There was a news report about a woman being stripped in public in Patna. There is going to be a “speedy investigation” into the incident, and “necessary action” by the Bihar government. How much more predictable can these reactions get?
The Indian electronic media, of course, dramatised this whole event. The television anchors replaced their high-decibel pitch with a subdued performance. All, after a short break, of course!
One channel took the cake, when its anchor said, “We do not have the footage of the incident, but some photographs of those responsible for the act”. Excuse me. Did I hear that right? Did I hear him say, “We do not have the footage of the incident”? Well, do you think this is a movie depicting a gruesome rape sequence? If the television crew did rush “just in time”, would it film the incident, or do something to stop it? What becomes more important? Showing the incident to the public to expose the lawlessness in the state or step in to stop such atrocities?
Well, a copybook journalist is supposed to unleash information to people, under any circumstances. A journalist is supposed to react to events and report, not act.
There was an incident two years back when television channels showed the footage of a small-time thief being brutally beaten up after he was caught pilfering. The channels carefully filmed that incident, using the best pan-shots and angles possible. A few more years back, television cameras caught an Afro-American being beaten up in America.
Well, it does open a debate on impartiality and objectivity, those core values for a journalist. When covering incidents, a journalist is not supposed to get involved in it. He/she is supposed to shun emotions, and show the truth.
While Googling, I once read a war correspondent Edward Behr recounting recounting the story of a reporter during the Congo crisis who walked into a crowd of Belgian evacuees and shouted, "Anyone here been raped and speaks English?" Okay, that is journalistic insensitivity at its best.
But when does one transcend journalistic confines and become an activist? Is it wrong to thwart any untoward incident such as a woman being stripped in public, or is the journalist not being professional enough. The job of a journalist is to report news, and not try to cleanse society. But I feel there is a need to put human code of conduct before professional propriety. I would, as a journalist, and a woman at that, let my sensitivity overthrow my professional compulsions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The same thoughts crossed my mind when I saw the footage on TV. Why is the cameraman or the journalist not stopping or at least trying to intervene to save the woman. I think there would be some special cases such as these where a basic humanity factor is involved and there is nothing wrong if a journalist gives in to that. Maybe that's the right thing to do. Human code of conduct before professional propriety like you said.
ReplyDeleteRemember that Pulitzer winning photograph of a malnourished child crawling to the refugee camp and a vulture waiting for it in the side? The photographer committed suicide later and the same questions, I believe, were asked of him.
Absolutely Gradwolf - I was reminded of the exact same thing after reading this piece.
ReplyDelete