The Degradation of Journalistic Integrity in the Digital Age

Affordable internet and smartphones have revolutionized the world of media and entertainment. Estimates suggest that there are around 4.5 billion users on the internet currently. Truly remarkable, and a feat unimaginable a few decades back. However, it does come with certain demerits.

 Everyone has become a journalist or a judge (both words can be used interchangeably these days), and medium like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter has emerged as the forbearers of justice around the world. Once pronounced guilty by the mighty media, not even an acquittal by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, or the International Court of Justice can exonerate the person from the judgement by the keyboard warriors.

 A few days back, I was drawn into the most pertinent question of the 21st century, though reluctantly. This needed to be answered, and the matter appeared much more alluring than bleak, monotonous issues like COVID-19, unemployment, closure of small and medium businesses around the globe, amongst others. 

 The question was "Who killed Sushant Singh Rajput"? 

 News channels like the Republic, considered to be the most impartial news network in India, stepped into the shoes of the Scotland Yard. Even Sherlock Holmes' would've had jitters down his spine on seeing the quality of investigation carried out by these networks. Hours and hours of debates and cross-examinations were conducted. Evidence was unearthed. In case it wasn't available easily, the vigour of the investigations and questionnaires made everyone feel that these words are holier than those written in the Bible. In fact, being loud and obnoxious is considered truthful these days, I guess?

 Somewhere down the line, though I cannot explicitly provide a time period, most media houses started losing the plot. The journalistic pillars - accuracy, brevity and clarity - were shaken to pander to the masses. A new pillar was erected and was it named as TRP. If relevant news topics were difficult to find, fabrication became common. Sensationalism gained relevance. Someone whispered into their ears that a higher TRP would mean a path directly to heaven. It did not matter whether the news was appropriate, or relevant. BEING FIRST - Yes! Nothing else mattered.

 A goofy dude who made his name as a writer and humorist, Mr Mark Twain, once remarked: " If You Don’t Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed". 

 In the quest to emerge as the winners in breaking out the news, the media houses are disregarding the destruction that can be caused by their actions in case the news turns out to be false. 

 The primary case in point, Jasleen Kaur vs Sarvjeet Singh. Jasleen Kaur posted a video on Facebook and accused Sarvjeet Singh of misbehaving with her. This occurred five years back. The media houses took up the video, and all hell broke loose on Sarvjeet. He became an overnight celebrity, though for all the wrong reasons. He received great acclaim and was awarded coveted titles like rapist, misogynist, creep, sexist pig, etc. No cross-questioning, no examination of evidence. Due process of law? Nope. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Video was shared, that too from Ms Kaur's perspective. The life of a young man descended on a downward spiral after a supposed confrontation with a lady in a traffic signal. Mr Singh struggled to keep hold of his job and faced legal troubles for close to three years. All accusations, regardless of the parties involved, need to be studied before drawing inferences from the same. Wait. These proceedings take place in a court of law. Not in the media's eyes. They found the video. They made the conclusion. Case closed. TRP saw a rise. Why even worry then? Let me be absolutely clear here, I advocate death sentences for a rapist. But, the media hasn't been bestowed with the power of convicting someone.

 Now, you may point out that the media can make mistakes. Alas, its human to err. But, as Uncle Ben famously told Peter Parker, a.k.a. Spiderman, "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". The media is immensely influential in this digital age. They have the potential to make or break human lives or cause turmoil in society. Here, let us see a recent example from the United States of America. George Floyd, the man who yelled: "I can't breathe". His death gave rise to peaceful protests in the USA. Media houses like CNN failed to produce the complete police dashcam footage that was available. They edited the part to fit their narrative. Mr Floyd had been under the influence of drugs and complaint of not being able to breathe even before the policemen got hold of him. How many people actually saw the story from the policemen's perspective? Conclusions were immediately drawn from photos and short video clippings. There are strong pieces of evidence to suggest that the actions of the policemen weren't racially motivated. However, most media houses were not even remotely interested in that and became ostriches inside the sand. Could the death have been avoided? Sure. Mr Floyd didn't deserve to die. However, suggesting that racism was the sole motive behind the unfortunate death is immensely dangerous. The media must show the complete story, and provide 360-degree coverage. In some areas, the peaceful protests turned violent, resulting in losses of over US$ 2 billion. The U.S. is still up in flames as a result of this! Even black-owned businesses suffered badly due to these riots by the activist groups. There isn't a speck of doubt regarding the degradation of societal harmony by the media in this regard. Criminals should be dealt with, regardless of their race, creed, class, gender, colour, sex, etc. Become first, sell news, increase ratings, gain revenue. Rinse and repeat. 

