gracious. The CMJ imbroglio brought out the worst from some readers who probably got the short end of the stick. Instead of venting their spleen on CM Jha they spouted venom on The Shillong Times! Classic case of shooting the messenger when you don’t like the message!

Now about articles, we get all kinds. Those from young scholars and thinkers from different colleges and universities are refreshing and thought provoking. They give divergent perspectives. Never before have we had so many young, incisive writers from amongst the local tribal community. They have come of age and one salutes the clear thinking and courage of conviction they have. But there are some writers with a single point agenda. They go on a circumlocutory route like flogging a dead horse on the same subject. Moreover the articles are not so much about the issue as they are about the ego. There is that distinctive, “I know it all,” disdain that is unmistakable. Such articles, to my mind don’t merit publication. It’s not what a writer is passionate about which is important but what the public considers relevant. Janice Pariat and Samrat Choudhury recently penned an excellent analytical piece. So are the writings of Wanshan Shynret, Recordius Enmi, Obadiah Lamare, Phrangsngi Pyrtuh, Albert Thyrniang amongst others. More power to these writers!

Hence as the panel discussion concluded we in the media need to check our own moral compasses before prescribing a moral code for others. However, we cannot also be browbeaten by fastidious wannabe columnists. There is such a thing as editorial prerogative.

spot_img
spot_img

Related articles

Gautam Adani says Jeet’s wedding will be a ‘simple and traditional family affair’

Prayagraj, Jan 21: Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani on Tuesday dismissed the rampant speculation and rumours circulating on...

When Shekhar Kapur called ‘Masoom’ his attempt to explore fragility of human emotions

Mumbai, Jan 21: Filmmaker Shekhar Kapur, who is known for films like ‘Masoom’, ‘Mr. India’, ‘Bandit Queen’, had...

BSF troops foil smuggling bid along Bangla border

Guwahati, Jan. 21: BSF troops deployed along the India-Bangladesh border thwarted an attempt by Bangladesh-based miscreants to smuggle...

Assam CM bats for ties with Korean SME, start-up sectors

Guwahati, Jan. 21: Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma met SME and Start-ups minister of the Republic of...