Aubaid Ahmad Akhoon
Restoring The Credibility Of Journalism: In a changing world, journalism cannot fail to change with it, but there are some constants. Technology, digitization, and other factors have led to the democratization of information and made it available at an unprecedented rate. Yet, as society grows in complexity, one rule remains the same- the truth will always outweigh popularity, no matter how high it may be. Thus, it is essential that the credibility of journalism remains intact. This credibility is based on a simple principle- truth without fear or favor. A journalist cannot become the spokesperson for the powerful or the apologist for the opposition. This basic tenet requires that, in the democratic framework, the journalist’s loyalty be to the people and not to any particular entity. Therefore, it is the journalist’s responsibility to praise good governance, censure bad governance, report matters of public interest with a commitment to the public good, and not be unduly influenced by political or other ideological considerations.
Constructive criticism, therefore, constitutes the cornerstone of journalism, and it is on this bedrock that credibility rests. Constructive criticism is not trolling; it is about exposing corruption, maladministration, and matters of public interest. Constructive criticism requires digging deep to unearth not only the malaise but also the elixir and informing the people of both. A responsible journalist recognizes that he/she is a conduit for information and not a cheerleader for any particular cause. It is not the role of the journalist to inflame opinion but to invite debate and encourage discussion of matters of public interest. Journalism must be a bridge and not a barrier. However, in recent times, credibility has been dented by the perception that some sections of the media do not subscribe to the values of responsible reporting. The quest for traffic and popularity has led to the promotion of sensationalism over substance. Therefore, some editors and publishers have been willing to sacrifice professionalism, ethics, and credibility for the short-term gains of Higher TRP (television rating points). In an increasingly digital world, this approach may yield dividends in the short term. Yet, in the long run, popularity without credibility is a hollow achievement.
The restoration of credibility requires a concerted effort on the part of the media houses to reinforce professional ethics. This could involve continuous education and inculcation of a sense of professional responsibility among journalists. Moreover, professional gate keeping mechanisms such as fact checking, editing, and correction policies when violated must be strongly countered. Similarly, the onus is on the journalists to recognize that mistakes are inevitable, but it is a journalist’s responsibility to acknowledge and correct them.
In addition, there is a need to distinguish between professional criticism and wilful dissemination of falsehoods. Freedom of the press is a fundamental facet of democracy, and it must be defended at all costs. At the same time, however, it is also a journalist’s responsibility not to misuse this freedom to propagate demonstrably false information, fuel hate speech, or damage the reputation of individuals or institutions in bad faith. Strong ethical guidelines and robust legal frameworks must be implemented to deter, punish, and discourage such activities while at the same time protecting legitimate journalistic freedom. Finally, it is the professional responsibility of the journalist to report not just the news but also interpret it for the betterment of society. This process requires that criticism must be tempered with caution so that democratic institutions – media, government, judiciary – are fortified and not decimated by irresponsible reporting.
Beyond The Headlines: The recent announcement of the NEET results offers some important lessons in responsible reporting. The event generates widespread interest in print, electronic, and social media. There is a frenzy to report the number one rank holder, the success stories of those who have made it, and the congratulations due to the coaching centres that contribute to their success. Coaching centres also go all out to announce their results and glorify their achievements by featuring these bright students in full-page advertisements in newspapers and on other media.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating achievement. In fact, all students who have worked hard to get a good result must be commended for their efforts. Similarly, coaching centres have every right to rejoice their role in the success of these selected students. However, what is lacking in this wholehearted celebration is a single voice for those who have not achieved their desired results. Behind every success story, there are hundreds of students who may have put in equal effort but failed to meet their goals. There are so many students who prepare relentlessly for this examination, who come from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, and who sacrifice their personal lives for months and sometimes years for this one opportunity. When their efforts do not bear fruit, many may be devastated and suffer emotionally and sometimes even contemplate suicide.
“In a democracy, citizens have the right to criticize governance, but this criticism must be ethical, fact-based, and objective. Rather than being used as a weapon for personal vengeance or institutional destruction, criticism should aim to reform processes, restore credibility, and ultimately strengthen democratic institutions.”
This is a scenario crying out for responsible reporting. It is vital that, alongside success stories, those who have failed also deserve an equal share of sympathy and support from society. There is an old saying that success has many fathers while failure is an orphan. This observation resonates powerfully in this context, for all the coaching centres are quick to trumpet their role in the success of the selected few while remaining silent about the majority who have failed. In fact, most of the NEET advertising does not reveal the overall pass percentage or number of students who have cleared the examination and those who have not.
The responsible journalist, therefore, has to go beyond the blatant publicity and bring to light hard facts that can help guide future NEET takers and parents. Questions such as what percentage of students qualify or what options are open to those who have not passed should be of utmost importance to the responsible journalist. It is also essential for the mental well-being of the failed students to recognize that an exam does not define their life and that there are still many options open to them. Responsible reporting should, therefore, feature mental health professionals who can offer advice to the parents and students on how best to deal with the situation.
Moreover, the journalist should be able to highlight other avenues open to these students and encourage them not to give up in their quest for knowledge and a better life. There has been too much focus on the examination and the success stories, and perhaps it is time the resilience of the failed students took centre stage. It would save many lives to recognize that these examination results are meaningless if a student takes his/her life in despair. It is impossible to overestimate the role of the journalist in disseminating crucial information that can help in such situations. The journalist has the ability to change attitudes and encourage a more realistic appraisal of the examination. This is especially so when parents are advised to be supportive and avoid being judgmental. Thus, every young person needs to understand that failure in one examination does not mean the end of their life. After all, we live in a world where many great men and women have failed on their way to greatness, and it is this resilience that defines their legacy. This lesson must be driven home loudly to these young students by all responsible members of society.
Other Issues In Addition To NEET : The same principles that apply to NEET also apply to other areas of reporting, including election reporting, reports on policy issues, and general news reporting. Thus, when it comes to reporting on politics, economic policy, health, and various social issues, the journalist should always seek to report the news and interpret it in a way that informs the citizen and promotes healthy debate that, ultimately, leads to positive change. In other words, the journalist should not be a propaganda machine for either of the contending parties but should strive to promote healthy debate that strengthens democracy. The journalist, therefore, has the responsibility to report not only the positions of the contending parties but also to analyze the issues in depth to help voters make more informed choices.
Criticism, therefore, must be the cornerstone of news reporting, but it must be tempered with caution, for criticism in bad faith can cause as much damage as it aims to cure. This brings us to the importance of constructive criticism as opposed to destructive criticism. At the heart of democratic governance is the right of citizens to criticize government policies and institutions without fear of censure or retribution. However, such criticism needs to be rooted in ethical and professional grounds. It must be based on verifiable facts and avoid subjective opinions that could do more harm than good. Similarly, criticism should not be used as a weapon to destroy individuals or institutions, for the end result of such criticism is not the reform of institutions but the destruction of credibility.
Therefore, it is essential that criticism be used as a tool to reform and not vengeance. It is only in this way that democratic institutions, systems, and processes can benefit from criticism, for the ultimate aim of criticism should be to strengthen institutions and fortify democracy, not weaken it.
(The author an educator by profession is a leading coaching consultant in valley. The part –I of this topic was published in last Saturday’s, i.e, 18th July’s Edition Of “Kashmir Horizon” and the topic is concluded with the publication of its this Part-II today). The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
[email protected]
