ASMITA KUVALEKAR | GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE | 19TH APRIL 2020
Journalism has always played an important role in modern societies but never more so than during a pandemic. As the world struggles to sustain itself against the novel Coronavirus, the media seems to be equally out of sorts with the overwhelming data. In today’s day and age, statistical data shifts constantly as it can be calculated and released to the world in real time. It’s no wonder then that today, the average citizen is consuming massive amounts of misinformation and witnessing total journalistic chaos.
But if this seems bad enough, there’s worse; almost everyone has a social media account now. With Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram, even TikTok becoming direct and indirect sources of information on the virus, the filter between true and false has blurred without warning. Thus, even as we grapple with disheartening circumstances and a renewed way of life, social media’s role as a ‘news agency’ continues to evolve exponentially.
To be clear, social media is an effective tool as its mass reach can be achieved in a matter of minutes. In more ways than one, it is a welcome innovation. But it has become a menace in that the common man is not only bombarded with news he may or may not want but also news that is inauthentic and dangerous.
As a political tool, it can easily be wielded either way, by supporters as well as retractors of a given party or administration. Moreover, creating an opinion post and sharing it with hundreds of people is no longer difficult or time-consuming. Thus, alarming statistics, fear mongering, irrational positivity are all having a golden moment on our accounts right now. From fake Government orders to celebrity quotes, Whatsapp has it all. Forwarded in the thousands, these messages are created anonymously and offer no back up research material, source checks or original document attachments. Many of the messages are borderline defamatory, some are completely made up, others are half-truths. Convenient to just share, these messages are promptly circulated without conducting a simple cross-checking exercise.
For instance, regarding the Central Government’s decision to prosecute anyone who peddled false information about the virus, a message was shared scaring groups into switching to ‘Administrator only’ status, aiming to stop all Covid-19 related conversations. Potentially beneficial communication was not taken into consideration. However in this short-lived frenzy, what went unseen, was the common knowledge that there is no legal bar on discussing the virus and its effects. What is made punishable in fact is fear mongering, wrongful dissemination of unscientific and potentially hazardous information. Nevertheless, this unfortunate lapse of civil judgement occurred and it is just one example amongst many.
The question that arises therefore is one of moral and legal responsibility in reporting. Admittedly, this debate is not new but in a situation as unprecedented as a pandemic, this question takes on a whole different level of importance. Fear and uncertainty push people to extremes and correct, precise reporting of news, sans flair, is the need of the hour. Nowhere is this need highlighted more effectively than the massive intra-India exodus of migrant workers, triggered by a false report that the March 25th lockdown would go on for 3 months. So who is to blame? A recently unemployed daily wage labourer acting on survival instinct or a piece of news that was neither confirmed nor authorized? The answer may vary but the fact remains that despite who we blame and what we do, we have become complacent in holding journalists and reports in general to a laughably low standard of honesty.
It is the news we like, the news families consume at the dinner table; without reflection and without research.
Now, constitutionally granted Fundamental Rights under Article 19 and 21 are wide enough to include within their ambit the dynamic forces of opinions, genuine mistake et al. But where does one draw the line between a genuine error and a purposeful coloring of facts? And how far do we hold media houses responsible for crossing it? In its judgement dated 31st March 20201, the Apex Court unequivocally stated its reluctance to interfere with free speech, thereby giving all Covid-19 news coverage the green signal without any Government interference. A special emphasis was laid on the duty to share official versions of any updates but the request for prior government screening was dismissed. On one hand, this decision protects people’s right to know the good, the bad and the ugly. It also protects people from possible government propaganda. On the other hand, it gambles on journalists’ morality, leaving the general public to hope that what they read about the virus is the truth.
Needless to say, the common man is afforded the same legal protection and can discuss, debate and analyze the most complex issues, including Covid-19. The intrinsic democratic spirit behind such conversations can never be dampened. But we could all move towards better, more transparent news. All it takes is fact-checking before sharing, and a strict clampdown on panic-inducing messages. A stricter definition of news that doesn’t include messages received in a personal chat window would also go a long way.
Now, you may ask why should you do it, why can’t someone else? It is not as if you created the problematic anonymous forward! The truth is, someone has and will continue to do so. It is not within our control to stop an unknown individual from creating a source of panic but it is up to us if we give it traction or not. Moreover, with no realistic grasp on our testing capacities, no clear knowledge of how donated money is being utilized, no definitive data on PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) shortage and a severely lopsided reportage that feeds religious bias, India’s Covid-19 journalism is fast turning into a catastrophic melting pot of politics, bad decision-making, panic and sheer ignorance. It can take all the help we can give it. And the best thing to do would be to stay updated from sources other than a social media account, namely official websites and official Gazette publications, all of which can be found online for free.
Of course, all is not lost. Independent media continues to lead the way through brave, confrontational articles that question policies, criticize implementation and demand accountability wherever necessary. But it would be a fallacy to think that this will solve the inherent issue of fake news. What India needs is a simultaneous growth in responsible news consumption. It is for the common man to find sources, of which there are aplenty, that report nothing but the facts. It is for us to discern and decide what to circulate and why. 2020 and the future ahead, pandemic or not, will never see one-sided journalism again. The general public hereinafter is always going to play a significant role in what is read, shared and made influential. So maybe, when we read about NASA congratulating India for getting rid of the virus through boisterous clapping, we will think again and choose not to turn our backs on the truth.
- Alakh Alok Srivastava v Union of India
Leave a Reply