Queering the pitch, ethically, for media, too
By Roopinder Singh

WHAT the Shiv Sainiks have unwittingly dug up along with the pitch at Ferozshah Kotla grounds in Delhi recently is an old ethical issue.

The issue is simply this --when journalists received advance information about the Shiv Sainiks’ proposed action, were they supposed to inform the police about it? This is not the first time that journalists have faced this dilemma. The Press in Delhi faced a similar situation when the Shiv Sainiks protested against the film Fire at Regal Cinema. Advance notice was given by the Sainiks to the Press.News bulletins consequently carried arresting visuals that evening. The newspapers had good "action" shots, though there was much debate in journalistic circles about the ethical aspect of the situation — should professional duty be given precedence over one’s duty as a citizen?

But first, what is the role of the media? In India, we do not have the kind of sweeping mandate that the American media enjoys under the First Amendment to the American constitution (concerning freedom of expression). American journalists are given extraordinary and unique opportunities under the amendment, which is an instrument that guarantees free flow of information to American citizens.

Given these powers, what would be the role of the Press?

The American Society of Newspaper Editors says in its statement of principles: "The primary purpose of gathering and distributing the news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgements on the issues of the time."

A recent survey by The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, USA, found that an overwhelming majority of the people believe that the first priority of the Press is to find and publish important information on public issues (76 per cent). Profit-making was seen as a priority by a mere 6 per cent and giving readers and viewers what they ask for only 18 per cent. Despite disillusionment with the overplayed and over-sensationalised scandal stories of recent years, the public still believes in the importance of the news media and hopes for its improvement.

The Indian Constitution does not have any provision similar to the American one, and in India, the media owes its origin to the need of the colonial British empire to inform its subjects. Patriotic Indians, in time, challenged its propagandist role, and this resulted in a new paradigm where the responsibility of the journalists was seen in social terms. Ethically speaking, an easy ideal to relate to would be Utilitarianism, which deems as moral whatever results in the greatest good of the greatest number of people.

It is the type of socially responsible journalism that most papers in India profess to practice, though recently there has been a trend of some media groups talking in terms of newspapers being brands, like toothpaste.

Actually, the special liberties granted to the Press in all democratic societies are based on the expectation that it will provide public benefits. The implicit contract between the Press and society, on which the privileges of the Press are based, is that it is to provide adequate information to readers or viewers, not only about political affairs but also spheres as well.

For socially relevant journalism, every journalist has to keep the ethical dimension of the events he covers in mind. This is not an obscure thing. In fact, there are many checklists available to clearly define the problem and provide a simple way of making up one’s mind.

Of course, there is no direct answer or formula which can be used all the time. But where there is a will, there is a way. In the Indian framework of paap and punya, one would be able to decide by asking oneself the following questions:

• Would I do the same if I were in a similar situation?
• Would I like them to do what they are doing to me if I were in a similar situation?
• Would this action advance common good of the largest number of people in the short, medium and long term?

In the West, the issue of media and ethics is discussed quite often, and various guidelines have been evolved.

The School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, gives a fairly comprehensive, step-by-step approach. The first step is to list at least three options. As Aristotle noted, there are always at least two, and these two often represent the extremes. Nothing is ever either black or white.As such, one must be forced to think in terms of a compromise, even if that compromise doesn’t exactly conform to one’s personal notion of what is the right thing to do.

A true "golden mean" is not simply a watered-down decision. It bears the marks of an internal struggle and the result of hard thinking. Often, if one has the time, one will find that writing down the options, rather than merely thinking about them, helps in clarifying the issue.

Once the basic options have been narrowed down, it is then necessary to weigh them. A good method of doing so is by visualising the best and worst case scenarios. This helps in discovering whether one can live with the decision or not. By visualising the absolute best and worst outcomes for each alternative, one will able to assess the potential effects the decision may have on others.

Thus, in order to find out whether what one is doing is right or not, one would have to consider the following questions, which take into account the consequences of the action, and then decide on which option to take:

• Is the "good" brought about by my action outweighed by the potential harm that might be done to anyone?

(This is John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, which he stated in his book On Liberty. It says that a person’s liberty may justifiably be restricted to prevent harm that the person’s actions would cause to others. It is rare that the carrying out of any option will do no harm. By listing the options and the concomitant harms, you are made to weigh the amount of potential harm involved with each alternative and to understand that avoiding harm is practically impossible.)

• Which of the alternatives will generate the greatest benefit (or the least amount of harm) for the greatest number of people?

(This principle is based on the Utilitarian tradition popularised by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick. Utilitarianism is a doctrine that holds that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences. The aim of action, in other words, should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.)

• Am I willing to make my decision a rule or policy that I and others in my situation can follow in similar situations in the future?

(This is based on the German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which in its first formulation reads: "Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time will to be a universal law.")

• Have I or will I be using any person as a means to an end without consideration for his or her basic integrity? (Another formulation of Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative)

Also, if one was to pause for a moment and think of whether one would be able to defend one’s action before the worst detractor, one would be armed with the knowledge that what one is doing is the correct thing to do.

Why is it so necessary to focus on the ethical aspect of what is essentially an exercise to gather and disseminate information? What sets the media apart from others is that it is not simply a purveyor of information. It has social responsibility. As such, the ethical dimension has to be always kept in mind.

Television is primarily a visual medium, and with increasing competition, it is becoming more and more aggressive, as is print journalism. Often the temptation of getting a good visual, being the first with the story,or snatching the maximum number of viewers becomes paramount. We often tend to lose ourselves in what we are doing rather than why we are doing what we are doing.

Whether it is an interview with Veerappan, coverage of the militant’s activities in disturbed areas, or the acceptance of an "encounter" death report of an alleged criminal or militant, the ethical dimension will always be there. The need of a self-examination of the issue by the media is therefore important.