Challenges before Journalism in the years to come

When I studied Journalism in the early nineties, under the guidance of some of the then well-known stalwarts in the field, Mr B.B. Nagpal former Bureau Chief of UNI, Mr John Dayal, a well-known media person and a social activist, they talked about journalism being the fourth pillar of Democracy. Today when I take the Journalism classes with my students, it is with my mentors in mind that I teach them to be sensitive and fair as young journalists (Incidentally learning to be a good journalist is also about learning to be fair, sensitive and mature).

Those were, however, different times, times, however, that left a deep impression in the mind. The breaking down of the Berlin war, the unification of West Germany and East Germany, the rise of Lech Walesa of Poland, the disbanding of the IRA, the takeover of The people’s republic of Ethiopia by Northern Rebels in 1992, the evacuation of the Jewish Falasha from Ethiopia to Israel, all of them were an indication of a world undergoing a “reset” option. Journalism perhaps saw its best during the period lasting from the late nineteen-eighties to the year two thousand and eighteen.

Some of the best journalists that I remember from that period included Mark Tully - BBC and Peter Arnett - CNN. True, in those times most of our information came from either BBC or even the Voice of America. T.V. was not so prevalent and we learned about the passing away of Leonid Brezhnev from the BBC. In times of uncertainty faced by an imminent attack by EPLF rebels from the North, my father would tune his radio to the BBC for any information about the advance of the EPLF. In fact, radio was the single most accurate electronic media that could be depended on for news that was factual and accurate. The T.V. channel was controlled by the state and it was full of propaganda and misinformation that was meant to lull the people into a false sense of security and prevent a public backlash against the Socialist Government of Ethiopia.

In the Nineties, we were glued to our television sets in India to watch the live coverage of the Liberation of Kuwait under operation “Desert Storm” thanks to Peter Arnett who was based in the Iraqi Capital, Baghdad. Incidentally, he was one of the Journalists who had been in fact asked to cover the events by none other than Saddam Hussein. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the agitations led by Lech Walesa, which started in the Gdansk Shipyard in Poland, and of course the Tiananmen Square agitations by students were all brought to us live by some of the most acclaimed journalists of those time, and we saw everything live on television.

The advent of the cell phone, however, has brought a lot of change in the field of reporting. The invention of the internet-enabled smartphone and the introduction of social networking apps have heralded the rise of what is called “Citizen Journalism”. The use of the smartphone ushered in an era where the latest updates of news could be shared straight from ground zero. It was, however, news that was unregulated, not syndicated and in effect “the camera’s point of view”. Citizen Journalism often catered to the desire for an emotional and vicarious titillation a release of pent-up anger and sadistic pleasure in seeing people being hurt or even killed. The Jasmine Revolution in 2011, the uprising at the Tahrir Square in Egypt that marked the end of President Hosni Mubarak’s 43 years in office was probably exacerbated by the sharing of information and updates from ground zero by ordinary citizens with the help of cell phones.

Citizen Journalism is perhaps one of the greatest challenges faced by professional journalism today. Citizen Journalism has “stolen the thunder” from the services that some of the stalwarts of the world of journalism once offered. Another problem arising out of Citizen Journalism is the proliferation of fake news. Moreover, most of what is shared on social media, social networking sites in uncensored, unregulated, not syndicated and perhaps even irresponsible reportage. While the camera might not lie, the perspective, angle and point of view might be offering a one-sided view of the whole story. Some of the live coverage shared on social media might often only act to whip up emotions, anger and aggression. Sensible reportage by accredited journalists would probably warn about “viewer discretion” before presenting disturbing images, or for that effect even blur any image that might cause distress to the viewer.

Things have changed tremendously in the present times. Journalism is now facing its greatest challenge in times when the very credibility of the news is being questioned. The proliferation of fake news, partisanship in reportage, paid news, selective reportage, favouritism have all been caused by the fear of retaliation by the ruling party. Today journalists are forced to water down their reportage lest they should be accused of sedition. The fourth pillar of Democracy is crumbling and when it goes, it will usher the era of dictatorship, a period marked by hardships, lack of freedom of expression and gagging of what was once known as a ‘free press’! The advent of the Covid-19 Epidemic, the recent incidents of riots in parts of Delhi, the recent proliferation of cases of police excesses against African Americans have all had an adverse impact on the meaning of fair journalism. Partisanship, polarization on the basis of religion, colour, race, language, ethnicity and region have all forced journalists to either toe the lines or else face the metaphorical firing squad. As a journalist, you either support us, our philosophy the party lines or else quit your job! You have to be in sync with the Republican school of thought if the President is a Republican or in sync with the Democratic school of thought if the President is a Dem. As a journalist, you are either with us or you are out, there is no middle path today.

