Dialogue October - December 2005 , Volume 7 No. 2
Yellow journalism and how to combat it
The
dictionary meaning of yellow journalism is ‘a journalism that exploits,
distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers’.
Thus yellow journalism is fundamentally dishonest, unethical or incredibly
sloppy and uncaring reporting. Now keeping this in mind watch our news channels
and the conclusion will be inescapable: that India’s top news channels have
become the best examples of yellow journalism. The print media, newspapers and
news magazines, are not far behind. They are always in search of sleaze and
opportunity to present base materials.
Besides the formal meaning of
yellow journalism, most of the respected journalists world over do think that
the line had been crossed into yellow journalism when the reportage told the
reader how to think. Putting someone or something in black or pink colours, and
thus pushing the reader towards a pre-determined conclusion, is a daily
occurrence in our newspapers. All this was going on for years. Some say it began
with the year 1989, when people realise a single newspaper’s effort to
disclose corruption at high places brought down a government till now enjoying
two-third majority in the parliament. With time some business houses made it
their habit to tarnish or puff up a leader or a party to serve their own petty
interest. In this process, the role of the editor and along with him the entire
editorial, reporting personnel become mere servant of the owner of the
newspaper.
This tendency was growing
menacingly, which culminated in the advent of tehelka brand of journalism. It
was the nadir of yellow journalism when falsehood, political motive,
manufacturing of ‘news’ with only manufacture and no news, craving for quick
money and power, selling dirty sex and working as pimps – it all joined
together to form what came to be known as tehelka kind of journalism.
It was ugly and wholly
unscrupulous. In its quest for instant fame and big money tehelka was willing to
go to any extent to malign some particular politicians and parties. Perhaps, the
filth that has been accumulating in our upper class in recent years has engulfed
the media. So the reporters of the tehelka gratuitously plied some defense
personnel with prostitutes and then video-taped the resulting sexual action. It
shamed the vocation of journalism. Yet there has not been any serious
introspection.
Many high-minded senior
journalists, retired and reigning editors regularly pontificate about the
essential co-relation between means and ends. They routinely criticise
politicians for having given up morality and ethics. But the same lot tried to
take an equivocal stand on the tehelka’s prostitution scandal. Tarun Tejpal,
the tehelka mastermind, and his reporters disgraced the journalistic profession.
In fact, there were always serious doubts about the real agenda of the people
behind tehelka. This was confirmed after their call girl running racket came to
fore, that some wicked people are playing someone else’s game in the
single-minded pursuit of big money and power.
Of course, Tejpal tried to
justify the use of dirty means by saying that ‘unusual stories require unusual
means’. But what was the unusual story? There was no actual defense deal that
tehelka reported. It merely stated that people in high places are liable to
compromise themselves if allured by women and money. This is always a well-known
fact, since time immemorial. In past, present and future some things always
remains the same and this is one of it. So, what was new that tehelka presented?
Nothing, absolutely nothing, except trying to manufacture a contrived story. By
that logic of ‘unusual means’ can a journalist also take to printing
counterfeit currency? If caught, he can counter that it was doing so to show the
incompetence of the authorities.
If one were to follow the logic
of tehelka, investigative reporters of media organisations would be demanding
the services of prostitutes for ‘finding’ a story or for the amusement of
their news sources. So keen was tehelka to earn big money that it continued
plying filth for a long time. Its web portal had a hard porn site. It was closed
down only after there were repeated protests in the media.
Curiously, the political class of
our country did not come heavily on tehelka brand of journalism. They are
reluctant to attack yellow journalism. Tehelka had falsely implicated a union
minister Srinivas Prasad of receiving bribes. While the evidence instead
pointing to the tehelka journalist’s own desperation to thrust Rs 2 lakh
“donation” into some unknown and unseen hands. It was a clear case of
falsehood and willful defamation. But instead of directly charging the tehelka
with unethical practices, the union ministers of the time directed their flak at
the Opposition for trying to make political capital of this particular
falsehood. Why they were shy on attacking yellow journalism? Because, the media
has also become a terrible trade union and an attack on any one might invite the
wrath of other members on the attacking politicians. (Recall the newspaper
‘The Hindu’s quarrel with Jayalalitha, the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. In
spite of unfair, malicious portrayal of Jayalalitha by the newspaper, no
newspaper reported the Jayalalitha’s version. Even the reporting of the court
proceedings on the matter was reported one-sidedly.)
