.jpeg)
We should evaluate and, if appropriate, place the media's role in its proper place. We have to ask ourselves what the press's initial intended role was, whether it is still fulfilling that role, and whether it has deviated from its noble path.
What started as a dire need to balance the unholy union of the trio, the clergy, nobility and commoners, with the advent of the printing machine, voiced out alternatives to the way of handling situations. When the parliamentary system of administration became vogue, it positioned itself as the Fourth Estate alongside the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of power. The press prided itself on being the check-and-balance of society.
Then the media started taking sides. Some started aligning themselves with those seated to the right of the ruler and hailed for traditional order were said to practise 'right wing politics'. Conversely, those seated on the other side wanted change and are said to be 'left leaning'. Newspapers, too, took sides as there were merits on either side of the argument. They later became mouthpieces of political ideologies.
As the media morphed from print to audio- and video-capable formats, its role became indispensable. In the 21st century, as media became interactive, it was used for infotainment, and comedians started making more sense than politicians when discussing current political issues. Citizen journalism became a thing, and the general public became voracious consumers of knowledge. Digitalisation ensured news reached the palm of every person. People soon realised that disseminating news was not the sole purpose of these media merchants' existence. Keeping its shareholders happy took precedence.
An interesting discussion came to my attention recently. In the format of tabloid talk shows like Jerry Springer and Jeremy Kyle, but not as lewd or preposterous, Zee-Tamil used to run a community talk show called Solvathellam Unmai (Whatever Told is the Truth), where people could go on-screen to air their dirty linen. The general audience could offer their two cents' worth of advice. A young couple went on-air to vent about their family's opposition to their marriage. The boy, 24, and the schoolgirl, 16, had eloped and were seemingly seeking public approval for their predicament. The host, understandably, explained that the family's consent and blessings were important given her young age. That was when one bombshell after another. She alleged that her father had sexu@lly @ssaulted her, and later that he had committed three murders and buried the bodies in the compound of her house four years previously. The girl appeared genuinely scared for her life.
Both parties' parents were called in and appeared on the programme the following day. After initially denying the accusations, the girl's parents were forced to admit that all the ones she mentioned were indeed true. Just when everyone thought that the police would take over, no.
The TV team decided to conduct their own investigations, travelling to the town and conducting interviews. All of this was happening while post-production was underway and the TV station was preparing to screen that episode. They were buying time, knowing that once the police got involved, the first thing they would do was halt the episode's airing. Their reasoning for not involving the police was that they alleged they did not believe the girl.
The episode was aired 11 days later. Police got involved, but by then the parents had absconded. Long story short, the police and the courts did their job. The police excavated three bodies, and the father received a life sentence for murder.
Were the TV personnel irresponsible for not reporting the case when it first came to their attention? The 11-day delay helped the accused to flee and perhaps tamper with the evidence. As far as the TV company is concerned, monetary returns and viewership rankings are paramount. Becoming an obedient citizen comes a close second. They are in it primarily for the business.
Anyway, the silver lining is that the crime was exposed, and the girl is now at university studying engineering. Good sense has prevailed, and they plan to get married soon. The TV company had crowdsourced her tuition fees. Is this damage control?
The media company may say they have laws protecting them in investigative journalism, like the one that allowed journalists from the Washington Post to expose the shenanigans of Nixon's administration by using information from their informant, Deep Throat. This reality show, which thrives on low-brow stuff, is not going to change the nation. The law may promise to protect whistleblowers. Unfortunately, whistleblowers are technically not immune from prosecution, as more and more legal minds warn, and one must be wary of perpetrators who exploit the law to protect themselves against authorities.
Farouk Gulsara (asokansham@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.