Of media and media 'ethics'

2

Tweet

What will you do if you see a man on fire? Will you save him or will you just keep the camera rolling? I was reading this in a book on media ethics in my journalism school. The question was hard hitting and it made me wonder what I will do in a situation like this? My first instinct was the obvious: of course I will save him; no two ways about it

Later I was to realize that your stand does tend to soften a bit once you enter the rugged world of journalism. Especially TV journalism where you want to be the first one to report the event. TRP is our nectar and we are the bees hovering over it. And why not? It's a competitive world after all. We are in the business of news gathering and news dissipation and like all businesses, we want to be on the top. This of course without forgetting the thin line between what's ethical and what's not.

The fight for TRPs can reach ridiculous and quite monotonous levels. Especially when each news channel plays the 'Exclusive' top band when all channels are showing exactly the same footage and at the same time. Or when every news channel in the country claims to be No. 1 in India with some even printing statistics in local newspapers to lay their claim. It's there for all to see. I wont even touch the 'Breaking News' part. It's so passé.

Often we are also accused of 'making' or 'sensationalizing' news. There have been several instances of both in the past. But then again a few aberrations cannot define the entire community.

However the recent attack on Prashant Bhushan in his court chamber has brought into focus the much debated and the much frowned upon topic of media ethics. What the media can do/should do and shouldn't do. The presence of a prominent news channel at the time of the incident has raised many questions. Did the group who carried out the attack inform the channel beforehand?

The answer could be a Yes. It may even be a No. It could just have been the news crew's lucky day. The thing about being at the right place at the right time.

Though many viewers and media skeptics had one question to ask: why didn't the cameraperson or the reporter try to save Prashant Bhushan? Why did they calmly record the happenings which the channel later exploited to its fullest?

This brings us back to the main question: is media merely a watchdog of society or does it have a bigger and more responsible role to play?

From what I know, heard and read, media is supposed to be neutral, irrespective of the events unfolding and irrespective of personal biases. We are only to report events and not influence them.

If we go by this statement and if the said news channel is completely innocent, then there was nothing wrong in what they did. They just reported without being a part of it. At the same time if the channel is guilty of having prior knowledge of the attack then it is also guilty of encouraging violence or simply misusing its powers. If it is then it is only setting a very dangerous precedent.

All said and done every news channel and every newspaper has its own policies. They have their own take on media ethics and they go by it. But as a reporter present at such a scene it can be an extremely difficult call to take. Who doesn't want an 'exclusive'? For their own sake and for the sake of the channel.

When thrown in such uncomfortable situations, are we reporters first or normal human beings with normal human reflexes?

I remember asking the man-on-fire question to my professor, who without wasting any time said, "Your actions are the reflection of your character." We smiled at each other and I realized the answers are always there for us to see. The main question is: are we willing to see it?