“R” in Media stands for Responsibility, “C” stands for Credibility

If he gets convicted, one might argue that the harm is justified. But, if the court finds out otherwise, then what? No verdict of innocence can make him get rid of his damned face!

On 26th November 2022, allegedly a man on-board an international flight to India peed on a 72 year-old lady. About a month later, the story hit the news. And in no time, each news channel in India was on air with the breaking news, hunting for even more. How the event unfolded, how the crew reacted to it, the protocols followed and the protocols breached - all the answers were there with a detailed analysis within hours, which probably the airlines had failed to find in a month. Not just that! News agencies were able to pinpoint, and reach out to a co-passenger, who helped set the facts right and helped the news agencies reach the conclusion. An institution raised and nurtured by the citizens of India - the Indian media - was able to solve and dispose-off the case so quickly. A true victory for Indian democracy!

While the media was quick to reach a conclusion, the judiciary seems nowhere near it. This raises a question: Do we even need the judiciary? Afterall, it’s not a truly democratic institution - we can’t elect our judges. Disbanding “redundant” judiciary for more efficient media may be a considerable argument, if one dares to be radical enough. But hey! Is the media even confident enough to take this responsibility? If it is, then why are all the news channels calling Shankar Mishra - the man in the Air India case - accused? Isn’t he the culprit? And, why are all the news channels hiding behind safe words such as “alleged”?. “Mishra allegedly urinated on an elderly woman citizen…” claims Times Now (Link here). “Shankar Mishra, the man accused of peeing on an elderly woman co-passenger on an Air India flight..” states a report by Zee News (Link here). An NDTV report states “Mishra was allegedly drunk during the journey from New York to New Delhi on November 26 when he allegedly unzipped his pants and urinated on the 72-year-old woman seated in business class.” (Link here) Is there any media house that is not hiding behind the words such as “alleged” or “accused of”? Apparently not! And rightly so. Judiciary - the institution designated to declare anyone a culprit by the constitution of India - is yet to convict Shankar. Use of these words, apparently, provides them a safety net, as media houses do not have a clean track record in delivering verdicts. But then, how justifiable is the trial done by the media? Or rather, how responsible is the institution of media in conducting such trials, if they are not even reliable? Especially when wrong verdicts have the potential to cause harm to careers, reputation and sometimes, even lives. More on it later.

The “Pee-Gate” scandal - What is at stake?

I am not trying to prove the innocence of Shankar Mishra. I don’t know whether he did the heinous crime. In fact, I want to establish that we don’t know! And we - the common people - neither have the capacity nor the resources to reach any conclusion. All the evidences, information, and even the statements have been brought to us by a third party - all the data are secondary, provided by the institutions which could have vested interests. And yet, while we live in ambiguity, the man has lost his entire reputation that he had earned in the past thirty four years. Everything about him is just a Google search away. Popular and, expectedly responsible, news agencies have put efforts in publishing and broadcasting everything required to identify the accused - his name, his age, number of members in his family, his job, his designation, his employer (ex-employer now), even his face - all in a country that boasts for innocent until proven guilty. The impact is irreversible. If he gets convicted, one might argue that the harm is justified. But, if the court finds out otherwise, then what? No verdict of innocence can make him get rid of his damned face!

A report on FirstPost specifically elaborating the identity of the accused. Face and details blurred by the author, not by FirstPost. Report link: https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/pee-gate-who-is-shankar-mishra-the-man-arrested-for-urinating-on-a-woman-co-passenger-on-air-india-flight-11946372.html