Unfortunately, people are angrier and more distressed today than they were a couple of decades ago. The rise of ‘firebrand’ journalism, in the form of ‘the angry young man’ challenging a group of cowering, blundering and stammering politicians has done more harm than good to the credibility of journalism. A lot of people derive a vicarious thrill from programmes where a debate on television becomes a literal war of gladiators where the anchor becomes the master gladiator who dispatches all the others in a war of words, rhetoric, theatrics and drama. Viewers love this kind of journalism because people have become bored with their routine and predictable lives and they need some spice to enliven their dull and boring lives. We have not grown out of the ancient Roman Citizen’s hunger for gore, fights, action all that was to be had in the arena while watching gladiators fight each other to death. It is clear that today the demands from Journalism include not just a need for information but rather a need for entertainment leading to a release of pent-up emotions, a catharsis if you might believe it to be.

‘Firebrand’ journalism can only whip up frenzy anger, animosity in times when people need to stay calm. People in Minneapolis were whipped up into a state of frenzy after seeing repeatedly visuals of George Floyd being arrested by cops leading to his subsequent collapse. The presence of the video of on social media added fuel to fire causing the simmering anger to explode in the form of riots in the city. The only thing that can counteract the venom spewed by “firebrand journalism” is the voice of reason and the voice of maturity. In the midst of all the chaos taking place in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey’s words ring true when he says, “There is no honour in burning down your city. There is no pride in looting businesses that have become institutions of your neighbourhood.” The Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta, while sending out a message on the riots did not mince words when she exhorted people to go back home. She went on to state that as a mother of four she was concerned for her children and that she had especially told her eldest son to stay at home. The way CNN handled the arrest of its team of journalists in Minneapolis recently speaks volumes about the importance of maintaining calm in the face of chaos and uncertainty. A debate on television on the whole incident would have had an adverse effect on the whole situation.

Journalists are not safe today, even those who are accredited and belong to some of the best-known news agencies of the world. The recent arrest of Omar Jiminez and his team on the 29^th of  May, 2020, who were reporting on the riots in Minneapolis, Minnesota resulting from the unfortunate death of George Floyd while being arrested proves that being a reporter with a new agency cannot guarantee your safety even at the hands of Government law enforcement agencies. It is unfortunate that Cops often end up using excessive force while apprehending possible suspects. While one might argue that the SOP for Cops making an arrest needs to be re-visited and re-written, it would bewilder one to see accredited media persons being arrested in their own country for doing their jobs! Ben Smith a well-known Journalist with the New York Times recently remarked in an interview about how Omar Jiminez acted with “incredible composure” while being arrested. Ben Smith went on to remark that if this can happen to correspondents associated with CNN, then one can guess how much worse it might be for independent stringers and journalists, especially those who did not have anyone to back them up.

The way POTUS treats journalists during press conferences and press, statements is also an indication of how poorly journalists are viewed by the powers that be. An independent and free press has become a dream today. This is proved by the way POTUS responds to journalists who dare to ask him honest and meaningful questions. April Ryan was ordered to sit down, and POTUS remarked in one of his press statements, “She doesn’t know what the hell she is doing!” Some of POTUS’s favourite tactics to silence an inquisitive journalist include instructions to “Keep your voice down,” or even, saying to the journalist, “You ought to be ashamed of yourself!”- all this to Wejia Jiang - CBS News when she asked him questions related to the spread of COVID-19 in America.

Does this exchange of POTUS with journalists indicate the end of a free press in today’s times? Things have changed and somehow or the other the freedoms promised by democracy have become figments of imagination. Democracy has outlived its times and efficacy and like Socialism and Communism, it will soon fade away. Journalism too will fade away with Democracy, though one can’t help wonder what will come next!

A major challenge faced by Journalism today is that of providing factual, fair, sensitive, and mature news in times when it is dangerous to counter the official line of thought. In most cases today, assured success as a journalist or media person happens only when one conforms to the popular school of thought (even it means turning a blind eye to facts). India too needs to create an atmosphere for factual and fair journalism. We need to do away with reportage that thrives on the sensationalism of news. We need journalists who are bold enough to be unbiased, honest and sensitive towards the people as a whole. For that to happen we will have to create a culture of tolerance and a culture of inclusion in our people. Cut-throat journalism cannot help the country in the long run. Responsible reporting is the need of the hour.

