Justice Anoop Chitkara further asserted that in the pursuit of uncovering truth and perform their sacrosanct duty towards the citizenry, journalists face many hurdles, calling for all courts to be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of such courageous humans.

In his order, Justice Chitkara held “Journalism is the fourth pillar of any Democracy. As a journalist the reporter’s sacrosanct duty is loyalty towards the citizenry. They serve as independent monitors of power, reporting information for public good and safety, addressing any problems or lacunae in the public system for its effective functioning and immediate redressal. In the fearless pursuit of their duties to uncover the truth and report such facts to the masses through media, these brave journalists do face various hurdles. e.g. pressures from influential parties, groups, or government agencies etc.” (Para 38)

The said summons had been issued against former editor Vipin Pubby and resident editor Manraj Grewal of Indian Express, news dailies Ajit and Ajit Samachar managing editor Barjinder Singh Hamdard, among others based on a case lodged by retired Indian Police Service officer Param Vir Rathee.

Brief details of the 2008 criminal defamation case:

In his defamation complaint in a Gurgaon court in 2008, Rathee had accused 18 major newspapers, particularly mentioning a news item in The Indian Express titled “Accused says he bribed ADGP, sought police protection”, which was published on June 17, 2008. The retired IPS officer had alleged that the newspaper published a defamatory article as the same had mentioned that an accused in a criminal case, namely Dr. Sandeep Sharma, had allegedly confessed before the CBI that Rathee had recommended police protection to them after taking a bribe. It had also explicitly carried Rathee’s denial.

The petitioners had moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as aggrieved by the dismissal of the criminal revision petition by the Sessions Court of Gurugram, refusing to quash the summons issued in the complaint filed for criminal defamation.

Contentions raised by the parties:

It was the contention of the petitioner that the news report was carried out in good faith in the public interest and based on information provided by CBI officials and their report. The journalist belonging to their publication, had not only interacted with the complainant but also mentioned his viewpoint. Among the contentions of the petitioners, Vipin Pubby and Manraj Grewal through their Advocate Mr Manu K Bhandari, submitted that the complaint has been pending since 2008, and the complainant delayed its proceedings, they were not at fault, and were facing the trauma of criminal proceedings.

On the other hand, it was argued by the complainant-respondent that the newspaper had published a false and defamatory statement. It was also contented by the counsel for the complainant that even after they had realised that said CBI had not arrested Sandeep Sharma, and as such, his confessing before CBI was out of the question, and consequently, there was no occasion to the complainant recommending his police protection, no corrective measure was opted by the petitioner.

Observations by the Court:

In the detailed judgement of Justice Chitkara, it was held that the reporter, Varun Chaddha, and the publisher, Indian Express, acted within the parameters of prudence and reasonableness, making them entitled to publish whatever they wrote under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the judgement, the bench wrote “The reporter and the newspaper did their jobs without committing any offense under section 499 IPC because they exercised restraints, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news. The reporter, Varun Chaddha, and the publisher, Indian Express, acted within the parameters of prudency and reasonableness, and whatever they wrote, they were entitled to publish under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 39)

In addition to this, the Court observed that from a bare reading of the investigative journalism report published in Indian Express shows that the complainant’s version was also reflected in it. The court pointed that in regards to this, the complainant had nowhere stated that his version was incorrectly mentioned or that the journalist had withheld its material aspects. Justice Chitkara further added that the complainant did not plead in the complaint or establish in his testimony in the preliminary evidence any reasons or objectives for any oblique motive, malice, ill-will, mala fide intention of the petitioner, or intention to defame him.

In its judgement, the court noted “There is a conspicuous silence about it in the complaint, the statement before the court, and the reply filed to this petition. The following news extracts corroborate the unbiases and point out that the reporting had mentioned and highlighted the complainant’s response and the supporting version of the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula,” the Court added. (Para 23)

Noting that the journalist had taken the complaint’s view into account before publishing the report and had mentioned it in the news item, the court observed that it depicted the journalists adhered to the ethical standards of reasonableness and impartiality, which are key to journalism.

“One of the foundational responsibilities of a journalist is to seek the truth and report it with caution while not distorting or manipulating any facts. The respective journalist cross-checked the information, ascertained it, and explicitly mentioned the complainant’s version to rule out whether the facts were true or mere concocted lies or rumors,” the judgment stated added. (Para 24)

In the same para, the bench held that the accurate reporting by the journalist, by employing due care and caution, provides the court with no reason to not accept it as discharge of their burden. In the judgment, the court noted “This cross-checking and accurate reporting of the complainant’s version demonstrates the journalist’s sense of responsibility and decency while prudently discharging his duties. What more can be expected from a journalist? The reporting itself proves by a preponderance of probability of due care and caution, and there is no reason why it should not be accepted as the discharging of their burden by the petitioner under S. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” (Para 24)

Consequently, the Court opined that, “the Indian Express, its reporter, and its Editors are entitled to benefit under the first and the ninth exceptions to S. 499 IPC, and the petitioner has discharged his primary burden by demonstrating the contents of the news report itself and is entitled to the benefit of the first and ninth exception of S. 499 IPC.” (Para 24)

With this, the single-judge asserted that courts must be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of journalists, and that in the “fearless pursuit of their duties”, brave journalists face pressures from influential parties or government agencies.

Decision of the Court:

The court stated that the reporter and the newspaper accused of criminal defamation did their jobs without committing any offense under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code because they exercised restraints, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news. The Bench added that “The reporter of Indian Express had explicitly mentioned the complainant’s denial and the corroboration of such denial from the SP Panchkula. A wholesome and complete reading by an ordinary prudent person would neither discredit nor lower the complainant’s image. However, if the witnesses read this news with coloured spectacles, the report cannot be made liable for such misunderstanding.” (Para 33)

Furthermore, the court held that even after the full reading of the restrictions are imposed, then it would be averse to the freedoms guaranteed to us. Bench held in its order that, “A complete reading of the news, which contained the complainant’s rebuttal, his version, the version of the police, can be stated to have been published in good faith and discharge of their functions in a democracy, and if restrictions are created to publish such news, it would be just like killing a mockingbird.” (Para 45)

The court observed that neither the Indian Express nor its Editor (Petitioner) can be held responsible for the subsequent news reports published in other newspapers. With this, the bench of the High Court quashed the summons and all subsequent proceedings as well as the previous judgment passed in the criminal revision by the lower court.