Thus, the tehelka tapes also
exposed this country to the howls of a media-led lynch mob. Its clear attempt to
destabilise the then Union Government and ultimately the removal of the Defense
Minister were effected in an artificial environment. An environment where the
lynch mob mentality prevailed. As Swapan Dasgupta said so pithily, “The
tehelka tapes were a very successful exercise in political supari but in
journalistic terms it was plain tendentious. The elementary norms of
verification and corroboration were expediently given the go-by because facts
wouldn’t have coincided with the images and sound-bites of the spycam.”
It is noteworthy that tehelka
made it its habit to manufacture news where there was none. Very soon after its
first scandal, it tried to manufacture a story of poaching of endangered
animals. And this time it arranged to kill some animals, by using hired poachers
and bribing the officials of the forest, and shoot the whole thing in order to
present this as a sensational story on poaching of animals in forest!
Fortunately the scheme failed and the whole plot was uncovered. The matter went
to court. While refusing bail to the tehelka reporter Kumar Badal, the main
accused of stage-managing the poaching of animals, the Honourable Justice S.S.
Kulshreshta of the Allahabad High Court said in his order: “It is a matter
where the accused applicant gets ghoulish delight in wanton killing and
destruction of wild animals in order to achieve his reprehensible ends, which is
beyond human imagination”. In the meantime, senior tehelka men contacted
higher police officials alluring them to ‘settle’ the matter. The court also
took note of it and recorded in its order. The order ends by stating, “Suffice
it to mention that there is motivated malignity on the part of the accused
applicant that instead of giving accurate account of the wild life and the
apprehended danger to the wild animals, he himself was involved in getting the
trapping and killing of the wild animals and tenancing his accomplice for making
film of such poaching etc.”
This
is but one trend of yellow journalism, that is, instead of collecting news some
unscrupulous journalists are hell-bent on manufacturing sensational news.
Unfortunately, in the wake of tehelka scandal, many journalists took fancy to
emulate tehelka kind of journalism, though with less unscrupulousness. Now it
has become a routine fare on all our news channels to see sensational and
senseless, dirty, violent stories especially manufactured(recreated). This is
nothing but a round about way of doing tehelka kind of journalism.
However,
if we examine issues of national importance streaks of yellow journalism are all
pervasive there too. For instance, the journalistic response to Pokhran II.
There was much dissent expressed by some worthy members of the editorial classes
and what is aptly called chattering class or chatterati. Unfortunately much of
that dissent was based on purely ideological-political motives, personal peeves,
and also plain ignorance. Responsible journalism was not observed when it came
to malign the Vajpayee government which decided to go nuclear.
Informed
and well-considered dissent is one thing . But, many Indian editors and
commentators responded to Pokhran II as if they were responding to some kind of
political sin. They let their aversion for the BJP blind them to various
strategic, security issues. While criticising they seldom bothered to check any
facts but accepted all kinds of factoids spewed by the media empires of the
West. Later many of such commentators became international ‘peace
activists’, a breed of its own kind who enjoy at the cost of national
self-respect.
Such
examples are many. Pakistani attack on Kargil, Al Queda attack on New
York, Bamiyan Buddha destruction, POTA, Godhra, Narendra Modi, international
Islamic jehad, Kashmir problem, General Musharraf, Kashmiri Hindus, Gudia,
Imrana, are some other issues on which many of our journalists and commentators
did all they could to persuade people ‘how to think’. Think not in a
truthful way, but in a politically correct way disregarding piles of facts
contradicting that thinking. Blinded by their political idiosyncrasies, on
issues mentioned above many reporters and editors tailored their stories and
comments to make people against someone or for something. None of which was done
in national interest, but to serve political correctness.