Today we hardly have newspapers except to wrap up stuff, and there seems to be no vision except television, according to my friend, Gaurav Loyall! In a world deluged by fake news, sensationalism, so-called 'fire-brand' journalism, the common man seems to be gasping for more! With this hunger for TRP ratings, sensational news, and a morbid fascination for gore, gore and gore, the world is not any better than the people in the Roman times shouting out to the gladiator to make the final cut! The need of the day is a rational voice of reason, a calming voice that can soothe fevered, polarised minds and make them see reason in chaotic times where the future of mankind is at stake because of a Global Pandemic! People who try to whip up communal hatred are in fact feeding on the frenzy that people get into when they are shown content that is sensational. Often it can be seen that paid Journalism or even Bent Journalism is a Succubus that feeds on chaos.

The challenge before Journalism for the coming years is to provide accurate, rational, and balanced news about things happening all around us. Fake news is fake news because of the clever manner in which people spread disinformation. One cannot blame consumers of fake news for the dissemination of the same, rather we should take the sources of fake news to task. In many cases, people who spread fake news have an ulterior motive probably as they want to create chaos and dispute, or they are lobbying for a specific political entity. It is unfortunate that people who initiate fake news and sensationalism enjoy political patronage globally.

There is a greater need for professionalism in journalism today more so than ever before. The reason why there is a greater need for professional journalism is that the dissemination of the smartphone has resulted in a breed of quasi journalists who would not hesitate in sharing sensational information without even considering its impact in the long run. Professional journalism is threatened by a smartphone-wielding layman who would rather video the death of an accident victim than even deign to contact the emergency services. You have provided an amateur with a weapon of mass destruction by giving him a smartphone and unlimited connectivity so that he can share pictures, videos and sound bytes much faster than Reuters did in the early days when it used the telegram as a means of sending information to faraway places in the world. Citizen journalism and quasi journalism spreads news much faster than what would be reshared by news agencies. The rate at which misinformation is being spread is alarming indeed and it is a matter for news agencies and professional journalists to consider. 

The latest conflict between Ukraine and Russia has created a lot of challenges for authentic journalism. Reporting from ground zero has not only become difficult and dangerous not only because of the bombs and missiles raining in but also because authorities have been refusing access to sensitive areas. The recent sanctions and boycotts imposed on Russia by the West, NATO and EU countries alike have made it risky for accredited correspondents of Western news agencies to report from the Russian side. During such times of paucity of information, social media has begun to play an important role in disseminating information relating to the Ukraine-Russia conflict these days. While of course, at times it might be the only information coming out of the warzone, it might, also, be a source of disinformation or misinformation. World leaders have begun turning to Social Media sites like Facebook and Twitter to pass on their messages to people. Another interesting spinoff of the role of social media in times of conflict is the emergence of the Citizen Journalist, an ordinary person with an internet-enabled device and a decent camera posting images from ground zero on a social networking site.

Challenges before Journalism in the context of the 2022 Ukraine-Russia Conflict

The biggest challenge before journalism today is to provide information that is authentic, trustworthy and crisp. With things changing so rapidly in the world, stale news might as well be equivalent to misinformation. The proliferation of  Social Media platforms on the internet has also led to an unbridled sharing of information that is not only outdated but also taken out of context. One glaring example is that of a little girl confronting a soldier, preventing him from moving forward. The persons sharing the video claim that it was shot in Ukraine and that it depicts a Ukrainian girl confronting a Russian soldier. The truth, however, is that it was shot two years ago in an entirely different location (the Middle East) and it shows a Palestinian Girl confronting an Israeli soldier.

There is apparently a big difference between disinformation and misinformation. Disinformation is deliberate. It happens when people, journalists included, create false or misleading information to make money, create political influence, or to spread trouble or harm, or create a communal rift in the society. Misinformation, on the other hand, is not so deliberate. It happens when people share disinformation, without realizing that it is false, concocted and planted! People share such [dis]information believing that they are trying to help a community or be part of it. People share misinformation because of fear, righteous anger, because they want to protect a community, or even connect with others.

Most of the news or footage being shown on Social Media, purportedly from Ukraine might not be authentic. According to a Washington Post tweet on Twitter, 'Across social media, posts are flying up faster than most fact-checkers and moderators can handle. The newspaper has even shared a guide on how to avoid falling victim to disinformation and misinformation. But, without going through an entire checklist of what to do and what not to do, I very strongly believe that the first step toward authenticating news to check the source. Another tweet by Washington Post advises the reader to 'Slow down' and 'Assume everything is suspect until you confirm its authenticity.' Another tweet by the Washington Post suggests that one should, 'Make a collection of trusted sources.' and 'Trust the professionals, seek out context, mix information from established experts.' The last but not least suggestion by the Washington Post is to use 'fact-checking sites and tools'.