Dear Prannoy:
The common man owes a huge debt of gratitude to you for speaking up on
what ails Indian journalism. Given the context - accepting a Lifetime Achievement Award for principled Journalism - you could not have been more forthright. But those who are given to spotting subtext could hardly fail to catch the signals of anxiety.
I seek here, as one who shares your concerns, to flag a few thoughts based on my own experiences. Here is, if you like, an 'outsider' view of things: the proverbial other side of the coin.
I go back to 2008. Venue - the Principal's office, St. Stephen's College. All of a sudden, without any warning, a horde stormed into my office. It comprised about 50-60 members of a student union, and a horde of TV cameras and reporters. They barged in, pushing aside the attender at my door. I was then attending to my work.
Now, the context of this invasion. A complaint had had been filed, just the previous day, by an American exchange student, with the College Complaints Committee (CCC) that she was subjected to sexual harassment by a certain faculty member. According to the law applicable to such cases, two things were clear and well-known (a) The Principal has no role in dealing with these complaints in any respect (b) The name of the victim should, under no circumstance, be made public.
With instinctive adroitness, the cameras were trained on me. An atmosphere of extreme volatility, spiced with palpable aggression, was improvised upon the instant. And I was ordered peremptorily to "name the victim and the harasser". I tried to explain, as politely and emphatically as was in my power to do, that doing so would violate the law of the land.
"You will get up only after you reveal the names," shouted a young man from the crowd. "We are the media, we have a right to know" - one of the reporters.
"I am a law-abiding citizen. I have a duty to obey the law," I pleaded.
"To hell with your law," shouted an activist. "Cough up the names,"
Keeping quiet, I concluded, was the best option.
The silence on my part provoked my baiters. They began to shout slogans laced with abuses. When this had gone on for a good 15 minutes, I got up, wishing to leave, but knowing only too well that I would not be able to move an inch beyond my chair, given how jam-packed the room was. The moment I rose from my seat, two enthusiasts pounced on me and pressed me down.
On my collapsing into the seat, I was released from the indignity of being held down physically. But the slogan-shouting continued in higher decibels. Abuses were raised with greater vigour for the next 10-15 minutes. I sat still, as though under a supernatural spell, my inward apprehension hidden behind the mask of an implacable resolve. Finding their ploy not yielding the desired result, the motley crowd and the cameras departed, shouting slogans.
Now, the heart of the matter... It was not news, as far as the media was concerned, that the Principal of St. Stephen's College upheld the rule of law even at peril to his life. It would have been hot news (or, "rape after the break" in your unforgettable idiom) if he had collapsed into cowardice and violated the mandate of the law. That would have been a "media goldmine".
This goes a little further than tabloidization, Prannoy.
Now, let me look at your "Heisenberg Principle of Journalism". No one would contest your insight that the closer a reporter gets to (or identifies himself with) an event, the less objective he will be in his reporting. This is readily granted. But the problem does not end here. The distortion you acknowledge is now a bit more advanced. And this mutated version is best described as the "Heisenberg-by-Half Principle of Journalism". Let me explain. The issue today is not that reporters are getting too close to events. It is that they are getting too close only to one half of most events. That is, they align themselves too closely with a partial or slanted view of events. In its extreme form, this degrades 'reporting' into either rumour-mongering or propaganda-peddling. In point of fact, being "too close to one-half of the event" amounts to being "too far away from the real event". A partial truth is no better, often, than a damned lie.
Consider the infamous Unmukt Chand episode that the electronic media milked dry for days. As the Principal of the College, under rules that exist to this day, there was no way I could have cleared him for university examinations. That power rested - it still does - only with the Vice Chancellor of the Delhi University. I did recommend his case, in the strongest of terms, for sympathetic consideration to the competent authority. I could have done nothing - absolutely nothing - more than that, without shortchanging the rules. It is extremely implausible that reporters were ignorant of this. They could not have been. The relevant facts were out in the public domain. Yet I continued to be pilloried, caricatured and vilified for nearly two weeks: all completely overlooking the fact that I had done my part wholly and wholeheartedly.
The Heisenberg Principle does not, Prannoy, account for this. We need a modified version of it: the reason I propose a new category, "Heisenberg-by-Half Principle of Shikari Journalism".
There is yet another variation of this new principle. And I shall put it simply. On the rare occasions that reporters pretended to listen to my part of the event(s), it has happened, almost without exception, that they listened only with one ear, the other being glued to the prescribed slant of the story. That is to say, they heard me without listening to me. Or, they listened with the sole intention to cherry-pick. They prospected for juicy, succulent nuggets (at times, out of sheer empathy, I've obliged them too!). I do not know by what courtesy of consideration this may be called "hearing the other side of the story". You make a man talk, in good faith, only to see what ammunition may be gleaned out of his casual, unguarded statements in the heat of the moment. Who does not know, besides, that every statement, taken out of context and twisted howsoever subtly, can be made to sound as stupid or offensive as you please?
On your point about the long-term harm that the immunity the Indian media today enjoys against "punishment" and accountability, I readily agree with you. The media can get away - does get away - with murder. But this is too good (or too bad) to last forever. I am sure you know this better than I do - that anger is mounting among the citizens of this country. Many tell me that they have given up reading this paper or that. Many avoid altogether certain channels distinguished for their aggression, crudity and impertinence. Many parents are worried about the harmful effect that exposure to the media, especially electronic media, has on their children. They call it the "desecration of our domestic space".
Given that, your words are prophetic. I hope - and very fervently too - that the media fraternity listens to your concerns and exercises responsible restraint in exercising the unbridled power that scribes wield today. The age-old principle still holds, "Whatever is abused invites its own annulment." To continue to abuse the trust that the public reposes in the media is to invite outright condemnation tomorrow, if not today.