The proliferation of television news media in India in the last three decades is always analysed and debated for the issues of journalistic ethics and codes. It’s often argued that the very nature of the electronic media- it’s organizational structure, it’s unique political economy and it’s capital-intensive nature-makes it almost impossible for the television journalists and field-reporters to respect the codes, conventions and ethics devised for the profession of journalism as a whole.
One of most common allegations television journalists and particularly the field-reporters therefore face is that they hardly respect the privacy of public figures and breach it frequently in the name of making them accountable for their actions. In response to these criticisms, a section of electronic media fraternity often says that there is nothing ‘private’ about ‘public’ figures and even their private lives are subject to scrutiny by media for the sake of broader public interest. It is precisely this line of reasoning that has been used (or misused) by media to scrutinize the lives of number of political figures, office bearers, film stars, celebrities and sportspersons in India and all across the world, although, the question of ‘where one should draw the line’ still remains relevant and debatable.
A recent incident where a young woman reporter- Tejshree Purandare- from Times Now was manhandled by BJP MP Brij Bhooshan Sharan Singh is a point in case. Purandare asked some pinpointed questions with regard to the sexual harrasment charges Singh was facing and chased him for his response at Delhi airport. While Singh deliberately chose to ignore Purandare and refused to answer her questions, on asking if he would ‘resign’ from his ‘post’, Singh suddenly got infuriated and misbehaved with the reporter by saying ‘shup up’ and eventually slamming the door of his car against the reporter’s mic. The incident was reported by the channel and a section of media as yet another proof of Singh’s arrogant attitude. With that, Purandare’s attempt was also appreciated as a courageous act of TV reporting.
Not all sections of the media, however, seemed impressed with young woman reporter. Her way of questioning and chasing down Brij Bhooshan Sharan Singh became a point of debate between senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai and Sourabh Dwivedi, founding editor of Hindi media web portal The Lallantop. As they dissected the merit of Purandare’s way of questioning Brij Bhooshan Sharan Singh on their digital show ‘Neta Negri’, Dwivedi expressed his strong displeasure over the practice of chasing down public figures for their comment. For him, there is no journalistic merit in running after these figures especially when they decline to comment on a particular question.
The job of a reporter or a journalist, according to him, is to report this unwillingness to answer and is not to chase down public figures for sound bytes. Dwivedi further argued that it was because of the tendency of seeking sound-bytes, field-reporters care very little about the privacy of public figures in question. Sardesai contested Dwivedi’s position by reiterating that chasing down public figures is very much part of a reporter’s duty and one of the ways of ensuring the accountability of our public representatives. Although, Sardesai too agreed that a reporter should respect the privacy of individuals.
One has to admit that the genre of sound-byte journalism has a very little value when it comes to the core values of profession. It not only encourages a reporter to seek the response of a public authority or a figure at the cost of breaching his or her privacy but also reduces issues of wider public significance to a spectacle of sensationalism and melodrama. One can easily call it the soap-operic influence, an influence which has increasingly shaped the businesses of electronic media houses in India over the past few decades.
But Purandare’s attempt hardly qualifies for such kind of sound-byte journalism. The reason is perhaps the context of the incident that Dwivedi completely failed to understand and take into consideration while articulating his position. One has to remember that the man who was at the receiving end of questioning by Purandare was a BJP parliamentarian and a bahubali facing charges of sexual harassment. The fact the he could remain in his office and move freely in public domain despite such serious accusations shows the extent of political protection he enjoyed from his party and power-circles. In many of his public appearances after the charges of sexual harassment were levelled against him, Singh was found escaping uncomfortable questions and speaking in threatening language. Seen in this context, Purandare’s attempt appeared less an act of sensationalism or breaching the privacy but more an act of making an arrogant and powerful political representative accountable.
What, therefore, makes Dwivedi’s line of reasoning misleading is his failure to see the specificity of the context in which Tejshree Purandare was seeking responses from one of the political heavyweights of ruling BJP régime. Disregarding this context not only weakens his position but also highlights why it is always important to take the context of a particular incident into consideration while seeking any kind of generalization over what a field-reporter should do or shouldn’t. One of the basics of the profession of journalism is that it teaches you to ‘read’ every context seriously and somewhat differently.
What is hence at stake in any incident varies from context to context and a journalist’s true ability is always defined in terms of how well he or she is placed to see that difference in the world of events. It goes without saying the journalism as a profession, as a craft or as a discipline is all about exploring the context-specific nature of happenings. Any concern over the issues of journalistic ethics and codes therefore should be expressed while keeping the same in mind.