While there is so much we know about the accused, there is hardly any information available about the identity of the alleged victim, proving that the media has the capability to significantly conceal the identity of those involved. It is, therefore, not about the capability of the media, rather about the intent. In order to survive the competition, in order to be the one with all the answers, in order to deliver that “breaking news” report, these news agencies sacrificed a person who is, till now, only an accused. These agencies have developed a narrative which most of us have accepted. This is visible from the comments of the audience on related reports - print or video. And these agencies are trying hard to sustain it. That is how a co-passenger becomes an “eye-witness” while no passenger or crew-member has yet claimed to have witnessed the incident happening. And yes, the statement of the defense becomes an attempt to malign the modesty of a woman. Disagree? Watch this video - a report by Republic News just as an example. Read the ticker from 0:36 and listen to the arguments of the anchor. It seems that the channel clearly knows who is the victim, and who is shaming the victim. Also, from 0:08 to 0:12, questions asked to the accused, that are clearly audible, are “Shankar, are you apologetic or not?” “Shankar, are you ashamed of yourself?” Right questions for a person whose crime has not been proven yet, aren’t they? Those too, by the people whose profession is asking the right questions!

Not the first time! - the track record of irresponsibility of Indian media

How responsible is the institution of media as a whole, if it commits such crimes regularly and unapologetically?

In September 2022, in Chandigarh University, allegedly a girl was found recording videos of her hostel mates in objectionable conditions. When the news gathered momentum in the media, in no time many news channels showed the face of the boy who was, allegedly, instructing the girl to do so. Soon everything about him was brought out there in public - his name, his hometown, his profession, his friends and parents - and he went behind bars for two weeks. Later it was found that someone was using his profile picture, and he had no connection with the incident. (My article talking about this and other similar incidents) The boy - the victim boy - Rankaj Verma explained in an interview to the YouTube channel Peepoye how his entire family had suffered and how he had almost died due to the lies spread by the media (Link here). Remember how, then, those same news channels published apologies for tarnishing the image of an innocent boy? Me neither!

A news channel taking pride in being the first one to reveal the identity of an accused. Girl’s face is blurred (and rightly so), showing that it’s not about the capability but about the intent. Source: https://groundreport.in/chandigarh-mms-case-why-news-channels-blurred-face-of-accused-girl-but-not-of-boy/

These incidents did not happen in isolation. The list is long! And, probably, we will never get to know how long, as judicial trials are themselves not insulated from media trials (More on it in next section). For reference, let us discuss another incident of similar nature that had received a huge public attention - the case of Rohtak Brave Sisters. In November 2014, a video of two sisters beating three men with belts in a crowded bus went viral. The girls alleged that the men were sexually harassing them. Overnight, the men became the national villains, and the girls Bravehearts. (Link here) General sentiment developed that the three men should be severely punished for the heinous crime. The men, who had cleared the first round of evaluation for admission into the Army, were debarred from appearing in the next rounds. Their careers were ruined. Four years later, after investigation and examination, which included the lie-detector tests of alleged victims and the accused, the Punjab & Haryana Sessions court upheld the decision of the Rohtak court, pronouncing the men not-guilty. The investigations found the allegations on them false and cooked up, apparently, to gain fame. But that didn’t help them get back to normalcy. A report by The Logical Indian in 2018 shows how these men were suffering even after four years - they couldn’t find jobs, they had crossed the age limit to pursue their dream career in the Indian Army, and one of them was finding himself financially incapable of taking care of his ailing parents (Link here). Girls were definitely the criminals (The court refused to register a case against them stating that they had also suffered - Link here). But aren’t the news channels even bigger criminals? How responsible is the institution of media as a whole, if it commits such crimes regularly and unapologetically?

Media trial does not just end there - Influence of media trial on judicial trial

Out of every twenty respondents, nineteen claimed to know at least one case in India which was ruled unfairly to gain popularity.

The Indian judiciary does not consider media reports as evidence admissible in the court (Source here). Presumably, this is done to insulate judicial trials from media trials. However, according to research at Walden University (Link here), the Indian judicial system is influenced by media trials. As a part of the aforementioned research, opinions on various themes of 430 attorneys registered to practice in India were recorded. Out of every twenty respondents, nineteen claimed to know at least one case in India which was ruled unfairly to gain popularity, seventeen believed that judges in the past have changed their decision due to the influence of public media, and more than seventeen claimed to know at least one offender who received harsher sentences than required by the law, due to Indian public demand through excess publicity. Not even one in every twenty respondents disagreed on the point that public media can influence judges’ perception of a case under trial. (Refer to Appendix 1 for details). Media does influence human perception, and judges afterall, are humans. It is probably impossible to insulate the judiciary from the popular media, which inflates the responsibility of the media in delivering fairly to the people. And when it fails to do so, even the harm to the society and the nation is inflated disproportionately.

