A journalist has claimed that in year 2013, the male friend
of ‘Nirbhaya’ (nick name given to the female victim of the heinous 2012 crime
in Delhi which shook the nation) had demanded money to appear on camera and
narrate what had happened for TV News channels. The message is that his demand
for money was unethical. Hence the journalist recorded the demand on TV in a ‘sting
operation’. The journalist decided not to expose the man way back then because
of some God knows what reason but now due to some curious reason, he has decided
to reveal that episode on Twitter.
There are several aspects to the case and I would like to
think about each one of those.
1. Is it unethical for
someone to ask for money to appear on TV? I do not think so and I hope you would agree about
the same. Most of the persons who appear on TV get paid for their screen time
and efforts and other sacrifices in order to make the appearance. Plus, the TV
channel makes money from their appearance. Be it the participants of debates or
so called ‘reality’ shows, getting compensated monetarily or in some other form
is the established norm.
2. Is it ethical for a
journalist to make a recording of a person without his information, even if he can later label it as ‘sting
operation’? I do not think so. You need the person’s consent before you record
someone on camera. Most people who record others on camera without their awareness
do so because of some malicious intent. Only, the kind of journalism that has
become the norm in India, our journalists label such acts as ‘sting operation’
and then people are told that it is okay to do so. Think about it – if someone comes
to you and offers a huge sum of money or some undue offer (like school
admission for your kid), if you agreed to do something which you won’t do in
normal times. Now if that person recorded it as part of his ‘sting operation’
and showed it as a proof that you are corrupt. But the fact is that you did not
do anything wrong in “real”. It was all a “hypothetical” act. It is one thing for
someone to wish, think or vow to do something. But in real they may not do it. So
speaking and doing are two different things. But the manner in which media
projects “sting operation” is as if the person has already done something wrong
and hence I do not support it. Sting operations are unethical and hypothetical
scandals employed by media and journalists because they enjoy a powerful influence over the way we think.
3. Do journalists offer
money to people to make them speak; when at first they decline to speak? It is obviously
common. And most people won’t consider it wrong. But think about it – if the
person demanded money to speak, it is considered unethical. But if they
journalist offers him money to make him speak, it is considered fine. It is all
about “perceptions”. Both acts are not so different and it is possible for us
to call both acts as either ethical or unethical.
4. Did Nirbhaya’s boyfriend really do TV-hopping? Nirbhaya case was so much outrageous. I remember the media
coverage around the time the incident had happened. I have following pointers
about the incident and its media coverage:
-
Media
had reported about the incident with graphic details about the victim and the
crime. We can still remember the chilling details like “intestines being taken
out”. Such brutal reporting with graphic details is never seen in most other cases
of violent crimes. (In my opinion, media coverage was excessive)
-
The
true identity of the victim was revealed shortly after the incident. Even
though the nick name “Nirbhaya” was available and widely accepted and there was
no reason to reveal the real name, her religion, her caste, her parents name,
her home town etc, all these details were revealed soon after the incident. Who
would be held answerable to this? (In my opinion, victims privacy was not protected by media)
-
The
parents of Nirbhaya were too vocal and visible on the TV in due course after
the incident. When I first came to know about Nirbhaya’s parents giving TV
interviews and media showing them with their real face and names, talking about
the incident and demanding stricter laws to prevent such cases, I was shocked
in disbelief. Initially I did not believe that they were actually coming out
and talking about it. Then I realized what was happening; I thought that it may
be their way to come in terms with the grief. So I explained myself that it was
fine. (In my opinion, it is surprising that the journalist is attacking Nirbhaya's boyfriend for TV-hopping while not accusing her parents for doing similar act. The intent is clear: it is not considered proper to accuse one's parents but it is okay to accuse one's boyfriend - since society anyway looks down on boyfriends)
-
Nirbhaya’s
boyfriend was not so much seen anywhere in TV news those days. From the time of the
incident I do not remember seeing Nirbhaya’s boyfriend anywhere. After a while a few news
reports had started coming up about him as well. But in my understanding, Nirbhaya’s
boyfriend was also a victim. From the news report I remember, he was also beaten
up by the accused and he was thrown off from the bus before the accused committed
the crime. (The journalist attacking the boyfriend want us to forget the fact that both Nirbhaya and her boyfriend were attacked and both were victims).
Now the final question is: should we
trust the journalist totally and demonize Nirbhaya’s boyfriend now (as the
journalist wants us to do) for doing something which is the norm in journalism:
asking money for TV appearance? Here, I have following points:
-
Most
of the time if journalists want someone having some information which viewers
may be interested in hearing, to speak and the person is not speaking, they
offer money to the concerned person in order to “incentivize” them to speak. This
is not considered unethical.
-
Nirbhaya’s
boyfriend was her real friend she trusted, that is why she would have gone out
with him at that hour of the evening. So my first feeling toward him is not so
negative. In other words, I do not believe he was a bad guy.
-
A
lot of people in the media are corrupt. It is not uncommon that the journalists
cook up stories by portraying someone as “evil” in order to increase TRP or
popularity of their shows or content. I do not know if the journalist accusing
Nirbhaya’s male friend is 100% honest or if he is just trying to cook up some
controversy in order to gain popularity. And if he is doing this purposefully and
we all blindly trust him, then there is greater danger ahead. More journalists
will use the little pieces of information they have against others in order to
defame and even “blackmail” them.
-
The
journalist’s accusations appear like personal grudges to me. For example, the
journalist says that he saw “no pain in the boyfriend’s eyes”. Now we all know
that different people express feelings in different expressions. It is totally
impossible for the boyfriend to not feel bad for Nirbhaya. Hence this “he had
no feelings” looks rather like an attempt to persuade readers that the
boyfriend is “pure evil”. Why did the journalist need to make such personal “demonization”
of the man? I think it is so because his main argument was very light; so he
employed this dirty trick to complete his “demonization act”.
My recommendation is not to trust the journalist’s version of
the story totally. He may be telling truth but the truth may not look like the
way he wants us to look at it.
After having a look at his Tweets, it rather looks like a misuse
of power by the jounralist. It is a case of:
1. Media trial: Where audience believe in whatever is
being said by the journalist just because it is being said by a journalist
(since they are conditioned into believing that the journalists tell nothing
but the truth)
2. Male victimization: Where audience do not look into the
side of the story of the accused just because the accused is a from a group who are considered dominant e.g. males
3. Victim blaming: The journalist even wrote in his
Tweets that he doubted if the male friend even tried to save Nirbhaya. Here he
chose to completely forget the real facts about the incident i.e. the boyfriend
was beaten up and thrown off from a moving bus. As luck had it, the boy
survived. And in a way the journalist is blaming him for surviving and arguing
that if the boyfriend was honest, he should have died with Nirbhaya too. This is
so stupid and evil argument and we should never fell for it.
If the journalist is telling the truth exactly as it is, then
of course this whole thing is very sad. Only a sick person would try to benefit
from the victim’s loss. Anyone who tried to gain something out of what happened
to Nirbhaya is a sick person. But I do not trust the journalist’s version of
story totally and hence I won’t judge Nirbhaya’s boyfriend personally. That is
all I have to say about it. What do you think?
- Rahul Tiwary
No comments:
Post a Comment