In contemporary times, there have been issues of exaggeration, shifting priorities, ‘manufacturing’ consent, ideology circulation, moral panic, sensationalism and dramatization, etc. in the functioning of the media. Naom Chomsky in “Propaganda Model” goes to the extent of viewing media as an instrument of class domination and control and goes on to say that the media wears a mask of being the exalted ‘Fourth Estate.’ One is also tempted to blame the media of creating ‘epistemic violence’ over knowledge cultures and cultures of knowledge and also propagating certain ideologies. Looking at media’s own circle of operation, firstly, it stands at the lofty ideal in the service of truth for the people and also in building up a democratic society - a society where each and every individual has a voice. Secondly, media serves their own end in two forms. One is business factor in which they serve the interest of their popular readership and by selling a good percent of their space for advertisements. The second one is where they circulate their ideology. This strain makes it tempting to do a philosophical reflection on the role of media in relation to the question of ‘truth’ and ‘responsibility.’
“The editor’s freedom ends where the proprietor’s eyebrows begin to rise”
- Krishna Menon
- Krishna Menon
At a time when the pace of the world is also defined by the flow of information, one can also look at the ongoing news relating to the mysterious disappearance of the Malaysian plane and how the media has ‘manufactured news’ and dramatised the situation which in turn has only angered the masses especially the ones related to the passengers. The question of responsibility is also about how well the public is kept informed. Giving news to the public is not just about being objective or being fair, but as the bearer of a pillar of democracy, it carries a huge responsibility as much as the executive, legislative and the judiciary. Thus, it is a reasonable expectation that the media will gather and report the news fairly and objectively in a responsible manner. Reinterpreting the idea of responsibility in media, it should be directed at informing the masses so as to inculcate integral knowledge, values, beliefs and behaviors so that they can themselves become agents of change towards societal growth. These responsibilities does not stem out of nothing but because of the fact that media is a quasi - public agency and also the effect that news creates in people’s lives. In this strain, the focus and goals of journalism should be the citizens ‘bill of rights’ in the same way as they are journalists’ ‘bill of responsibilities.’
Conversely, one cannot say that a “free press” is free of damages or loss and so it would be wrong to suggest that the media are always truthful and responsible. Sometimes papers will be ‘forced’ to publish articles and news items which go against their principles and integrity and also contrary to the spirit of the ‘fourth estate’ and thereby disclaim responsibility. Perhaps, with changing times and the level of competition, the will to survive holds primacy over the will to be ethical and responsible. The issues related to ‘paid news’ also seems to be another compelling feature towards the end of their ‘will to survive’ thereby leading to prioritization of news. The public interest and the responsibility of the media are compromised to economic pressures, thereby making the private interest paramount. On the larger whole, the biggest social responsibility of the media is to make a success of democracy and educate the masses on democratic ideals like truth, justice and equality, rather than keeping the means of information narrowly and rigidly controlled. Danny Schechter, a former CNN news producer had to say that “we falsely think of our country as a democracy when it has evolved into a ‘mediacracy,’ where a media that is supposed to check political abuse is part of the political abuse.” They are so powerful and have the potential of influencing the people up to a large extent that the power of the media should be employed in the public interest and not against it. It all depends on how the media tries to work out their own definition of news which ultimately becomes the consumer’s definition of news. The idea of what journalists should publish, and how personally intrusive they should be, seems to be constantly changing. This is clear from Peter Phillips statement about the kind of ‘news that didn’t make news’ which undergoes the lengthy process of engineering the news and in the process ‘newsworthy’ or news which should be published may not find a space thereby succumbing to prioritisation. Quite often, media are also accused of not having ethics or conscience since they go to the extent of doing anything to get a ‘story’ written, going by their own rules in the name of the freedom of the press which go against their prima facie obligation to act responsibly and avoid social injury. Can truth survive in the face of their ‘compromised operation’? In the evolution of contesting elements, the very idea of news is also constantly changing from live reporting to manufactured debates in the newsrooms. Prashant Jha (‘When News is not prime,’ The Hindu, Monday, April 1, 2013) reflects on the kind of news that is being fed to the public today. He draws attention towards a news studio which is well-lit, a celebrity anchor; half a dozen guests representing familiar, but conflicting, view-points on any particular issue; a couple of ‘neutral’ analysts or journalists thrown in; each panelists fighting hard to get a couple of minutes of air-time to express his views; provocative questions, screeching voices, loud arguments; and a wrap-up which exposes, but also sharpens, the polarized nature of discourse over complex issue ‘facing the nation’ or that the nation wants an answer to.’ In the past few years new channels have increasingly adopted such a template for shows in ‘prime-time’ slots. They can also provide the viewer with a range of perspectives from key actors. But what is new, and some argue, disturbing, is that this format is no longer a supplement to ground-level reportage, but almost a substitute to it.