There have also been instances where media brought out several evidences that were initially overlooked by the investigation agencies, such as the Nitish Katara murder case, Nirbhaya rape case, Priyadarshani Matoo rape case etc. (Link here ; Page 220 and 221) However, it can be observed that the media trials follow a format. Their conclusions are drawn from preliminary information and half-cooked evidence, which seldom change throughout the course of their trial. In Shaji vs State of Kerala, the court observed: “the media has always unfairly conducted a trial against the accused and has tarnished them black…. These are the days of fierce competitive journalism and in the search for attractive headlines, no holds appear to be barred” (Link here ; Page 222). Kerala court is not the only one concerned about the media trials. Justice NV Ramana, 48th Chief justice of India, was quoted by Times of India as saying “Of late, we see the media running kangaroo courts, at times on issues even experienced judges find difficult to decide. Ill-informed and agenda-driven debates on issues involving justice delivery are proving to be detrimental to the health of democracy” (Link here)

Responsibility beyond media trial

If nothing happens, many of them try to manufacture stories and photographs with the help of the local aids who wait in the wings of such opportunities

On 26th November 2008, a number of terrorists belonging to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) entered Mumbai, caused bloodshed at various public places during peak hours, and held hostages in two hotels and a Jewish religious site, in what is popularly called as the 26/11 incident. Having been a few in numbers, it was not possible for the terrorists to scan all the rooms for hostages, and defend each potential entry point of security forces. Their handlers in Pakistan - with whom the terrorists were in constant touch - needed precise information about hostages and actions of the security forces - the more the better. Some news channels provided exactly that!

A very senior journalist reported on the live TV that she was in touch with some of the hostages on the nineteenth floor of the hotel who, apparently, were not found out by the terrorists till then. In the same report she revealed about the arrival of reinforcements of the security forces and the possibility of them breaching into the hotel soon. (Video link here). Was she brave? Definitely! Was she a responsible journalist? You decide. In this context she is reported to have said that the media was not aware that the handlers of the terrorists were monitoring the news channels (Absurdity of this statement needs no elaboration!) “I don’t believe I was the only one who said it. Journalists across the board said that” she was quoted by Bharti News regarding her disbursement of critical information on live TV (Link here). Sadly, that is true! The entire operation was live telecasted across. Surprise - a crucial element of any military operation - was compromised by the competitive unapologetic news channels, which delivered precise information of the arrival, mode of entry, equipment and what not about the Indian security forces. The entire incident of 26/11 caused the death of fifteen Mumbai police officials, two NSG commandos, and more than one fifty civilians. Around three hundred people were reported injured (Link here).

NDTV live streaming the entry of NSG commandos into Nariman House. NSG Commando Havaldar Gajendra Singh Bisht and six hostages were killed at the site. Report link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TzWu0rOq08

Such incidents showcase that the irresponsible and unethical reporting, under the guise of media freedom can cause damage to the safety of the masses. Relevant to add, such incidents neither are a countable few that happened in isolation, nor are a part of any recent trend. Irresponsible journalism has caused significant harm to the nation in the past. In this context, the Kashmir crisis is, sadly, the cave of snakes.