The complete judgment can be read here:

Related:

GoI targeted Apple days after the Hi-tech cos notified journalists & opposition politicians of phone hacking: Washington Post Exclusive

Delhi: Protest meeting on journalists rights and democratic rights

Stop treating journalists like terrorists, media unions tell government as the 17th Lok Sabha begins

State-sponsored attacks of surveillance reveal an erosion on Indians’ right to privacy, especially journalists, political opposition

The post Punjab & Haryana HC: “Journalism is civilisation’s mirror, and investigative journalism its X-ray” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recent IT raids of Dainik Bhaskar and Bharat Samachar offices and revelations regarding spyware Pegasus yet again confirm the Narendra Modi government’s extreme allergy to any criticism, said the Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists (BUJ) on July 24, 2021.

On Saturday, it voiced concern about the raids on 32 offices of the newspaper and the Uttar Pradesh TV channel, both of which put up critical reports about the Indian government’s handling of the second wave of Covid-19.

Information regarding the surveillance of around 40 Indian journalists using Pegasus is also another example of a series of similar incidents in the past such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids of the Newsclick office and cases lodged against Newslaundry and The Wire reporters last month.

“Let us harbour no illusions: this is an undeclared emergency. The BUJ condemns the Modi government’s efforts to intimidate and suppress critical journalism. We uphold the democratic right of the media to access and disseminate information, without fear or favour,” said BUJ Secretary I. K. Jain in a press release.

He called upon all journalists to unite and strengthen the struggle to protect constitutional rights. Further, Jain appealed that media organisations refrain from violating labour laws and sacrificing journalistic principles for the benefit of narrow partisan agendas and the market.

The BUJ criticised the government for silencing journalists’ voices even when the criticism was based on irrefutable facts. Voicing this as an attack on the freedom of speech and expression, it said, “Disconcertingly, these disquieting developments are unfolding even while the Ruling Party at the Centre enjoys a formidable majority in Parliament. The situation is clearly dire: the deep state in India will not tolerate dissent and democracy in its obsequious obeisance to international finance and its minions.”

Moreover, the organisation condemned the corporate media for its selective lip-service to freedom of expression and citizens’ right to be informed and to dissent. It called upon all media houses to observe its obligation to investigate and disseminate information in public interest.

“This conjunctural window of liberty is now zealously being slammed shut to the applause of a blinded claque, indifferent to the democratic well-being of both citizens and the nation,” said the BUJ.

Related:

Tax raids unleashed on Dainik Bhaskar, Bharat Samachar media groups
Pegasus spyware trotting into ministers’ phones, who is next?
ED Raids & NewsClick: Weaponising law by Criminalising Free Speech

The post Harbour no illusions: This is an undeclared emergency!: BUJ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I find it hard to believe, so I rub my eyes. So many frontline leaders of my profession (journalism) have been implicated under serious charges in cases. In disbelief, I look at the big names again. They would all be at the top of any guide on distinguished media personalities of India. Is this just a bad dream? Or has the emergency been declared again? No, it is neither. So, I again start wondering at what is happening and why?

I start recalling memories of those so implicated. Mrinal Pande, the former Chairperson of Prasar Bharati, the official apex body of Indian broadcast media. Also, former editor-in-chief of Hindustan, one of the most important and highly circulated newspapers in Hindi.  A distinguished author who has contributed to several genres of Hindi literature (incidentally also the daughter of a very prominent Hindi writer Shivani who has millions of admiring readers). A feminist in her own right. A distinguished contributor also to English media. As much at home in print media as on TV. A gentle, kind senior citizen always willing to help a good cause. Involved in several relevant and useful social activities. In recent times, she has been involved with Navjivan/National Herald. Chief editor of this group’s Qaumi Awaz and another distinguished media personality, Zafar Agha, too has been similarly implicated.

Rajdeep Sardesai, long regarded as one of the brightest journalists of India, with contributions in print as well as TV journalism. Served in senior-most positions in leading media organisations including India Today TV and Global Broadcast News.

Siddharth Varadarajan, a top award-winning journalist of India. Having distinguished himself in very senior positions in the biggest and the most prestigious newspapers like The Times of India and The Hindu, he then played a leading role in the establishment and progress of the Wire.in, and is involved in several highly relevant social activities.

Paresh Nath, Anant Nath, Jose Verghese—distinguished personalities of the profession who reworked the Caravan into a leading narrative magazine of Asia which has been praised by many distinguished persons from several walks of life.

Now all these are persons with strong views and you may agree or disagree with them, but what one cannot deny is that they have done enough in professional life to establish themselves as leaders of profession, in the way that P. Sainath, Sumit Chakravartty ,G.G.Parikh, Binu Mathew , Sheetla Singh, Seema Mustafa,  Ravish,  etc. who have established themselves as leaders of profession, due to their long-time contributions to media, following the distinguished example set earlier by (to pay our respect to those who are no more) Nikhil Chakravartty, Ajit Bhattacharjea ,Kuldip Nayyar, Krishna Raj, Romesh Thapar, Prem Bhatia, Rajendra Mathur, Prabhash Joshi, Samar Sen etc.

Of course this list of distinguished media personalities can be easily extended, but what I am trying to say is that  when some journalists distinguish themselves by the sheer amount and quality of the professional work done by them, then they must get due recognition as leaders of their profession, and this recognition must be accepted by those who do not necessarily agree with their views.

When I look around for more distinguished journalists facing intimidation and cases, not so much from the leading authorities as from billionaires, I find names of such leading investigative journalists as Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, and when I look at what his defense says I find that he is being singled out relentlessly. Why should a leading journalist, who has done work of high standard in TV, print and documentary filmmaking, be singled out for relentless pursuit? Earlier he was one of the most admired TV personalities for his highly regarded programs on Lok Sabha TV. Today he is being relentlessly pursued. Why? It is bad for a democracy if professional achievements of journalists are disregarded and they are hounded for their views.

I look around for persons from other walks of life who contribute to media from time to time and I find that even someone like Shashi Tharoor, who was once in line for the top job in the United Nations and is now a Member of Parliament, has not been spared, and I shudder to think of what may happen to less influential writers or commentators who make an important contribution to media with their diverse expertise and talents.

Now I look around to search whether victimisation and intimidation is confined to only well-known national figures, and a quick search reveals that no, the list of such journalists is much longer. Dhaval Patel, Rahul Kulkarni, Kishore Chandra Wangkhem, Siddique Kappan, Mandeep Punia—these are only a few of the journalists whose names I encounter in my search for those journalists who have been badly victimised in recent times, and there are several more. My quick search reveals that we have to think of not just a few of the more famous journalists, the problem of victimisation is much wider and often the district or village level reporter suffers even more than national level journalists.

