dailyO
Politics

Warning: Watching news can be injurious to your health

Advertisement
Merlin Francis
Merlin FrancisMar 13, 2015 | 14:44

Warning: Watching news can be injurious to your health

A friend who was recently diagnosed with high blood pressure and increased stress levels was advised by his doctor to avoid watching the prime time debates on news channels.

My friend like many we know is glued to his TV, every evening, switching news channels watching them unfold a definitive view of the world around us! Of course at the time, he laughed it off thinking, his physician has a good sense of humour.

Advertisement

It was while sitting in front of his television set, listening to one such debate did he realise how agitated he felt, it was as if he had to take sides, have an opinion and vent his frustration even on issues, he would otherwise let slide or ignore; the shrill voices, the aggressiveness, all of it almost felt real, adding to his own stress. Have you been there, yet? Felt like that, while watching super prime time debates?

Journalism in this country has undergone a sea change. It has become more pronounced, more unabashed, the subtlety of the subtext often lost in the cacophony.

Having been an insider, a resident in the world of journalism for many years, it is surreal to watch the steady demise of the fourth pillar of our democracy. From a profession that inspired respect it has reached a point where it is ridiculed and even its honest claims are taken with a pinch of salt.

We have always known, about media and its political inclinations, right, left or centre. It used to govern the point of view of their editorials. But then it was just a point of view based on facts that were based on the media house's perspective and interpretations. You as a reader could either agree or disagree. It was not shoved down your throat.

Advertisement

In the recent years, journalism has seen a new low. With news and perceptions being manufactured to serve the interests of the people who back these media houses, it is difficult to distinguish the blurring lines between fact and fiction in the realm of news.

The possible score of sensationalisation and the TRPs it can garner, decides the stories to be pursued. Raw emotions, the tears, the anger, the extreme reactions, the heated responses all add to the elevation of a story to prime time and prime time debate by prime anchors.

While this trend has worked in some cases, giving birth to August and spring uprisings in this country, which saw the masses get on the streets and demand justice, it has also polarised them to a great extent. Instigating them to take law in their own hands many a times.

Unawares of how news is made, the public becomes a puppet in the hands of media, often playing to its tunes.

Two recent cases prove this point:

In the first case, the media took the most offensive sound bites from Leslee Udwin's documentary, India's Daughter and made it a national issue. The country stood divided in its opinion whether the documentary should be allowed a release in India or not. Without even watching it, people were seen debating on prime time on its consequences. The sound bites were mind numbing and those who had mouthed it, deserved to be loathed, but the real context was not provided. The film's release was banned and the opportunity to show the world what happened that day, who was Nirbhaya and how a nation stood up for an unknown girl, who became a symbol of their fight against a misogynistic society, was lost. Those who have watched the documentary will agree, that every man and woman in this country should watch it, irrespective of who made it.

Advertisement

Instead of helping us understand the message the media ended up getting the messenger shot.

In the second instance, the after effect of this great debate that dominated our news channels for days was a rise in desperation among the people, once again, two years after Nirbhaya's death. They again felt they had been let down by the government, the system, which was keeping the rapists alive, instead of passing a swift judgement and hanging them for their heinous crimes. What followed was unfathomable in a civil society like ours, the public lynching of an alleged rapist in Dimapur, Nagaland. People taking the law in their hands and punishing a man even before he was proven guilty. Many voices across social media, even supporting it.

While many of us agree, that we want the harshest punishment to be met out to rapists, can public trials and executions be allowed?

If latest reports are to be believed, the man lynched in Dimapur was innocent. A report submitted by the Nagaland government to the Union home ministry claims that the deceased, did not rape the sexual assault survivor and that the sex between him and the victim was consensual. Where does that leave those who were part of this act and those who supported it?

Today news is not merely about reporting, it is about building public perception. When they have such immense responsibility on their shoulders can the media afford to play the role of an instigator?

When an anchor shouts his lungs out on prime time, he is doing so, expecting us to take action, to clench our fists and go out and fight his fight, like he fights ours everyday in his newsroom.

I belong to the old school of journalism, where a journalist was always the seeker of truth. The one who finds and shares with the world the unadulterated truth behind all that transpires around us, wisely. Not to instigate but to inspire and educate. Where sensitisation took precedence over sensationalisation.

Media today, especially the electronic media should realise, with great power comes great responsibility. I hope we don't reach a stage where, channels will have to put out a statutory warning: Watching news can be injurious to your health!

PS: Realising that his physician was not joking, my friend has switched to taking walks around his complex at prime time.

Last updated: March 13, 2015 | 14:44
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy