The blogger
goes ahead to say, “While it is understood that media has a
moral responsibility towards creating awareness about lesser
known yet grave issues, it is largely a private enterprise and
must be allowed to function as one, keeping in mind its readers
and business prospects,” which reveals the idea of journalism
the blogger seem to have. This idea of journalism and media as a
business gets reiterated when she asks PCI to make provisions,
by talking to government, of “subsidy” and “tax wavier” for
media houses and “travel grants,” apart from “scholarships” for
journalists to unearth the real issues and to get trained to do
such specialized stories.
I was angered majorly by the way the blogger
trivializes the issue of farmer suicide by saying things like
news is only if the Government does something which implies that
the suicide of farmers by themselves do not hold any news value.
There seems no value to human life in the eyes of this blogger.
More sadly she says, in a comment on TSR that
“one” suicide is no news but “many” suicides is news. It seems
the blogger looks at farmer suicide as numbers which make her
say that “one” suicide is not news and “many” suicides are news.
“How many deaths does it take to be a massacre?”- Derrida is
said to have asked in the closing hours of his life and is said
to have answered the question as “One.”
News worthiness, according to the blogger, is
decided by the media itself. Media as she sees is a private
enterprise and has its own “business prospects”. By saying this
she implies that the business interests of the media is more
important than the expected job of the media. Worse she expects
“subsidy”, “tax waiver”, “scholarship” and “travel grants” to do
what is supposed to be the job of the media!
In anger I ask myself how could the editor
have approved such an insensitive and inhumane post be
published. What is the role of media-house while such
insensitive views are being aired in the space provided by them,
though the views of the authors may not be that of the
channel/newspaper/website. Though the website may say, with its
disclaimers, that the views expressed in the writings are that
of the author and not the website but when the website allows
such insensitive writings in their website the editor cannot
excuse himself/herself with the disclaimer for (s)he has given
the space. He/she too would be responsible.
Like in the case of DNA publishing the
article by Subramanian Swamy where the views expressed by the
columnist may not or is not the views of the paper. But by
providing space for such a hateful piece of writing DNA did
cause damage. How can it excuse itself by saying it is the view
of the columnist and columnist himself is responsible for his
views?
I ask myself if the blogger can be permitted
to air such views on the grounds of “diversity of opinions and
views”?
My problem with the post in question is not
that the blogger holds a view which is different from mine. My
problem is the insensitivity which the blogger’s point of view
holds, which it is likely to pass on to the readers.
A friend of mine told me that it was fine if
the blogger had aired her views in her personal blog and said
that because she had aired her views in a public sphere he finds
it objectionable. I don’t know if it is ‘fine’ if one shares his
or her opinion in their personal blogs, given the easy access to
the blogosphere. But yeah as my friend pointed out the website
which is a collection of blogs is more of a public sphere and
has more accessibility than personal blogs, which makes the
insensitive writing more dangerous.
Antonio Gramsci wrote, “How the ideological
structure of a dominant class is actually organized: namely the
material organization aimed at maintaining, defending and
developing the theoretical or ideological ‘front’… Its most
prominent and dynamic part is the press in general… The press is
the most dynamic part of this ideological structure, but not the
only one. Everything which influences or is able to influence
public opinion, directly or indirectly, belongs to it:
libraries, schools, associations and clubs of various kinds,
even architecture and the layout and names of streets.” Had
Gramsci been alive now, undoubtedly, he would have mentioned the
internet space too for it too has the potential to influence the
“public opinion.”
The blogger through her words is
strengthening the dominant class and weakening the causes of the
wretched of the earth. She, in an ‘intelligent’ manner, is
shaping the public opinions in favour of the dominant class!
What is the blog in question turning the public opinion to? The
bloggers ends her blog post saying media has a moral
responsibility to its readers and no moral obligation as such.
It is not a moral obligation or moral responsibility that the
media has. It is the social responsibility and the social
obligation that it has. Thus in an ‘intelligent’ manner she
shifts the focus from social responsibility and social
obligation to moral responsibility and moral obligation thus
liberating, at her convenience, the media from social
responsibility and obligation. By saying that press is a
business the blogger is making people believe that the press
need not have social responsibility for it is a private
enterprise. By saying farmer’s suicide doesn’t qualify to be
front page news she is trivializing the issue and pushing the
issue to invisibility. By this the cause is being weakened and
business being strengthened for she claims absolute liberty to
the media as it is a private enterprise.
How much ever one says that the new media and
its public sphere is more democratic for it provides for an
opportunity of discussion, debate and dialogue these
opportunities do not make any difference. What would be the
point of all the debate after the damage has been done with
words by passing on a good amount of insensitivity to the
readers?
I ask myself if the blogger can be permitted
to air such views on the grounds of “Freedom of speech and
expression”?
I remember when controversy rose against the
play ‘Mahachaitra’ penned by H.S. Shivaprakash many authors and
activists defended him on the grounds of “freedom of artistic
expression” and “freedom of speech .” Interestingly the author
said he doesn’t want to defend himself under the banner of
“freedom of the artist” and said he defends himself on the
grounds of the “responsibilities of an artist” being sure that
he had not been irresponsible in his speech and expression. H.S.
Shivaprakash believes that the freedom of an artist or a writer
is not absolute. He believes that responsibility must be over
liberty to writers, for their speech and expression can make an
impact. What Leni Riefensthal enjoyed was freedom what she
lacked was responsibility. The impact of her work has been
witnessed. Under the banner of ‘freedom of the artist’ she can
be defended but not under the banner of ‘responsibilities of an
artist’.
In a society where there are thousands of
people who do not have the freedom to live, like the farmer’s
who are forced to commit suicide, it would be highly insensitive
for the writer to speak loudly about his/her freedom to speech
and expression, that too when with that very freedom of speech
and expression, the writer dismisses the issues of the wretched
of the earth not having any freedom, as a trivial issue and
reducing lives of those freedom-less humans to mere numbers.
A Hungry
Bony Boy
Begs His Mama For Food.
Mama, teary eyed
Points To The Sun Glowing Red.
Then, Give Me That Bread Now
I Haven’t Eaten Since Night
Stomach Is Growling.
Let This Hot Bread Cool Down Son
So Far, Yet So Scorching
It May Blister Your Mouth!
The Hot Sun Journey
And Dipped Behind The Mountain.
And Waiting For His Bread,
Bony Boy Went To Sleep Hungry Again!
Can the author be defended in the name of
“freedom of the writer” or “diversity of opinion” in front of
the boy that the farmer poet Late Shri Krishna Kalamb from the
Vidarbha district describes? Especially when the writer wants to
enjoy his freedom closing his/her eyes to the misery of the
farmer who doesn’t have the freedom to live! The freedom of the
writer is not above the freedom of the wretched of the earth.
How can the blogger ask for “subsidy” and “tax waiver” for the
media while to the wretched of the earth food is as far as the
sun? How can the blogger demand for a “travel grant” to speak
the stories of those bony boys and those teary eyes? How can the
writer be defended on the grounds of “freedom of the writer”
whose writing trivializes the issues of freedom-less wretched of
the earth?
Karl Marx had something beautiful to say
about the freedom of press. He said, “The first freedom
of the press consists in its not being a business.”
Interestingly the blogger in question is declaring that media is
a business.
It is not just the idea of media as a
business which strengthens the dominant classes but also the
false notion and obsession that most of the media houses seem to
have about “neutral”, “impartial” observation and presentation
and also the attitude of the media personnel’s which they wish
to call as “liberal” which accommodates all sort of views as
“another point of which needs to be respected.”
Most of the media personnel- as they are
taught in their media schools- believe that to take a side in
their report means to be biased. When the world in itself is not
balanced how can the reports be “balanced”? The world is not
balanced. The reports cannot be balanced. One needs to take
sides. To take side doesn’t mean to be biased. To be neutral is
to be apolitical. To be impartial is to be apolitical. These
apolitical attitudes can and will serve only the dominant
classes. The idea of being “liberal” allowing all kind of views
in the name of “diversity of views” also ends up strengthening
the dominant class and not the wretched of the earth, by
diluting the cause of the wretched of the earth by getting
trapped in the false idea of a “balance”.
Utpal Dutt believed that, “Only if one
identifies oneself with the cause of the proletariat and its
struggle can one discover the intricate social connections
beneath the simple incident and interpret it in truthful terms.”
If one identifies oneself with the farmers or any wretched of
the earth then even one suicide will mean more than a suicide
and one will be able to see the structural violence which
snatched the freedom to live from the wretched of the earth. But
one sadly identifies oneself with the business of media and not
the spirit of media which stands for and with the wretched of
the earth.
“Here is the fastest growing media in the
world, a politically free media, imprisoned by profit,” says P.
Sainath in Deepa Bhatia’s documentary ‘Nero’s
Guest’ and recollects a portion from
Gandhi’s Talisman, while responding to a budding journalist. The
portion of Talisman which he reads is: “Recall
the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may
have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is
going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything
by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own
life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj
[freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?”
Gandhi was also a writer, a journalist who
fought for freedom but also realized the responsibility which is
well reflected in his Talisman.
(Author is a
Research Scholar at School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi)
