No matter how hard you try not to fume at antics of Indian television reporters, you will invariably fail. They are, bar the sane exceptions that are becoming fewer by the day, decidedly callous, unabashed, unrepentant, and ignorant. They don’t learn, they don’t do an ethical job of it, and they strut around arrogantly giving you the impression that they are answerable to none. Actually, they are not. Except to their respective managements whose raison d'être is to make money, and it does not matter how they (the managements) make the money as long as they do. Journalism be damned and be dead.
This was evident from the manner in which the Indian television brigade covered the recent earthquake in Nepal, running riot over the bereaved and the rubble as if there were no tomorrow for them either. It was “scavenger journalism” at its sickening worst, a necrophilia that was revolting at best. The reporters prodded and harassed victims, put on their theatrical masks, and hyperventilated furiously to an audience back home that only wanted to hear one thing: that India had saved Nepal. It was not without reason, therefore, that the hashtag #GoHomeIndianMedia trended on social media over the previous weekend.
The puerile and reckless display of professional ethics, rather the lack thereof, was eerily reminiscent of the television coverage of the Mumbai attacks of November 2008. If you thought that television reporters were infantile at the time, you will safely conclude that they haven’t grown up in the last six years or so. They remain as juvenile, and go about their task now more brazenly than before.
It is the unheeding and delinquent attitude of television reporters that has got the goat of other journalists. There is enough justification for authorities to clamp down on the news media at large. From heartless and sensationalist coverage to getting in the way of relief operations, India’s television reporters did everything in their mite to play into the hands of a regime and other stakeholders who have been looking for that perfect and infallible premise to restrain critical reportage. Authorities, policymakers and lawmakers alike in India are wont to throw the baby with the bathwater. But right now, that would be unlikely since the television channels were there to serve a jingoistic purpose: play up the disaster relief work of the Indian government, come what may. And that they did in style.
It is not that our television reporters will be heartbroken if they are shackled from any critical coverage. When is it the last time that you saw them doing a good story? The managements of news channels know that one bottomline: money; and these journalistic minions serve only their TRP-crazy masters. Journalistic ethics are thrown to the winds. Not that these people know what such ethics mean.
Indian businesses exert financial muscle to control press
Press freedom group Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has just released its annual publication called Attacks on the Press. In this annual assessment of press freedom worldwide, CPJ has found that journalists are today caught between terrorists and anti-terrorists, by and large. In the foreword to the report, journalist Christine Amanpour writes, “Each story is a cautionary tale. Taken as a whole, they illustrate that vigilance has never been more crucial, or more difficult, for the free press around the world. The greatest threat isn't to one or two individuals, nor is it confined to any given country or year. An information battle is under way worldwide, and it is evolving in extremely dangerous ways. The one constant, as always, is that reporters are on the front line.”
The section on India talks about a new challenge facing journalists wherein big businesses are exerting increasing influence on publishers, often using antiquated defamation laws, to silence criticism of their operations and dictate what is reported in the media. It says, “Businesses are attempting to exert greater control of media coverage in three ways: using their financial power to silence journalists through lawsuits that chill critical reporting, influencing publishing decisions through advertising revenue, and, in some cases, taking ownership of news outlets to reduce or eliminate editorial independence at the source.” [Disclosure: This writer has been quoted in the said report.]
This cause for concern is reflected in Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) commentary published on the occasion of Word Press Freedom Day (May 3). It remarks, “Without accurate, independent reporting we won’t know how governments abuse power. Without scrutiny, tyrants and terrorists can operate freely, and that hurts us all.” Press freedom matters, but our television reporters don’t get it. Press freedom ought to be about reportage; it is not about running amok in a quake-hit zone.
Does the news media influence civil trial outcomes?
It is not that uncommon to hear of courts asking the news media to observe restraint while reporting on ongoing cases. Apart from the obvious “trial by media” issue, there are pros and cons to the debate.
A recent study published in the American Law and Economics Review, “Media Influence on Courts: Evidence from Civil Case Adjudication,” examines the relationship between the intensity of newspaper coverage on courts and the monetary awards of cases in the state systems, which handle the vast majority of civil cases in the United States. The American justice system is way different form the Indian one, but it is worth looking at the findings of the researcher, Claire SH Lim of Cornell University.
Broadly, her findings can be summarised as follows: (i), newspaper coverage mitigates disparity in damage awards associated with political orientation of judicial districts; (ii) such effect occurs primarily in districts with elected judges rather than appointed judges; and (iii), newspaper coverage mainly influences damage awards rather than plaintiff win rates.
It’s time for a similar study of court reportage in India.
Tailpiece
Q: Who do you think was sent to cover the story of the baby lion born in the zoo?
A: A cub reporter.