Various journalists are only too likely to have different views. They may have very different perceptions about how a government is performing, and the good or bad role of some very powerful and rich persons. Despite this, there is a clear and strong need for solidarity among journalists cutting across various narrow dividing lines. During the emergency very good resistance was offered by Nikhil Chakravartty, Kuldip Nayyar,Romesh Thapar and Ajit Bhattacharjea, who did not agree on many issues but were united in their defense of press freedom. We need similar unity today in the wake of growing intimidation of journalists at all levels, national and local. Whenever we see that journalists are being victimised and intimidated for their professional work, we should come to their support in various ways. Organisations of various journalists should consider ways of organising this support.

What is important is that those who are facing arrest, victimisation and intimidation should not feel that they are alone, the country’s journalists and others committed to press freedom and democracy stand with them. We should also create solidarity and support at international level.

In addition, I would like to also appeal to the Sangh Parivar to come forward to help so that emergency like conditions are not created regarding intimidation of journalists.

I would like to appeal to the judiciary at all levels to be more active in defending press freedom. To the government, I will like to say that if you find anything objectionable please first try to sort out through professional bodies or by sending a notice to apologize for a mistake committed without any intention to cause any harm. After all, so many factual mistakes are made by ruling regime leaders also in their speeches. So please be more tolerant, keeping in view also the great significance of a free press and independent views in a democracy. Also, please never hurriedly and arbitrarily clamp charges like sedition on journalists, please do not misuse your power and position. To the opposition parties also I will like to appeal to give more attention to press freedom related issues.

*The writer is a veteran journalist and author, having contributed well over 9000 articles/reports and over 400 books/ booklets in English and Hindi, including collections of poems, short stories and novellas.

Other articles by Bharat Dogra:

Hindi literature and journalism will always remember the rich contributions of Manglesh Dabral

Why inter-faith harmony is today more important than ever before

Scrapping of Five-Year Plans was a bad idea

The post Solidarity is the biggest need for Indian journalists today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

‘World Press Freedom Day’ (3 May) in India is a day of reckoning: a time for  stock-taking and for soul-searching; to realise the abysmal depths to which the ‘press’ has fallen in the country and the way several journalists have stooped for petty gains, for political patronage and for their own TRPs. It is a day on which the Indian press needs be challenged on whether it has completely abdicated its role and responsibility as the fourth pillar of democracy or if there is any possibility left for it to redeem itself? Certainly a dilemma – because most will not have the courage to answer it!

In December 1993, the UN General Assembly proclaimed ‘World Press Freedom Day’, following a recommendation of UNESCO’s General Conference. Since then, 3 May, the anniversary of the Declaration of Windhoek is celebrated worldwide as World Press Freedom Day.

The day acts as a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom. It is also a day of reflection among media professionals about issues of press freedom and professional ethics. It is therefore an opportunity:

to celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom;

to assess the state of press freedom throughout the world;

to defend the media from attacks on their independence;

to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

The theme for this year’s World Press Freedom Day is ‘Journalism Without Fear or Favour.’ It calls for awareness on specific issues about the safety of journalists, their independence from political or commercial influence, and gender equality in all aspects of the media.

An apt theme for the press in India, who in recent years can easily be defined as ‘journalism only with fear and favour’. One does not need to be a rocket scientist today to realise that, by and large, the Indian press is corporatised by the big moneybags of the country; is co-opted by a fascist regime which brooks no dissent; is communalised to the core, catering to a group that cares two hoots for the Constitution of India and has become highly commercialised in its desperation to garner revenue through advertisements either from the Government or the private sector.

Most (particularly many journalists) seem oblivious to the fact that in India, the right of freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right in our legal system and guaranteed in our Constitution. The right to free press does not exist independently and is incorporated in the right of freedom of speech and expression; and therefore the right to free press is regarded as a fundamental right.

A few days ago, ‘Reporters without Borders (RSF)’ released their ‘2020 World Press Freedom Index’. Their report shows that the coming decade will be decisive for the future of journalism, with the Covid-19 pandemic highlighting and amplifying the many crises that threaten the right to freely reported, independent, diverse and reliable information.

This 2020 edition of the Index, which evaluates the situation for journalists each year in 180 countries and territories, suggests that the next ten years will be pivotal for press freedom because of converging crises affecting the future of journalism: a geopolitical crisis (due to the aggressiveness of authoritarian regimes); a technological crisis (due to a lack of democratic guarantees); a democratic crisis (due to polarisation and repressive policies); a crisis of trust (due to suspicion and even hatred of the media); and an economic crisis (impoverishing quality journalism).

On expected lines, India is place 142 out of the 180 countries evaluated; this is two notches below the 140 position of 2019 and worst ever placement for the country. Analysing the ground reality in India the Report says, “With no murders of journalists in India in 2019, as against six in 2018, the security situation for the country’s media might seem, on the face of it, to have improved. However, there have been constant press freedom violations, including police violence against journalists, ambushes by political activists, and reprisals instigated by criminal groups or corrupt local officials. Ever since the general elections in the spring of 2019, won overwhelmingly by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, pressure on the media to toe the Hindu nationalist government’s line has increased.

Those who espouse Hindutva, the ideology that gave rise to Hindu nationalism, are trying to purge all manifestations of “anti-national” thought from the national debate. The coordinated hate campaigns waged on social networks against journalists who dare to speak or write about subjects that annoy Hindutva followers are alarming and include calls for the journalists concerned to be murdered. The campaigns are particularly virulent when the targets are women. Criminal prosecutions are meanwhile often used to gag journalists critical of the authorities, with some prosecutors invoking Section 124a of the penal code, under which “sedition” is punishable by life imprisonment

India’s score in this year’s World Press Freedom Index is heavily affected by the situation in Kashmir where, after rescinding the state’s autonomy, the federal government shut down fixed line and mobile Internet connections completely for several months, making it virtually impossible for journalists to cover what was happening in what has become a vast open prison”. Certainly, no credit to a country that prides itself of being the world’s largest democracy.

