[Reader-list] Fwd: Holding a mirror to the MIRROR

[Shilpa Phadke]

http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=3796&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=25&valid=true




Holding a mirror to the MIRROR

*Was it a peer support to an offending newspaper because others too have
been careless – even reckless – in how they approach a story?* MAHESH
VIJAPURKAR wonders why other media did not report the demonstration against
the TOI.
 Posted Monday, Apr 20 01:00:12, 2009

Page 12 of the April 18 edition of *MUMBAI MIRROR* had an entire page
devoted to criticism of its reportage of the alleged gang rape of a foreign
student of a reputed institution in Mumbai. The headline was sensational, as
sensational as the reportage that was objected to by ten readers whose views
were published: Mirror is sensational * (AND OUR READERS DON'T MEAN IT IN A
GOOD WAY).

The newspaper admitted that it has been "flooded with letters asking if it
was indeed necessary to run the statement of the victim, a public document,
in all its graphic detail." The questions raised, it said in the
introduction to the set of ten views was that its intention was not to
sensationalize and harm the interests of the victim. It went on to admit
that, judging by the reader response, the newspaper had "misjudged" and
apologized for offending reader sensibilities.

That was indeed a big climb down. The space accorded to the story, the
prominence, despite the location being an inside page, was commendable.
Obviously, the *MUMBAI MIRROR *made only partial amends for its error and
that is not enough. It had not named the victim but left no doubt as to
where she could be found – a student of Tata Institute of Social Sciences
(TISS), a white and her age. Even in a large city like Mumbai, that was
enough set of coordinates to spot her.

They pointed out to the *Times of India *group that Section 228 (A) of the
Indian Penal Code does not allow disclosure of the identity of such victims.
Even if the person is not directly named, but sufficient details are
provided as to the name of the institution etc. that would amount to
assisting in zeroing in on the victim's identity. The demonstrators had a
specific point to make: the newspaper apologized to the "sensibilities of
the readers" and not the victim. It owed such an apology to her.

That is why it did not soothe the community of women who rightly decided to
take the issue further. The day this item was published, eight women's
groups, including female students from the TISS demonstrated before the
offices of the *Times of India* which owns the *MUMBAI MIRROR.*

**

**

**

Though this demonstration was directed against the*MUMBAI MIRROR *specifically,
its import has to be digested by all the media. Strangely, this
demonstration was not reported in any of the half a dozen big Mumbai
newspapers I read everyday, including Marathi newspapers, the next day.
Television news channels were of course preoccupied with the election
trivia, including their exclusives like Priyanka Gandhi-Vadera's views on
her mother and brother as if that mattered a lot.

Was it a peer support to an offending newspaper because others too have been
careless – even reckless – in how they approach a story? Or was it the fear
that if they too point out the mistake of another, the fingers could be
pointed at them next time? Several newspapers have had not minded naming the
victims, including minor girls, of heinous offences. There is scarce a
newspaper which has not offended in this fashion at one time or the other
and got away with it. To my mind, a report on the demonstration would have
sensitized the news crews of all publication to the need to be careful while
reporting such cases.

The exception, however, was *The Hindu* which carried a story with a picture
and abundant quotes from those demonstrating before the *Times of
India* building
and one is glad that it did. After all, newspapers tend to forget that
victims have their rights too and that one is protection of their
identities. It is expected that child victims and women victims, regardless
of their age are not to have their names or pictures published. It goes
beyond mere protection of privacy; it hinges on how the society would react
to them when it gets out that they were raped.

In this context, it has to be pointed out that newspapers, at least in
Mumbai, need to curb their excesses when reporting crime. As pointed out
earlier in a comment on use of language, I had pointed out how even the
minor precaution of the use of the word *alleged* is lacking in newspapers
though it helps disclaim responsibility to an extent for retailing a view or
fact of which they are not aware of first hand. This is minimal requirement,
we were told in our journalism schools in the early 70s.

For the past few weeks, however, the *Times of India* has started using
'alleged' in italics which is a welcome thing.

News media, especially and including the television news channels, have a
tendency to be the prosecutor and the judge rolled into one and often I have
heard from the journalistic community to which I belong that "it happened,
so why not report it"? It is not as simple as that. The immense damage such
an attitude causes the hapless victims are so enormous that often an apology
does not mitigate the hurt caused.

It is true that often the victims are people who may never even have managed
to read what is said about them so the question of them seeking a retraction
or filing a suit does not seem even remotely possible. One of the reasons is
lack of appreciation of their own rights or ability to seek redress directly
or via the court of law. But that does not allow the media houses to run
amok: it has a responsibility because it is a fourth pillar. Often, they
tend to forget that.



*mvijapurkar at gmail.com*