Generally speaking our columnists
can be divided into two camps, with few exceptions. First, the ignorant ones and
second, the intellectually enslaved. The majority of Indian journalists are
happily abdicating their responsibility. They neither critically think nor check
the point they habitually present. Either to serve a political ideology or out
of pure laziness. On opinion pages of our national dailies a huge amount of
absolute tripe masquerades as ‘thoughtful’ commentary. But even a lay reader
can poke holes in their so-called arguments with little difficulty. Because
those views and arguments are mostly based on faulty assumptions or logic. Many
journalists and commentators are innocent of elementary history, political
realities and economics. They are hardly able to differentiate between political
rhetoric (‘progressive step’, ‘social justice’ etc.) and political
thought. It is also a tribute to the pathetic state of the social studies in
Indian universities. But the fact remains, that our reporters, commentators,
anchors, editors usually latch on to some easily refutable claim/premise etc,
and then keep repeating it.
Take the example of articles
about Bosnia or Israel or Iraq. One commentator called Bosnian migration and
killings ‘the second Holocaust’. Quite forgetting the brutal regime of Mao
during ‘cultural revolution’ (1966-76), and Pol Pot’s Cambodia when one
fourth of its population butchered. But our journalist knows nothing of it, and
calls Bosnia ‘the second Holocaust’. He was only regurgitating the stories
recited by the Western, politically correct media. In any case, how many
died in Bosnia and around? Not more than a hundred thousand. But our
semi-educated journalists do not bother even to compare Bosnian Muslims with
Kashmiri Hindus. Or even the Partition of India forced in 1947. It was the
single greatest forced migration of people in history in which several million
killed in the West and East parts of this country.
It is natural, therefore, that
Indian journalism has begun to struggle with credibility ratings. It can be
ranked somewhere between jorno-politicians and journo-pimps. With the advent of
cable and satellite news, the print media has also embraced a manufacturing news
culture and a docudrama culture. The dividing line between fiction and
non-fiction, good and bad have begun to blur. Precious human values, family
values, age old and tested, healthy moral principals are being trivialized just
for making quick money. Western advertisers and their Indian followers sponsor
certain events, gatherings, attitudes etc. to make people, especially young
ones, forget everything and ‘enjoy’ the present. How pernicious is the whole
business could be a breathtaking story, but no media will cover it!
It is
not for nothing that former Punjab police chief K P S Gill wrote, “Presiding
over this insistent, corrosive loss of values is a stifling conspiracy of
silence. No editor or journalist will write about the scandals, the compromises,
or the corruption of his own peers; and if he did, no newspaper would publish
such a critique... No other institution can be as aware as is the Press of the
disastrous consequences of secrecy and the lack of introspection in any
institutional structure... It is time, however, that the members of the Fourth
Estate gave evidence of a realisation that these principles apply as much to
their own profession and institutions as they do to others.”
So,
can there be any corrective measure? Whenever a politician proposes a code of
conduct for the press, the usual reaction is; “Why don’t the politicians
formulate a code for themselves?” There are genuine apprehensions that the
code would become another stick in the hand of the politician. But it seems the
politicians are right, at least on this score. There should be a code for media
men to abide by. Or at least there should be a standard against which they can
be measured.
As
Arun Shourie says, to devise such a code is not only possible, it will also be a
shield for the pressman. That is, a code which shall not just be an ideal which
when worked towards will have the virtue of drawing out the best in the
journalist, but which will constitute a protection so that should the
authorities attempt to put down a person adhering to the code they will at once
put themselves in the wrong.
Based
on Gandhian principles and precepts Shourie set out a code of self-conduct for
pressmen which addresses itself to the situation discussed above:
The Code
1. I affirm that an open
society is imperative for India, not so much for the rich as for the poor and
for
all who work for transforming our society in the interest of the poor. I
therefore subscribe to and I
shall fight for the institutions of an open
society.
2. I believe that a free
press is an essential instrument for maintaining our society as an open one and
also for reforming it, for to reform society we must first inform the people.