It is no easy job being a journalist in India today. If one has to stand up for truth and justice one will have to pay the price. We have seen recently, when honest journalists just reported facts they are simply hauled up by a prejudiced system based on some frivolous FIR. On the other hand those who spew hate and venom, can literally get away with murder, provided they are in the camp of the ruling regime (as we have seen in the case of a garbage journalist not long ago). That fear is evident in several cases; a few days ago, there were allegations, after a response to an RTI  that the Centre “waived” Rs 68,607 crore in loans to 50 willful defaulters( most close friends of the Government) identified by the RBI. Whatever, the merits of the case, few of the print media had the guts to take the story on their front-page. Thankfully some of the electronic media did cover the story and there was plenty of it on social media too.

There was also the issue of COVID- 19 and reporting on it especially on the realities of migrants and the daily wage earners. The Centre, filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, praying that “no media outlet print, publish or telecast anything on coronavirus without first ascertaining facts from the mechanism provided by the government”. Fortunately, the apex court did not fall into the trap of the Government’s desire to gag the media.  In an order dated 31 March, the Supreme Court said, “We do not intend to interfere with the free discussion about the pandemic, but direct the media refer to and publish the official version about the developments;” adding, “in particular, we expect the Media (print, electronic or social) to maintain a strong sense of responsibility and ensure that unverified news capable of causing panic is not disseminated.”

In a video message for World Press Freedom Day, UN Secretary General António Guterres underscored the crucial role media has in helping people make informed decisions. “As the pandemic spreads, it has also given rise to a second pandemic of misinformation, from harmful health advice to wild conspiracy theories. The press provides the antidote: verified, scientific, fact-based news and analysis.” Mr. Guterres urged governments to protect journalists and others who work in media, and to uphold press freedom. The UN chief thanked the media “for providing facts and analysis; for holding leaders – in every sector – accountable; and for speaking truth to power”.

The famed American newspaper editor and publisher Joseph Pulitzer once said, “Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery.” Words that surely ring a bell on the reality of freedom of the press in India today. Not long ago our own Nobel laureate Amartya Sen said,
“The press should do what it can to minimise the abuse of power (self-scrutiny can help and so can competition), but we should also try to understand with clarity why and how press freedom can enrich human lives, enhance public justice, and even help to promote economic and social development.”  The point is whether the press in India will pay attention and act on these words of wisdom.

On another World Press Freedom Day the moot question which the Indian press must ask itself is ‘Whither Freedom of Press in India’? Only then, will it be able to delve on ‘Journalism without Fear or Favour!’ This calls for tremendous courage to stand up for justice and truth!

2 May 2020

*(Fr Cedric Prakash SJ is a human rights and peace activist/writer. Contact: cedricprakash@gmail.com)

The post Whither Freedom of Press in India? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Journalists who cover illegal operations like logging at this site in northern Sagaing division, Myanmar, can face threats and violence. AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe

At Michigan State University’s Knight Center for Environmental Journalism, we train students and professional journalists to report on what we view as the world’s most important beat. One hard fact is that those who cover it are at heightened risk of murder, arrest, assault, threats, self-exile, lawsuits and harassment.

In a recent study, I explored this problem through in-depth interviews with journalists on five continents, including impacts on their mental health and careers. I found that some of them were driven away from journalism by these experiences, while others became even more committed to their missions.

Journalist Saul Elbein describes how in developing countries, covering the environment can be tantamount to investigating organized crime.
 

In the cross-hairs

Covering the environment is one of the most hazardous beats in journalism. According to one estimate, 40 reporters around the world died between 2005 and September 2016 because of their environmental reporting – more than were killed covering the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Environmental controversies often involve influential business and economic interests, political battles, criminal activities, anti-government insurgents or corruption. Other factors include ambiguous distinctions between “journalist” and “activist” in many countries, as well as struggles over indigenous rights to land and natural resources.

In both wealthy and developing countries, journalists covering these issues find themselves in the cross-hairs. Most survive, but many undergo severe trauma, with profound effects on their careers.

As one example, in 2013 Rodney Sieh, an independent journalist in Liberia, disclosed a former agriculture minister’s involvement in a corrupt scheme that misused funds earmarked to fight the parasitic, infectious Guinea worm disease. Sieh was sentenced to 5,000 years in prison and fined US$1.6 million for defamation. He served three months in Liberia’s most notorious prison before an international outcry pressured the government into releasing him.

In the same year, Canadian reporter Miles Howe was assigned to cover protests by the Elsipotog First Nation in New Brunswick against hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Howe worked for an independent online news organization that sought to spotlight unreported and underreported stories.

“Many times I was the only accredited journalist witnessing rather violent arrests, third-trimester pregnant women being locked up, guys tackled to the ground,” he recalls. Howe was arrested multiple times, and during one protest a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pointed him out and shouted, “He’s with them!” His equipment was seized, and police searched his home. They also offered to pay him for providing information about upcoming “events” – in other words, spying on the protesters.
 

Psychological impacts

The relatively few studies that have examined attacks on reporters show that such treatment can have lingering impacts, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive and substance use disorders. While some journalists are able to cope and recover, others live in a state of fear of future incidents, or suffer survivor guilt if they escape and leave relatives and colleagues behind.

“Overall, journalists are a pretty resilient tribe,” Bruce Shapiro, executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma at Columbia University, told me. “Their rates of PTSD and depression are about 13 to 15 percent, which is comparable to rates among first responders. Environmental or social justice reporters often have a higher-than-average sense of mission and purpose and a higher level of skill,” beyond that of some of their peers on other beats.

But this attitude can translate into reluctance to seek help. Most journalists I interviewed didn’t seek therapy, usually because no services were available or because of the profession’s machismo factor. Gowri Ananthan, a lecturer at the Institute of Mental Health in Sri Lanka, calls journalism “a profession in denial,” even as some victims acknowledge the price they’ve paid.

For example, Miles Howe suffered serious psychological problems following his arrests. “What did it do to me? It made me upset, angry,” he says. Howe didn’t seek therapy until he left journalism more than two years later, but in hindsight regrets not acting sooner.
Others told me their experiences recommitted them to their missions as journalists. Rodney Sieh says his stint in prison “really elevated our work to an international level that we would never have had if I weren’t arrested. It made us stronger, bigger, better.”

Global press freedom declined to its lowest point in 13 years in 2016 amid unprecedented threats to journalists and media outlets in major democracies and new moves by authoritarian states to control the media. CC BY-ND
 

Indigenous rights versus professional ethics

Environmental controversies often involve indigenous rights. In South America, for example, indigenous journalists and “ethno-communicators” are playing an increasingly vital role in uncovering vast exploitation of natural resources, forests and land.

Despite professional codes calling for balanced, impartial coverage, some reporters can feel compelled to take sides on these stories. “We saw that clearly at Standing Rock,” says Tristan Ahtone, a board member of the Native American Journalists Association, referring to protests on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“NAJA had to put out ethical guidelines for journalists. We saw it mostly with young Native reporters who were happy to blow the ethical line,” Ahtone says. “A lot of it is having a different world view.”

One such reporter, freelance journalist Jenni Monet – a tribal member of the Pueblo of Laguna in New Mexico – was arrested while covering the protests but acquitted of trespassing at trial. She also has covered deforestation and logging in a tribal area in Brazil’s Amazon region. “Most times I’m with indigenous people (on such stories), and I see things through their eyes,” she told me.

Protesters march at Oceti Sakowin camp, where people have gathered to protest the Dakota Access oil pipeline in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, Dec. 4, 2016. AP Photo/David Goldman, File
 

Better training and legal protection

Many of these issues need further research. From a craft perspective, how do these experiences affect journalists’ approach to reporting? How do they deal with sources afterwards, especially if those people are also at risk? How do editors and news directors subsequently treat reporters in terms of assignments, story placement and salaries?

These findings also raise questions about how press rights groups can successfully protect and advocate for environmental reporters. In my view, more environmental journalists need the type of safety training that many war and foreign correspondents now receive.

Pollution and natural resource damage affect everyone, especially the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The fact that journalists who report on these issues are so vulnerable is deeply disturbing. And their abusers often operate with impunity.

For example, there have been no convictions in the 2017 murder of Colombian radio journalist Efigenia Vásquez Astudillo, who was shot while covering an indigenous movement to take back ancestral land that had been converted to farms, resorts and sugar plantations. As the Committee to Protect Journalists observes, “Murder is the ultimate form of censorship.”
 

Eric Freedman, Professor of Journalism and Chair, Knight Center for Environmental Journalism, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Why covering the environment is one of the most dangerous beats in journalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tom Wolfe, in 2010, fired up and holding forth. AP Photo/Tina Fineberg

But Tom Wolfe, who died May 14 at age 88, helped change that in the 1960s. He was one of the New Journalists, who wrote nonfiction using the techniques of fiction.

As an example: Journalists had long been trained to use direct quotations sparingly and to look for money quotes, working them into stories with stenographic rhythm. Wolfe and the others broke rules, using great stretches of dialogue, knowing people reveal their character with the words they utter.

In a business demanding informational triage, Wolfe included obsessive detail, using scene-by-scene construction to observe and describe. “Show, don’t tell” was the mantra. The New Journalists wouldn’t just say “the man wore a pocket protector”; they would examine and describe everything within: Paper Mates, Pentels, Eberhard Faber Mongol 482s.
 

Origin story

Tom Wolfe took an unusual path into the world of journalism that he would so flagrantly disrupt. Born and raised in Richmond, Virginia, he went to Washington and Lee University, but did not follow the prescribed English-lit path to becoming a Man of Letters. He majored in American studies, examining the country from the ground up. His mentor, Marshall Fishwick, had students work shifts as brick masons and garbage collectors.

Post-graduation, he sought a career in Major League Baseball. Wolfe had a good arm and was invited to spring training with the New York Giants. He was cut, so he did what people do when they don’t know what else to do: He went to graduate school.
He earned a doctorate in American studies at Yale – yes, he’s been Dr. Tom Wolfe all this time. While he chipped away at his dissertation, he adopted the all-in-black look and body odor of the beatnik, moving office furniture and chatting up young secretaries, hoping one might concede to a date. No luck for the sweaty. So he brooded on the dissertation over beer, manspreading on his couch, watching late-night TV.
 

Stumbling into journalism

Then he saw it: “His Girl Friday.” Being a newspaper reporter looked like fun and after years of academic overload, he longed for the real world. That world with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell looked real enough, and so he blanketed North America with resumes. He got two bites, one of which was a joke offer so the New York Daily News could brag about having a Ph.D. copy boy. (He’d finally finished the dissertation.)

But the other offer was from the Springfield Union in Massachusetts. He took that job and wrote about tax rates and sewer lines. Having paid his dues, he was off to The Washington Post in 1959 and the New York Herald Tribune by 1962.

In the heady competition in New York, he soon developed a fascination with the work of New York Times reporter Gay Talese. Talese spent off-hours writing features for Esquire, which drew Wolfe’s whistle of admiration.
 

Infuriating the establishment

Wolfe wanted to play that game. He covered a custom car rally in California for the Herald Tribune and spun off a free-association feature – actually his verbatim memo about the car rally – into an Esquire article titled “There Goes (VAROOM! VAROOM!) that Kandy-Kolored (THPHHHHHH!) Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby (RAHGHHHH!) Around the Bend (BRUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.”

His style was born of deadline fear and set his course to cover the decade he considered mirthful pandemonium. His writing was freckled with Tourette’s-like ejaculations that infatuated some and infuriated others, including the editors, staff and perhaps every reader ever of The New Yorker. Wolfe’s savage parody takedown of the magazine and its beloved and cloistered editor, William Shawn, drew lifelong hatred from much of the literary establishment. E.B. White called the article “sly” and “cruel” and the reclusive J.D. Salinger called it “poisonous.” Wolfe wore such criticism as a thorny crown.

Tom Wolfe in his trademark white suit, in October 2012 – well after Labor Day. Charles Sykes/Invision/AP

He excelled in annoyance; witness his clothing. When he showed up at an autumn lawn party in his white suit – as a Son of the South, he was practically issued the thing – guests approached him sputtering with rage: “Why, it’s after Labor Day! How dare you?” And so he began dressing with insufferable flamboyance, using clothing as harmless aggression. Even people who didn’t read knew who he was: the Man in the White Suit.

In his work, he wrapped up the spiritual quest of the 1960s in “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test,” his high-octane meditation about a generation born to affluence searching for something beyond the working definition of happiness, a spiritual and physical journey he showed through the eyes of writer Ken Kesey, who’d gone off the rails. Fifty years later, “Acid Test” stands as the best book to give to a kid who wants to know why there is such a fuss about the 1960s.

Then he asked the simple question: What do you do when you know your life has peaked? After walking on the moon, going to Walmart loses its mystique. In the 1970s he investigated for Rolling Stone how the astronauts held up after returning to Earth and going back to normal life. A decade of research followed into the nature of heroism. He produced “The Right Stuff” in 1979.
 

Climbing the mountain

Inevitably – because the mountain was there, demanding to be climbed – he turned to fiction. Using his reporter’s skills and determined to write a realistic novel in the manner of Charles Dickens, he spent a decade – and a very public first draft, also in Rolling Stone – to produce “The Bonfire of the Vanities,” a big best-seller, loathed by the literary community that had always despised him.

I knew him and wrote a book about him many years ago. I was with him during the research phase of one of his novels, and I marveled watching him watch people. With grace and a seeming effortlessness, he extracted stories from people, slipping into a corner to pull his notebook from his suit pocket and dash off a few lines of insight.

He kept it up the last decades of his life, producing doorstop best-sellers (“A Man in Full,” “I Am Charlotte Simmons,” “Back to Blood”) and remaining a chortling televised commentator, sowing disdain and insult like some Johnny Pissed-off Seed.
Tom Wolfe on ‘Firing Line’ in 1975.

He didn’t care for acceptance by the literary community. He knew that would never happen. As an outsider who’d long urinated on the pretensions of much modern writing, he never expected to be invited into the tent.

He left behind not only his work, but validation for the journalists who have followed in his wake. He – and Talese, Truman Capote, Joan Didion, Norman Mailer and others – celebrated nonfiction writing as an art form at least as legitimate as modern fiction. When I look back at the sore-thumb decade of the last century, there’s no definitive novel of the 1960s, but there is “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.” There is no single novel that spelunks to the depths of the American character, but there is “The Right Stuff.”

In the end, he gave the world the story of 60 years of the American experience, in fiction and nonfiction. Our descendants will decide whether his work has a long shelf life, but today it can be hard to look back and imagine the grand and catastrophic spectacle without him on the sideline, taking notes.

William McKeen, Professor and Chair, Department of Journalism, Boston University
 

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Tom Wolfe elevated journalism into enduring literature appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The message of Pope Francis has four inter-related parts: (i) what is “fake” about fake news? (ii) how can we recognize fake news? (iii)“the truth will set you free” (iv) peace is the true news. In many ways, these parts are self-explanatory, but Pope Francis consistently emphasizes the non-negotiable dimensions of communicating truth and countering ‘fake news’ stating, “I would like to contribute to our shared commitment to stemming the spread of fake news and to rediscovering the dignity of journalism and the personal responsibility of journalists to communicate the truth.”

This is Pope Francis’ fifth Communications Day message. In 2014, his theme was ‘Communications at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter; in 2015, it was about family and love; in 2016, on mercy; in 2017 on hope and trust and this year on truth. There has been a clear method in what he has been trying to communicate to the Church and to the world. His opening statements for this year’s message perhaps summarizes the thrust of his ‘spirituality of communications’, “Communication is part of God’s plan for us and an essential way to experience fellowship. Made in the image and likeness of our Creator, we are able to express and share all that is true, good, and beautiful. We are able to describe our own experiences and the world around us, and thus to create historical memory and the understanding of events”.

The Media Revolution has redefined the way people think and behave. Millions of people all over the world are ‘wired’ all the time: glued to the television or through the internet either on a computer or through a latest gizmo. It is no longer an exaggeration to say that we live today in a ‘virtual village’’ However sadly as Pope Francis says, “in today’s fast-changing world of communications and digital systems, we are witnessing the spread of what has come to be known as ‘fake news’”.

Lies, falsehoods, half-truths, exaggerations, disinformation, myths- the whole range in fact constitute what is known as ‘fake news’. Both traditional media and modern media are used effectively to spread such news. Pope Francis says succinctly, “spreading fake news can serve to advance specific goals, influence political decisions, and serve economic interests”; and he is right on spot. We experience this all the time. In the recent run-up to the Karnataka elections, we saw the amount of ‘fake news’ being dished out mainly by the right-wing elements. PM Modi in keeping with the ‘feku’ tag given to him went to town spewing lie after lie.

Fortunately, India is also blessed with several researchers, analysts, intellectuals and other effective communicators who were able to produce in no time very effective media presentations to counter these falsehoods. Significantly, these past few days a poster showing the Pm with the words ‘Lie Lama’ went viral on social media; printed posters of these apparently were also plastered in several areas in Delhi. A ‘fake’ letter attributed to the President of the CBCI on the ‘lingayat’ issue also naturally created a furor.

Across the world, several politicians and others with vested interests are known to propagate ‘fake news’. Even in the America of today so many fall trap to the tweets and rhetoric of their President. Take for example the recent case of the nuclear deal with Iran; inspectors who are closely monitoring Iran unequivocally state that the country has not reneged on its promises; besides every other party (country) who is signatory to the deal has no reason to suspect Iran. However, falsehoods are foisted on gullible people. One can cite several other examples of how truth can get convoluted by so-called leaders with   falsehood dished out.

Strangely enough, several Church personnel also are trapped in the web of ‘fake news’. Very often, particularly on social media one receives plenty of ‘forwards’; without caring to check the veracity of some news- like “Pope Francis to resign” ; “Christian Pastors going to be killed in Afghanistan” etc., -one happily goes on spreading them. Pope Francis rightly asserts, “fake news often goes viral, spreading so fast that it is hard to stop, not because of the sense of sharing that inspires the social media, but because it appeals to the insatiable greed so easily aroused in human beings”. He challenges all to counter this saying, “yet preventing and identifying the way disinformation works also calls for a profound and careful process of discernment. We need to unmask what could be called the “snake-tactics” used by those who disguise themselves in order to strike at any time and place”.

The core of Pope Francis’ message is that we have to be communicators of truth. “That is why education for truth means teaching people how to discern, evaluate and understand our deepest desires and inclinations, lest we lose sight of what is good and yield to every temptation.” He is convinced that only when we take a stand for the truth will we truly foster a “journalism of peace,… that is truthful and opposed to falsehoods, rhetorical slogans and sensational headlines…a journalism less concentrated on breaking news than on exploring the underlying causes of conflicts…, a journalism committed to pointing out alternatives to the escalation of shouting matches and verbal violence”.

It is no state secret that those who take a stand for truth, who foster a journalism of peace, have often to pay the price: they are sidelined, denigrated, false accusations are foisted on them and some even killed.  In January 2004, the  General Assembly of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) meeting in Thrissur, produced a path breaking statement, ‘Called to be a Communicating Church’ in which they highlighted “that  media have a prophetic role, indeed a vocation: to speak out against the false gods and ideals of the day materialism, hedonism, consumerism and narrow nationalism” . The statement also called for a Pastoral Plan for Communications; sadly, precious little has been done to ensure that “God’s plan for us” is mainstreamed! World Communications Day 2018 should galvanize us to revisit that statement, to vivify that call to be a communicating Church and to ensure its implementation. The message of Pope Francis is inspirational and challenge enough to   get our act together.

Pope Francis concludes his message with an adaptation of the Prayer of St Francis of Assisi,
Lord, make us instruments of your peace. 
Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion. 
Help us to remove the venom from our judgements. 
Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters. 
You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world: 
where there is shouting, let us practise listening; 
where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony; 
where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity; 
where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity; 
where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety; 
where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions; 
where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust; 
where there is hostility, let us bring respect; 
where there is falsehood, let us bring truth. 
Amen.
 
We would do well to internalize this prayer and to act: to counter the fake news of today and to be communicators of truth because only the TRUTH WILL SET US FREE!
 

The post Communicating Truth; Countering ‘Fake News’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Some people (especially journalists) have started rationalising the murder of Gauri Lankesh by calling her an activist not journalist and thus not protected by the tag of ‘Press Freedom’. At RAIOT we too engage with that old chestnut called objectivity and bias (and getting a press card from local Directorate of Information & Public Relations). So this pirated extract reprinted from “The New Censorship: Inside the Global Battle for Media Freedom” by Joel Simon helped us to partially assuage activistic journalistic heart.

At a March 2013 meeting in Doha, Qatar, in which press freedom activists gathered to develop a strategy for responding to the violence in Syria, a heated discussion broke out about what constitutes journalism in an environment in which professional reporters work alongside a new generation of online communicators who dub themselves “media activists.” Using social media and public platforms like YouTube, these activists have provided firsthand accounts of the fighting, the toll, and daily life in a war-ravaged country but make no claim to objectivity. Some are fairly journalistic in their approach and others essentially propagandists for the rebel forces. A few are armed and participate in combat.

To give a few additional examples from other parts of the world, in China, a leading blogger, Zhou Shuguang, who uses the online moniker Zola (a nod to the French writer-journalist), has traveled around the country with a video camera documenting injustice but insists, “I don’t know what journalism is. I just record what I witness.” In Vietnam, a blogger named Nguyen Van Hai who took a similar approach was given a 12-year jail sentence. In Turkey, while mainstream media ignored the Gezi Park protesters, activists using Twitter and other social media became the essential source of independent news. Even New York police seeking to control access to the Occupy Wall Street protests struggled to differentiate between accredited journalists and sympathetic citizens who used smartphones to disseminate information to the public.
In an era in which technology has changed everything about the way news is gathered and delivered, is it possible to draw a line between journalism, activism, and other kinds of speech? And is it necessary to do so? The answer is extremely significant for several reasons. First, because it directly affects the way journalists themselves understand their role. Are the rights of journalists distinct from others who provide information and commentary? Is the ability of journalists to perform their role as media professionals dependent on preserving some sort of distinction? Second, because it goes to larger questions about the kind of global information environment that would best preserve and even expand the accountability, oversight, and transparency that have historically been the function of independent media.
The advent of blogs and online media raised new questions. As the volume, complexity, and speed of information increased, the process of defining journalism has become more and more unwieldy. The trend has accelerated in the last several years, with the explosion of social media and its increasing use to accomplish basic journalism: documenting events and disseminating information to the public.
Some traditional journalists are deeply uncomfortable with the blurring of lines, which they feel undermines the integrity of the profession while also making coverage of conflict more dangerous. NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel told the U.N. Security Council during its July 2013 briefing on journalist security, “Protecting journalists these days is hard, perhaps harder than ever, because one has to tackle the question of who is a journalist and who is an activist in a way that never existed before.”
Engel lamented the ways in which the advent of social media has eviscerated the special status that international correspondents once enjoyed, eliminating distinctions between professional journalists, activists, and “rebels with cameras” and “state broadcasters” who are “fundamentally different from journalists.” “If one cannot or will not write an article that goes against one’s cause, then one is not a journalist and does not deserve to be treated like one,” Engel explained. He proposed that the diplomats on the Security Council make a distinction between the broad defense of freedom of expression and the defense of “dedicated and trained professionals who take risks to deliver the kind of information council members need to make their decisions.”
 

But inviting governments to differentiate journalists from non-journalists would set a dangerous precedent. Many governments—Turkey, Egypt, China, and Venezuela, to cite some examples—seem to believe “journalists” support government policies while “activists” oppose them. Journalists and media freedom organizations have long resisted any effort by governments or government-controlled bodies like the United Nations to define who is and who is not a journalist, arguing that such a distinction is tantamount to licensing, which is anathema to the journalism profession.

In the last three decades, the way in which journalists define their role has evolved considerably. Defending the human rights of persecuted colleagues, once viewed as activist special pleading, is now widely accepted. But today, precisely because the distinction between journalists and nonjournalists has broken down so dramatically, journalists are confronting a new dilemma: Should journalists more broadly embrace the freedom-of-expression cause? Or should they speak out—as Engel suggests—only in defense of their professional colleagues?

Regardless of whether WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange is considered a journalist, he is part of the new global information ecosystem

This debate played out in dramatic fashion beginning in April 2010, when WikiLeaks released a video provocatively labeled “Collateral Murder.” The video showed the crew of a U.S. helicopter gunship in Iraq opening fire on a group of Iraqi men who had been identified as insurgents, some of them armed. A journalist and media assistant from Reuters who were with the group were killed. A van that tried to rescue the wounded media worker also came under fire. Two children in the van were wounded, and their father, the driver, was killed.

WikiLeaks was co-founded by Julian Assange in 2006, with the goal of making public documents of “political, ethical, diplomatic, or historical significance,” a description that of course covers just about everything. But it wasn’t until the “Collateral Murder” video that WikiLeaks garnered widespread public attention. The video—which Reuters had tried to obtain unsuccessfully from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act—was provided to WikiLeaks by a disgruntled low-level military intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning. Manning also shared with WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of confidential State Department cables that WikiLeaks began publishing in November 2010 under the heading “Cablegate.”