On the flip side, taking another perspective, the journalists, simply by doing their jobs well, have been playing a central role in promoting democratic ideals for many years. Many put their lives or freedom at risk in the pursuit of ‘truth.’ Apart from direct physical threats against journalists, the media in many countries face legislation that prevents them from gaining access to, and imparting information. Repressive defamation laws put the burden of proof on journalists. These laws often forbid truth as a defense in defamation cases where someone’s reputation is deemed worthy of protection at the expense of the right of the public to be informed. Such law creates fear and thereby discourages investigative reporting and the exposure of corruption. Media are very powerful agents and certain rights enacted by the media might create tension between the media and the government or business corporate where the media finds itself difficult to surrender their rights and the other trying hard to invade into the media establishment. Such intrusion into their freedom does not in any way help the cause of disseminating right knowledge and information. As it is said, the media acts as the watch dogs but cannot act as blood hounds. In this way, ‘truth’ is thus forbidden by not allowing it to surfa ce and is being kept away from the eyes and ears of the public.
‘Truth’ being essentially contested, my contention on truth in a discourse on media is that ‘truth’ should not be dissociated from ‘responsibility.’ It needs to be seen whether truth has been given the necessary consideration they warrant. Patterson and Wilkins (Media Ethics) states that, “When a professional accepts the responsibility of printing and broadcasting the truth, facts that are apparent in the face-to-face interaction become subject to different interpretations among geographically and culturally diverse viewers and readers.” The idea of ‘truth’ as generally understood needs to be re-examined while discussing the concept of ‘truth’ in the field of media reporting and informing. The idea of ‘truth’ cannot and should not be dissociated from ‘responsibility.’ Ideas that were once readily accepted are open to varied interpretations and debate. The whole concept of telling the truth becomes not merely a matter of possessing a good moral character but something that requires learning how to recognize truth and how to convey it in the best possible way depending upon the situation and circumstances and in a least distorted manner possible and always in the interests of the general public. Truth is much more than mere collection of facts. Facts have a relationship with other associated facts, forming a larger whole. If the role of the media is not only to detail events and issues, but to bring out the ‘relationships’ in such a way that the facts becomes clear and profound, then mere re-telling of a ‘story’ is not sufficient. It is not about truth in relation to facts but about what is ‘morally good.’ What is true must also be ‘morally good.’ The moment one learns what is ‘morally good,’ it not only becomes truth, but also provides impetus to be responsible. Easier said than done, truth matters a lot yet it is very difficult to give out the truth especially those related to ‘complex’ matters. Compelling situations might force someone to lie or hide the facts and truth especially when your statement has a ruling over the judgment. Again, how would media reflect on news, views or comments relating to ethnic or religious disputes or clashes? Such news definitely creates an atmosphere, which is not conducive to ethnic, communal harmony, amity and peace. This is where truth should not be dissociated from responsibility. Another aspect of ‘truthful’ reporting is not the truth of the incident or the news, but the relevance of the news to the general public. There have been so many instances of ethnic conflicts all over and the media is omnipresent to highlight such incidents and bringing out the minute details on such conflicts will be like adding fuel to the fire and will only provoke further violence. ‘Truth’ should not be mere presentation of facts neither is truth about mere retelling of a story. A finer distinction needs to be drawn between truth and facts especially relating to sensitive news. Media should exercise utmost responsibility.
I want to draw attention to the Sunday Post supplement of Nagaland Post (Dated, 21st July, 2013) which has had a lost lasting disturbing impact on me. It carried a picture of a classroom and a lady teacher and students under the heading ‘Find the hidden Items.’ What is disturbing is the fact that the items listed in the picture were quite provoking and equally disturbing. The items included the following: the box cutter, the bong, the handcuffs, the condom, the shotgun, the roach clip, the machine gun, the whip, the center fold, the syringe, the pipe bomb, the samurai sword, the revolver, the clock, the ecstasy, the Klan hood, the joint, the swastika, the brass knuckles, the switchblade, the dildo, the razor blade, the pot pipe and the bottle of booze. This is how a media house can successfully implant certain provocative ideologies like sex, crime and violence in the minds of very young children. Rather than acting as responsible agents, such is the callous attitude of the media at a time when sex and violence related crime is happening openly in the streets. Such pictures will only create certain mental images as well as generate certain undesired thought process which may not be conducive to social harmony in the long run. The looming danger is that besides being ‘exposed’ to sex and violence at a very young age, it also generates a support base in propagating certain ideology.
In sum, the possibility of carrying out the very idea of responsibility needs to be seen in a two-fold aspect keeping in mind that in a media establishment, ‘truth’ and ‘responsibility’ are like the two sides of the same coin. Firstly, media’s role from within – this includes the media establishment, the editors as well as the journalists. Secondly, responsibility from outside which is the state. Now, if the media establishment itself breaks the moral principle, then neither the editors nor the journalists can be able to act as responsible agents in maintaining their integrity and identity. So, not only the journalists but also the media establishment as a whole should be morally guided. Further, one locus of power in any modern society is the state. Interventions by the state over the media through official censorship will curtail media’s independent functioning which could prevent them from not only executing their duties but also diminishes their very identity as agents of social change. There has to be a collective consensus and understanding between the state, proprietors, the media establishment, editors and the journalists in working out a moral content both for the good of the public and towards its own image and identity as the fourth estate.