During the Kashmir crisis of the ‘90s, many local media houses submitted - willingly or unwillingly - to the narrative of the terrorists. That is how the terrorists became ‘militants’, ‘freedom-fighters’ and ‘mujahideen’, while Indian authority became ‘tyranny’ and ‘colonial rule’. One might argue that local journalists had no other option, as they had to survive in the same state and thus, could not afford to go against the narrative of the terrorists. However, there were journalists who came from other states. They wanted ‘sensational stories’. And that too, quickly - their stints were short, and the competition was cut-throat. So they resorted to questionable means. “Many visiting journalists expect from Kashmir juicy, sensational and anti-India incidents to happen for reporting and photography during their sojourn of two or three days. If nothing happens, many of them try to manufacture stories and photographs with the help of the local aids who wait in the wings of such opportunities” A note submitted by the representatives of Editors’ Guild of India to the organisation states. The note also condemns Sunday Observer, a reputed newspaper, for exaggerating the number of deaths in 21st January 1990 Gawkadal incident to 200. “The Pakistan Radio had reported that so far 100 persons have been killed in Kashmir. But our Sunday Observer puts the figure of casualties at 200 and Sunday Mail at 150. These are some instances of petty efforts of sensationalism and unhealthy competition among journalists” the note further states. It is important to understand that during that period Pakistan Radio was allegedly reporting highly exaggerated figures of deaths in order to develop an anti-India narrative. (Source for all the facts and quotes presented in this paragraph: My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir by Padma Vibhushan Jagmohan; Page 390 to 392; All excerpts from the note quoted in this book are mentioned in Appendix 2) This is an example to set the reference. Kashmir, in particular, and India, in general, is brimming with such incidents.

Conclusion

It is expensive to find a narrative, and then change it based on new information. It is cheaper to stick to a narrative and then find information that confirms it

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India grants the citizens of India the freedom of expression. Experts state that Article 19(1)(a) prevents government institutions from interfering with what the media reports. The reason needs not to be pulled out of deep. Independence of the media from the government, obviously, is important for a stable democracy. However, freedom of media does not ensure its fairness.

From the examples quoted above, and many other similar incidents not quoted here, it may be understood that in many cases the victims of media trials are not much different from you and me. It could be any of us, partially guilty or even completely innocent, caught up in the crossfire of cut-throat competition between news channels. The solution: Take the reports of the media with a sack of salt. The investigations, the narratives, and even the so-called facts delivered to us could be, and in many cases have been proved to be insufficient to reach conclusions. Doing so anyway can cause harm - severe harm - to one or many undeserving people, which could someday be even us or our loved ones. Not trusting whatever the TV shows may result in us being inconclusive on many stories. That is fine! We don’t need to have all the answers right now. And we don’t need to have all the answers anyway. Thorough understanding of relevant accounts are developed over long periods - over months and years - and that understanding is what matters. Media runs on our trust - they measure our trust through our TRP, reactions on social media and other sources. Decline in the trust in media would force the news channels to improve their quality in the long-run. Apparently the decline has already started (Link here)

We need to accept that most of the major media houses run for profit and are critical to costs. It is expensive to go out there, develop sources, wait for stories, check, double check, and report. It is cheaper to scrape Twitter and Facebook, search the internet, ‘analyse’ information and debate. It is expensive to find a narrative, and then change it based on new information. It is cheaper to stick to a narrative and then find information that confirms it. Perhaps, that is why we see so much of news about easy-to-source political statements and public reaction on social media, so much of debates and shouting, and so much of reporting from a select few ‘big cities’; that is why drizzle in Delhi becomes a five minute report, while floods in Assam don’t even find a mention; and that is why, our news channels are now echo halls - each serving a specific segment of loyal audience, each of whom thinks their narrative is the only genuine narrative.

“Print media still has a certain degree of accountability. Whereas, electronic media has zero accountability as what it shows vanishes in thin air. Still worse is social media…”
- Justice NV Ramana, ex-Chief Justice of India (Source: Link here)

Appendix 1: Some important conclusions from the Walden University research paper

(Source: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8084&context=dissertations)



Question: Can media be used to complicate a simple case under trial?






Question: I believe public media can influence judges’ perception of a case under trial






Question: I normally have judges handling my defense case as a friend on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter or any other social media platform






Question: I normally discuss the case casually on social media with the judge handling it



Question: I know of an attorney who has a judge handling his or her defense case as a friend on social media



Question: I know of an attorney who discussed the case he or she is handling casually on the social media with the judge



Question: I believe a judge handling a critical case changed his or her decision out of public media influence



Question: I know of a judge who had or has a casual social media relationship with a group of individuals with personal interest in the case he or she was/is handling



Question: I know of a judge who visits offenders’ or defenders’ social media accounts to gather more information about any of the two before making a ruling



Question: I believe intensive case analysis by media before completion of legal process influences judgment



Question: I believe that there are offenders in India whose sentencing was basically done by the media and not by the judge



Question: I know of a critical case in India whose ruling was 50% or more influenced by intensive media involvement



Question: I have witnessed an offender receiving harsher sentences than required by the law due to Indian public demand through excess publicity



Question: There are cases in India that were blown off balance by media due to surrounding events



Question: I know a case in India that was unfairly ruled to gain publicity



Question: About 50% of critical criminal cases in India are determined by media long before the trial



Question: Media influences judges’ publicity after the trial of a critical criminal case in India

Appendix 2: Excerpts from the note submitted by S. Sahay and K. Narindra to Editors’ Guild of India on the situation of journalism in Kashmir

(Source: My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir by Padma Vibhushan Jagmohan)

Excerpt 1: About local journalists of Kashmir

“Some of the local journalists had been quite irresponsible about the reporting of terrorism-related news. A local daily, with a sizeable circulation in Srinagar city, had indulged in a a vilification campaign against Saidulha, an upright Station House Officer of Maisuma police station in downtown area of Srinagar city and Justice Neelkanth Ganjoo, the judge who sentenced Maqbool Bhatt to death, till both of them were gunned down by the suspected terrorists. The police officer was shot dead when he was coming out from a mosque after offering morning prayers.

P.N. Bhat, a prominent advocate and social worker of Anantnag used to write for various local and outside publications on issues related with Kashmir. A local journalist did a whisper campaign in Anantnag town that Bhat was an RSS man and was writing for Hindu fundamentalist publications. Following this campaign, Bhat was shot dead in broad daylight in Anantnag.

Most of the local dailies used to act willingly or unwillingly, on the handouts of the terrorists. They used to give ideas to the terrorists by announcing new programmes to subversion, in the name of one or another outfit, and indulge in exaggerated reporting about the anti-India protests, publish sensational interviews claimed to have been given by underground leaders, and also splash highly sensational photographs of anti-India activities. Arranging bogus photos to visiting Indian and foreign journalists was also a big money-spinning business for some local journalists.”

Excerpt 2: About visiting journalists to Kashmir

“Many visiting journalists expect from Kashmir juicy, sensational and anti-India incidents to happen for reporting and photography during their sojourn of two or three days. If nothing happens, many of them try to manufacture stories and photographs with the help of the local aids who wait in the wings of such opportunities”

Excerpt 3: About the exaggerated report by Sunday Observer

“Regarding the January 21 incidents, the Sunday Observer carried a report by a visiting correspondent in which it was stated that 200 persons were killed on that day and machine guns were reportedly used against civilians. The same correspondent who also wrote another story about the curbs on the press, too, might have listened to Pakistan Radio and watched Pak Television which have a big clandestine network in the Valley and are always in the forefront of the anti-Indian campaign. The Pakistan Radio had reported that so far 100 persons have been killed in Kashmir. But our Sunday Observer puts the figure of casualties at 200 and, Sunday Mail at 150. These are some instances of petty efforts of sensationalism and unhealthy competition among journalists”

Excerpt 4: About how journalists were being intimidated

“The news agencies also receive telephone calls from anonymous callers claiming to represent various terrorist outfits. They often threaten that if their version is not carried in the press, the journalist would be in trouble.

The atmosphere of fear and threats developing in Kashmir before Governor’s Rule could be gauged from the fact that some newspapers had started calling the subversives as ‘mujahideens’, others as ‘freedom fighters’. The national dailies also shifted from the word ‘terrorists’ to ‘militants’ after the local Doordarshan and Radio, where infiltration of terrorists is no less, started using the more respectable word.”