Good journalism, Carl Bernstein of the Watergate fame said, is “trying to “obtain the best attainable version of the truth,” which is “a simple matter but difficult to achieve.” This search for the truth becomes complicated in situations of conflict when different sides have different versions of the truth. Multiple vantage points can lead to multiple versions of the truth, but a reporter has to try to be objective and file copy before the deadline. The dominance of electronic and digital media, which demand instant reporting, has made the handling of conflicting versions all the more difficult. Now, when the state tries to be the ultimate arbiter of the truth, and uses law and the police to discipline the media, the journalist is faced with an impossible situation. Journalism easily turns into a conflict with law.
Reporters who seek to unravel facts about ethnic, caste, and religious conflicts have faced various charges in recent years. The state has been clear that it wants to restrict reporting or direct it in a particular course. The government wants to use fact-checking as an instrument of control. When the state claims monopoly over violence and fact, or even truth, its dominance over the society becomes unchallengeable. While the state’s attempt to control the media through formal and informal means is dangerous, what is also dangerous is the proliferation of misinformation that creates strife and triggers violence. The state wants to exercise its authority to control the narrative, in the name of controlling misinformation.
Traditionally the role of the editor was to judge what is publishable news and enforce a process for making that conclusion. The era of so-called citizen journalism has made the role of the editor redundant. Anyone can write or broadcast anything without verification or adherence to any rules. This is part of an anti-elitism that has gripped all democracies. The demise of editorial process in news production has had violent consequences. But using law enforcement to resolve this problem will lead us to authoritarianism. The answer lies in reviving the role of the editor, and re-establishing the rigorous processes for news gathering and dissemination.
In this context, it is interesting that the Manipur government is targeting the Editors Guild of India (EGI) for trying to underscore professional standards in reporting on the ongoing conflict in the State. An EGI team that produced a study on reporting on the conflict stands accused of promoting enmity between communities. The Supreme Court is now examining the entire episode and will decide on quashing the FIRs against the EGI team. The fundamental question being probed by the court is whether reportage, if opinionated or even erroneous, can attract criminal liability. The Chief Justice of India has asked the Manipur government whether a report, which, according to the journalist’s best knowledge, truthfully presents the situation on the ground, can be construed by the state as a deliberate attempt to provoke communal violence and become the basis for prosecution under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The apex court has said that an opinion may be right or wrong. Right to free speech includes the right to make a wrong opinion. An erroneous point of view cannot be criminally prosecuted under Section 153A.
It is not that editors or professional bodies are infallible. Editorial processes often get it wrong. But to have the state as the super editor is a deeply problematic solution. News platforms and professional bodies need to up their game, and the state and the judiciary should support that process. Social media, intense competition among various platforms, and polarisation in society all make the editorial processes difficult. But those are also the reasons why professional standards are required more than ever before, to protect a healthy environment of free speech that is sustainable.
varghese.g@thehindu.co.in
