The story has a link to another article published in the DNA.. http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?edorsup=Main&queryed=9&querypage=10&boxid=31379090&parentid=83659&eddate=01/08/2009)
Both these articles question the kind of journalism we're seeing today and they both express the anguish and disappointment of serious journalists with the present-day scenario.
It's a valid point they're making and one fails to understand why this is not obvious to the news channels. At least the newspapers show some semblance of reporting impartially. The TV channels all seem to have thrown away the basic code of ethics and are only interested in TRPs. 'TIMES NOW' and Arnab Goswami are very patriotic but not good journalists. That is the channel which has given new definition to arbitrary discussion and are beyond rude when they are engaging in discussion with Pakistani guests or any guests who disagree with their views. It's come to a point where one does not want to watch a discussion as nothing sensible or concrete is coming out of it. As soon as someone from Pakistan makes a valid point, he is cut off and the discussion is taken on a tangent which is not relevant to the ongoing debate.
The newspapers too are not far behind though. Recently, there was a headline 'Sri Lanka agrees to hand over Prabhakaran' while the story actually said that the Sri Lankan government has said that they will consider India's request to hand over the LTTE chief if he's caught. The headline says one thing, while the story says something different altogether.. and in case Sri Lanka refuses to hand over the man at a later date, the same people will raise a hue and cry saying that Sri Lanka has gone back on it's word when, in fact, they have not committed to anything in the first place.
The other recent high (or low) point was when the media raised a hue and cry about the Pakistani Prime Minister's statement in their parliament where he stated that India has handed over information, not evidence. I may be wrong but perhaps the media misinterpreted the statement (which was a part of an internal discussion and not an official response to India). Perhaps the Pak PM meant that India has handed over information related to the attacks and not physical evidence and that based on the information provided, they would conduct their own internal investigation and that's why it was stated that the information provided by India would be handed over to the Interior Ministry. Arnab Goswami cried himself hoarse in all debates decrying the use of the word 'information'.
Every statement made by any diplomat that does not subscribe to the predetermined views of the news channels is rejected as being anti-India. The British foreign secretary recently stated that while he agrees with the part about the terror attacks having originated from Pakistan, he does not agree that the state was involved or that the terrorists should be handed over to India. He felt that they could be tried in Pakistan and it would amount to the same thing. The point is that the perpetrators be brought to justice. To this, the news headlines on most channels said 'Miliband contradicts India'.
Thankfully, today, NDTV carried a programme on NDTV 24x7 'In conversation with Miliband', where the man got a chance to clarify his stand and to everyone's surprise, he made some very interesting and valid points.
- He said that the reason he asked that the terrorists be tried in Pakistan was because he felt that the world ought to show some faith in the new democratic government in Pakistan and allow them time to take action against the perpetrators. He felt that the stress should be on the fact that the terrorists be tried and punished and that terror camps be dismantled; it does not matter if it happens in India or in Pakistan. In the face of such logic, the demands being made by India seem to be more to assert its might over Pakistan than to genuinely ensure that terror is removed.
- The second point he made was about India's decision to snap ties with Pakistan and our efforts to block aid to Pakistan. While I, as an Indian, am all for it, simply because my patriotism demands that some immediate, aggressive and forceful action be taken against Pakistan, I think that if we saw the same situation from a third party perspective, we would agree with Mr. Miliband. He said that he thinks it will be in India's interest if the Pakistan economy does better. He felt that in the long run, having a prosperous neighbour will automatically insure India. He quoted an African saying; 'if your neighbour's house is on fire, it's in your own interest to help douse the fire, lest your own house get burnt next'. I know the immediate thought that comes to anyone on hearing or reading this is that one cannot help Pakistan simply because they won't let us help... but i'm sure if we try, we'll find a way. The same, of course, holds true for Pakistan as well.
This story by NDTV was a refreshing change where a diplomat was allowed to state his views without being interrupted or ridiculed. I wish the other news channels would follow this example; they'll find that they'll soon get a wider and more serious audience.
I think there's a lesson here not only for the media but for all of us as well. We all harp on the right to free speech but do we allow or accept views that are contrary to our own?
Sometimes our views become very narrow because of all the noise within our own head. It helps to open up the mind and listen to a third voice. It's time we learnt to listen to a few home-truths about ourselves.
The other thing, and I digress here from the original subject, is that while the media and the Indian government are demanding that the world take a firm stand against Pakistan, no one in this country is willing to take a stand on the situation between Israel and Palestine. There's full-scale war happening in the region and hundreds of people are dying, including children. The Indian government made one half-hearted formal statement saying that they condemned Israel's disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians but nothing beyond that. The media also gives it the customary 2-bit slot in the news and then goes back to focus on Pakistan. The situation in Israel is far more critical to the world but we are stuck in our own misery and crying for attention. Are we at all concerned about anyone but ourselves? And if we have our diplomatic compulsions, does the rest of the world not have its own?
There were protests in Srinagar against Israel's attack but none of the news channels thought they were worthy of being covered. The same protests were covered by the BBC and the CNN. Can we even now say that we are not ignoring the point of view of the Kashmiri people? Where is the free-and-fair journalism?
There is wide-spread concern and criticism on the government move to review and restrict the news being telecast on news channels. I agree that this is a dangerous situation and that this must be condemned and challenged to ensure free press but, on the other hand, I wonder if at some level this has become important.
Perhaps there is a mid-path to this. I think the solution would be to appoint a committee that can impose a short-term ban on a channel that violates certain guidelines laid down by the Press Council and the recommendations for such a short-term ban can come directly from the Council as well. The one thing that this will achieve will be to make the viewer aware of which news channels or papers are violating the rules and guidelines.
Free speech and free journalism come with a huge set of responsibilities. We have to find some way to remind the media of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment