Journalism is Strengthened, The Journalist is Weakened
When I was little, my father (I call him 'Papa') often used to tell me stories from his childhood. They are, after all, his precious memories. And one of these stories that stand out for me is the one with the Television.
Papa belonged to the poor strata of the society, in a remote village in Bihar. His father i.e. my Dadaji, earned just enough to make sure that no one in their family sleeps empty stomach. Anything over that, including clothes, entertainment etc, was a luxury. So when a Television set came into one of the houses in the village (yeah it's old times and a rather backwards village), it was nothing less than a miracle. This is much older times, where programs often came at fixed times.
Papa tells me that when a show or a movie would be telecasted, it was almost like a mini-festival in the village. People used to come together and watch it, with extreme focus and curiosity. They would finish their work earlier in the day, and prepare snacks etc to eventually sit together and watch shows that would be considered quite mundane by today's standards (There was a show called 'Krishi Darshan' which was literally a show about agriculture. That too in a black and white tv.).
This voice of the television, one that brought people and sometimes communities together; this voice was powerful. This little outlet with hundreds of ears had the power to bring revolutionary changes in society. And till about a little more than a decade ago, there was a place for such media in the Indian social system. Where columns in Hindustan Times and Editorial of Navbharat Times was read by millions in the country. Where there were limited sources to consume information from, and there was a certain sense of unity in the thoughts of the general public.
And then everything changed. Quite a few different forces came together to bring the digital revolution to India. Computers and phones got a little cheaper, connectivity services became a little more accessible, interest in technology increased a tad bit; and no one realised when it happened, but the Internet took over the world. It started with chat rooms and blogs, to something a lot more sophisticated, i.e. Orkut and images/videos, to today where there are multiple social media and OTT platforms with millions of regular users interconnected through the magnificent and infinite web, the internet.
It brought a significant change in the workings of Indian urban societies in general, and it is slowly seeping into the deep rural roots of India too. The short version of all the changes that took place, is that a lot more people got voices. Artists (comedy and live music scene in India saw a significant boom), concerned citizens (there was a campaign by an online newspaper where people took pictures of damaged public properties and posted it, that was then highlighted by the paper to bring to the attention of the respective municipal corporations), completely online news outlets (the Wire), and many more. The common man suddenly had a way to make his voice heard.
One of the effects that this revolution translated into was the strengthening of journalism as a concept, as more and more voices were heard from the corners of the country where the cameras never reached. And there was an audience for everyone. For every artist, for every opinion, for every standpoint; an audience for everyone. The propagation of art and journalism had never been so strong on such a scale throughout history.
But every good thing comes at a cost. And in this case, the cost was the importance of an individual journalist. As the title of this article says, while journalism has strengthened, the journalist has become weak. For when there are multiple sources of news, the audience is bound to be dichotomized. And the power of any journalist is the number of people who care for what it has to say. Since the audience is split, the individual journalist is weakened.
In the past few years, the daily news has been filled with reports of violence against journalists, including death threats and actual murders. The Gauri Lankesh murder case was a horrifically real example of this. It is a deeply worrying issue for, but not limited to, one of the largest democracies in the world. If the individual journalist is not strengthened by the system, the fourth pillar of democracy, i.e. the media will be weakened. This can result in the acts of the authorities remaining unchecked, and democracy slowly shifting towards fascism. And it probably wouldn't be wrong to say that the current scenario seems to emulate this possibility.
If you have to take away something from instances like the murders of MM Kalburgi, Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar, Gauri Lankesh and many other journalists, it is an urgent need for strict laws towards the safety of journalists and an almost draconian implementation of them. This will not only make the jobs of current journalists better, but also encourage the younger generations toward taking up journalism as a career and a way of life.
So to end this article, I would quote one of the most influential American journalists, the late Helen Thomas:
"We don't go into journalism to be popular. It is our job to seek the truth and put constant pressure on our leaders until we get answers. If we care about the children, the grandchildren, the future generations, we need to make sure that they do not become the cannon fodder of the future." - Helen Thomas
- Sushant Kumar Das
To read about the journalists mentioned:
Comments
Post a Comment