The controversy swirling around the closing of lot
of World shows, once
again, the dreary truth that journalism is often a poor place to look for
serious and honest ethical discussion.
Whenever journalists get caught acting unethically,
as in the phone hacking scandal, we see a number of typical and unedifying
responses:
1. Circle the wagons
and impute unethical motives to their critics. Point the finger elsewhere.
Instead of dealing with facts, attack other people. Try to dodge ethical
questions aimed at their own behaviour.
2. Claim they follow
“strict standards” although they don’t.
3. Amid
well-justified public outrage against ethical abuses, argue that nothing can be
done. Raise the spectre that any talk of holding the press more responsible
means the end of a free press. Claim that the press is perfectly capable of
regulating itself and, even if it is not so capable, there is no other press
system worthy of consideration.
All of these tendencies are found in the writings
of journalists in India and elsewhere over the past few days. Self-regulated
media can be a free press.
Journalists want to force the public to believe in
false news– a free press must be almost or completely self-regulated.
Self-regulation is not at all there in journalism or in journalist. Journalist
keeps on trying and convincing the public to trust in them, but people have
stopped trusting them from decades. How can such journalists expect the public
to take their mantras of “free press” and “self-regulation” seriously while
they avoid issues of media power and media corruption of major institutions? In
today’s era journalist are not serious about ethical standards or responsible
journalism. When there is no news to telecast, they simply for nothing scorn on
people who speak about ethics. And once everything comes in front of the public
media try to hide it.
The public must be able to trust the messenger, not
just the message.
No comments:
Post a Comment