3. I affirm that I shall
be a citizen first and last and not a mere professional; in particular I shall
not
claim
for myself any more than I would urge for the ordinary citizen; but
simultaneously being a citizen, I
shall wholeheartedly and relentlessly devote
myself to the public weal.
4. As in a society where
the overwhelming millions are mute, the access to a forum that reaches large
numbers is a privilege; as the use of the forum can have considerable
consequence - both for good
and ill - I shall view my work as a trust to be
exercised on behalf of the people.
5. In particular: I
shall not use my access to the forum for personal gain nor shall I let personal
enmity
distort what I write.
6. I shall use the forum
for the good of the people at large and not to advance any sectional interests -
including in the latter the interests of the press or any part thereof.
7. I shall not
write anything or desist from writing anything out of fear or out of an
expectation of
reward, whether from official or private sources.
8. Should any hindrance
be put to keep me from thus serving the people in the form of “laws” or
other
obstacles, I will at once redouble my efforts to get the truth to the
people.
9. I shall not censor
the work of a colleague or a subordinate who is thus serving the people. Nor
shall
I submit to censorship; if the publication I write for starts submitting
to censorship or itself starts
censoring, I will at once inform the largest
number I can reach of the change, and find other avenues
of getting the truth to
the people.
10. I shall scrupulously
check the facts and I shall report them all irrespective of who or which point
of
view is helped or hurt by the truth.
11. I shall not purvey
as fact what I cannot substantiate.
12. Unless the public
interest unambiguously requires it, I shall not purvey an allegation merely
because
others are purveying it; on the contrary, I will expose every effort to
“plant” news.
13. If I am proven wrong
I shall at once and openly acknowledge the error and suffer such punishment
as
will convince the reader that sufficient amends have been made, in particular I
shall not use the
courts or the prevailing laws as a device for delaying justice
to the person who might have suffered
at my hands.
14. In reporting the
facts and in commenting on them I shall use the right word, neither
sensationalizing
the effect by exaggeration nor diluting it by equivocation.
15. As my first charge I
will do everything in my power to cleanse and strengthen the press, knowing
well
that its existing weaknesses render it easy prey and that unless it is honed
into a strong
instrument itself it cannot help improve our society.
16. I recognize that the
written word is only one instrument of change, that in a society such as ours it
can have only a limited effect, I shall therefore not let the rationalization
that I must preserve my
access to the forum as if that is lost I will no longer
be able to serve the people, deter me from
broadcasting the truth; I shall
labour in the confidence that ultimately a writer can only serve as an
announcement and that, if I have worked diligently and truthfully, no one can
keep me from serving
as such.
17. I will subscribe to
this Code only after prolonged and detailed deliberation, but once I subscribed
to it I shall adhere to it in every particular and under all circumstances. In
particular: I shall
openly acknowledge my lapses from the code and I shall
inform my colleagues in the press of their
lapses from it.
While
formulating these codes Shourie anticipated the main criticism of it. “But
these are just platitudes. Who will enforce such a code? What penalties will
follow if some journalist violates it?” But, first, the codes are not as
innocent as it looks. Here it is very interesting to note what Alexandre
Solzhenitsyn asked the Soviet authors in view of the age-old Communist
repression in the Soviet Union. No, he did never advise any revolt. Nor any
political fight, agitation, much less any revolution or such high sounding
rhetoric (a regular fare with our radicals). Solzhenitsyn asked just one thing:
never write or repeat a singe false word, a word that you know is false or which
is not given to verification. Just this simple advise was such a threat to the
all-powerful superpower that its had to expel the author from the country
(because by that time killing him would have more negative consequences).
So,
the codes are not just platitudes. Nor does a principle become useless merely
because it is obvious, merely because it is familiar. “But who is to enforce
the codes? And how?” The codes must be enforced by the readers and by the
journalists themselves, underlimes Shourie. And this can be done in several
ways. Vigilant readers can do a good bit to bring the press to heel.
Dialogue (A quarterly journal of Astha Bharati) |