Maria Susairaj and the media: 3 morals of this sordid story

A recent article in The Economist identifies India as “the world’s fastest-growing newspaper market” with 110 million copies sold daily. Over the past year, newspaper and magazine advertising expenditure increased by 32%. Of the 500 satellite channels launched in the past two decades, 81 are devoted to news. The industry’s success has not, however, been reflected in its product. News is being replaced by infotainment, advertiser-driven content is common practice, and the wall between business and editorial practically non-existent. We’ve drifted so far from the definition of what constitutes journalism – at least the good kind – that we are in the danger of losing sight of our own job description. A sad truth that was put on embarrassing display over the past week in the Neeraj Grover case. In the interests of our profession and democracy, it’s perhaps time to offer a refresher course in Journalism101 for our fellow members of the press. A timely reminder of the core values that makes a free press an integral part of a healthy democracy. For this age of corporate bottomlines, 24X7 news cycles, and tabloid journalism, here are the three golden rules of new journalism. Popular opinion is not fact. When covering a criminal case, the most relevant information are the facts of the case, the evidence presented, relevant laws, and – this is key – the judgment rendered by the court. Impassioned opinions of supporters, either of the victim or the accused, speculation offered by talking heads, and sensational quotes of self-serving movie directors deserve coverage — but not at the expense of the facts themselves. [caption id=“attachment_38904” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“When covering a criminal case, the most relevant information are the facts of the case, the evidence presented, relevant laws, and – this is key – the judgment rendered by the court. PTI”]  [/caption] Contrary to the claim of a journalist on CNN-IBN’s Face the Nation, we the media are not entitled to draw conclusions – without evidence – about the circumstances of a crime based on our “life experience” as “reasonable” people. Citizens are free to speculate, professional reporters are not. And that Times Now headline ‘Killer goes free" with regard to Maria Susairaj has no basis in any legal claim presented by either side, including the prosecution. If your channel has uncovered damning proof that Maria Susairaj murdered Neeraj Grover, please do share it with your viewers. Do not, however, use your news ticker to present unsubstantiated allegations as fact. Remember the right to privacy. Everyone is quick to uphold the right to information, but we forget that each individual has a right to privacy, especially in moments of deep duress. Yet our leading news outlets now behave like the paparazzi, stalking ordinary citizens and invading their homes. The repetitive shots of Neeraj Grover’s tearful mother and sister, sitting on their bed, served no purpose other than sheer voyeurism. The insatiable hunger for ’news’ in the midst of a media feeding frenzy is not just tasteless but dangerous – as became clear during the Mumbai bombings when news anchors betrayed positions of people hiding inside the Taj. And it’s not only the good guys who deserve such protection. We may not like Maria Susairaj, even believe that she was let off easy. But to relentlessly stalk her across the country, and publish the photos and address of her parents’ residence is just plain wrong. All it takes is one crazy vigilante for this instance of editorial greed to turn to tragedy. We are not judge, advocate, or the people. Our job is to report the news, offer analysis, and represent a diversity of views. We don’t get to decide, others do: judges who preside over court, politicians who pass legislation, citizens who cast their votes. In a media-saturated culture, we wield tremendous power to set the national agenda, influence public opinion, and expose various wrongs. But it is not our place to decide the extent of Susairaj’s guilt, or the quantum of her punishment. It is certainly not within our remit to turn advocate for the victim’s family, however justified their cause. When a ‘Justice for Neeraj Grover’ supporter says, “It’s important that the people and the media need to get together to fight this cause,” all of us should worry. A free press cannot maintain its integrity if it is seen as embracing any bias, however popular it may be. We don’t get to play judge in the court of public opinion – more so, when it is a kangaroo court stacked in favour of one side. Our job is to organise, host, and promote a spirited public debate, where are all opinions – including minority or unpopular ones – are fairly represented. This is what democracy requires of us. When we overreach or overtake other roles, it does a great disservice to the very people we claim to serve. Media ethics may seem absurd and old-fashioned at a time when the profession has become all about the personal and corporate bottomline. But the legal protections extended to the press in a constitutional democracy are derived from our basic democratic duty to remain fair, inclusive and factual. “Let the people know the truth and the country is safe," said Abraham Lincoln, words that we journalists would do well to remember today.