 The media cannot afford to get 90% of the cases right and rave about their success. The other 10% can prove detrimental in the long run, and has the potential to ruin lives, literally. 

 Journalism has transformed into activism. Journalists are no longer interested in listening to a different perspective. Even in interviews, anything that doesn't befit their agenda is quickly shunned off. The primary job of a journalist is to put forward information from all angles and let the masses decide for themselves. They are supposed to be torchbearers of ethics and morality. They aren't supposed to take sides of the candidates during an election. They aren't supposed to solely focus on the laurels of a government and hide their failures. They aren't supposed to solely focus on the failures of a government and hide their successes. In the words of Thanos, the news must be balanced, as all things should be. If you switch on Fox News, you can find reports that make Mr Donald Trump appear as the second coming of Jesus Christ. Fox often portrays Mr Trump as the best president in the history of the United States. On the other hand, if you a fan of CNN, Mr Donald Trump is the second coming of Adolf Hitler. In fact, during the 2016 US elections, networks such as CNN went out of the journalistic boxes and showered praise on the Hillary Clinton. In fact, renowned journalist Rachel Anne Maddow was on the verge of tears on MSNBC after she realized that Hillary had been Trumped. CNN also had to settle a lawsuit for around US$ 275 million after they erroneously attacked a high school student for being racist against a supposed US veteran. RIP Apolitical journalism. Redundant though. In fact, political journalism itself is an oxymoron. 

 Furthermore, the media gets an additional kick when there is a female involved. 

The Logic is simple. It is a proven recipe for success. 

 Male news = X TRP 

Female News = 10X TRP 

Male*Female News =100X TRP 

 In comes the masala. 24*7 fun. Last year, Mr Sriram Venkitaraman was involved in a car accident that took the life of a journalist in Kerala. Rather than rendering context to the story, several media houses like Matrubhumi chose to print full-page news regarding how he was drunk with a female friend during the wee hours. Sidney Sheldon would come second in storytelling in case he competes with some of the current media houses. 

Journalists such as Mr Ravish Kumar and Andrew Neil can be considered as more endangered than the snow leopards in the Himalayas. Journalists are being governed by their political inclinations, which is more deadly than a ticking time-bomb. In this era of free information, the masses must cross-check the content before taking actions. Journalists are not part of the Supreme Court. They do not have the means to pronounce someone as guilty. Their actions have concealed motives, and it is crucial to identify the same before drawing conclusions. A simple "What could be the other side of this" would open new spheres, and introduce us to the world of critical thinking. The context is almost always hidden by the media outlets. They might be fabricating lies. Furthermore, withholding of information, and not revealing the context to fit their agenda can turn a story on its head.

 Remember, innocent until proven guilty. Also, the media doesn't decide the degree of guiltiness.

 This is bound to fall on deaf ears. However, I can try.

 Dear Media,

 Please provide both sides of the story so that we can decide for ourselves. You needn't be patronizing and show us what is right. We are very well capable of doing that. We know that you need to satiate the need of your political masters. But, in doing so, you are transforming into everything that journalism shouldn't stand for. Right to privacy has been conferred to every individual by our constitution. The next time you decide to peep into a hotel room or follow an accused into his bedroom by calling it undercover journalism, or with chest-thumping slogans like "The nation wants to know", remember that you are in violation of their privacy. It is unbecoming of any a journalist to do so. If the Fourth Pillar of Democracy behaves in such a manner, we as a country are going down the drain.

 Rather than going for sensationalism, provide substance. Tell us about the success stories. Tell us how wealth can be created. Tell us what we can do to save the environment. Tell us how we can hold our politicians accountable. Tell us about the good works done by the politicians. Tell us about business ideas that can be developed. Tell us about the government schemes that support employment/entrepreneurship. Talking about Rhea Chakraborthy's life history alone amidst these difficult times is not helping us in any way. Even if you aren't providing us with information, do not provide us with false information. In case the sensationalized story turns out to be false, it is your duty to point out the same to the citizens of this country, regardless of what it does to your reputation. I would rather have you cancelled than see an innocent individual suffer as a result of your incompetence. 

 Sincerely, A firm believer in Impartial Journalism, or in its literal sense - Journalism. 

 Disclaimer Note: I still do not know who killed Sushant Singh Rajput, and neither does the media.

Enable GingerCannot connect to Ginger Check your internet connection
or reload the browserDisable in this text fieldEditEdit in GingerEdit in Ginger×