The response of media organizations and press freedom groups regarding Assange and WikiLeaks was confused and ambivalent. The tepid embrace by the media community was based in large measure on the fact that most professional journalists did not identify with Assange or his methods. And Assange did not help matters at all with his dissembling and obfuscation. Assange presented himself as a journalist at times, but his justifications for WikiLeaks’ actions ranged from disrupting government communications, to ending war, to “crushing bastards.” These are not necessarily journalistic motives. He also violated the most basic of journalistic ethics by failing to remove the names of human rights activists and journalists who had interacted with U.S. authorities in repressive countries, putting these individuals at grave risk.

Should Assange be disqualified from support from journalists and press freedom organizations because of his lack of journalistic ethics and his generally loathsome behavior? I don’t think so. On the other side of the equation, WikiLeaks has tried to suggest that it functions as a journalistic entity. I’m skeptical. WikiLeaks is best described as an anti-secrecy advocacy group that uses journalistic strategies to advance its goals.

Although the question of whether Julian Assange is a journalist is interesting, it’s not ultimately resolvable or even that relevant. The real question is whether Assange and WikiLeaks are part of the new global information ecosystem in which journalists operate. Here the answer is clearly yes. And the other important question is whether prosecuting Assange under the Espionage Act would threaten that system. Here again the answer is yes.

The 1917 Espionage Act makes it a crime to obtain, copy, or publicize documents relating to the defense of the United States. The language is both broad and vague and could be construed to apply to the media. However, journalists have not been previously charged for a number of reasons. The first is that legislative history suggests that Congress never intended that the law be used to prosecute the press. A prosecution would also almost certainly have to overcome a First Amendment challenge. Finally, the Justice Department has resisted prosecuting journalists because of the likely adverse public reaction and the damage that such a prosecution would do to the country’s international reputation.

Journalists may find Assange personally distasteful and generally disapprove of the reckless way in which the information was released. But WikiLeaks has in fact made an extraordinarily valuable contribution to the work of the media. The initial revelations from Cablegate were, of course, reported simultaneously in mainstream media outlets, from The Guardian to Le Monde. But the cables have also served as an invaluable resource that has enriched day-to-day coverage from Pakistan to Mali. Global citizens have benefitted tremendously as a result. Holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, Assange seems a reduced figure. But if the U.S. government should ever proceed with prosecuting him under the Espionage Act, journalists around the world should rush to his defense, and the outcry should be loud and sustained. Not only would the prosecution threaten traditional journalists, but it would erode the new system of information distribution on which global citizens all depend. In other words, Julian Assange may not be a journalist, but journalists should defend him as if he were.

As the Assange case illustrates, journalists can no longer protect their own interests by advocating solely for press freedom. Instead, journalists must embrace the broader struggle for freedom of expression and make it their own.

This does not mean that journalism is going to disappear or that professional journalists are indistinguishable from bloggers, social media activists, or human rights advocates. And it certainly does not mean that the quality and accuracy of the information is irrelevant. Precisely because the line is growing blurrier by the day, those who define themselves as professional journalists need more than ever to maintain standards and report with seriousness and objectivity. However, it is up to journalists themselves to make distinctions between journalism and other kinds of speech, and these distinctions will always be fluid and subject to debate. Governments should not be participants in these discussions any more than they should be expected to weigh in on the debate about what constitutes poetry. Governments must protect all speech, whether journalistic or not. Respect for freedom of expression is the enabling environment for global journalism.

Aside from the political and practical considerations, there is also a legal question. Are journalists or the press as an institution entitled to special protection under law? Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes no distinction between journalistic and nonjournalistic speech. It states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

To suggest that journalists are entitled to special legal protections is even more problematic in countries around the world where the media as an institution is historically compromised and the boundaries between journalism and other forms of expression are rapidly breaking down. In many countries “traditional” journalists who would be the beneficiaries of greater “press freedom” are hardly the most trustworthy or independent sources of news. Take Egypt during the Tahrir Square uprising. Most professional journalists in Egypt—coddled by decades of government largesse—continue to take their marching orders from the authorities. It was a relatively small number of independent journalists working with bloggers and activists who broke [former Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak’s information blockade. Throughout 2013, as street demonstrations erupted in Russia, Turkey, and Brazil, the institutional media performed woefully, forcing protesters to turn to bloggers and social media activists for independent information. Independent journalists working in these sorts of environments operate in a “freedom of expression” environment that they share with other independent voices seeking to document and disseminate information.

Historically, even if journalists did not enjoy any special legal status, they have been treated with some deference by governments because of their perceived political clout. The logic is summed up by the maxim “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,” a phrase that has been attributed by a top aide to President Gerald Ford but whose origin is in dispute. What it meant was that while governments would take on leakers and others who disclosed confidential information, they were less likely to challenge the media that published the information. This is still true, but the distinction is breaking down as the media fractures and its power diminishes. Prosecutors in the Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning case who argued that she should have been convicted of espionage and “aiding the enemy” because she knew that the documents she leaked, once public, would be accessed by al-Qaeda acknowledged that they would have presented the same argument had the materials been published by The New York Times. Meanwhile, British investigators are considering laying terrorism charges against The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger for publishing accounts of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

Journalists play a unique and pivotal role in every society and must be able to do their work without interference from the state. But as the boundaries between journalists and nonjournalists continue to erode and any meaningful definition of journalism becomes more and more elusive, journalists have to recognize that their rights are best protected not by the special realm of “press freedom” but rather by ensuring that guarantees of free expression are extended to all. While it is natural and normal for journalists and press freedom organizations to give special emphasis to their journalistic colleagues, they can’t stand on the sideline of the broader struggle for freedom of expression, both online and off, and must actively defend the rights of all people everywhere to gather news, express their opinions, and disseminate information to the public.
 
Courtesy: raiot.in

The post Activism & Journalism: Is There a Difference? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shredded papers' via www.shutterstock.com

As a political scientist focused on game theory, I approach the media from the perspective of strategic choice. Media outlets make decisions about how to position themselves within a market and how to signal to news consumers what kinds outlets they are in ideological terms. But they also interact strategically with politicians, who use journalists’ ideological leanings and accusations of leanings to undermine the credibility of even the most valid criticisms.

While Republican politicians have decried liberal media bias for decades, none has done so as vehemently as Trump, who polarizes the media in a way that may not leave an escape.
 

The development of a nonpartisan press

In the 20th and 21st centuries, news outlets have made their money through subscriptions, sales and advertisements. However, before these economic models developed, newspapers had a tough time turning a profit.

In the 19th century, many newspapers were produced and distributed by institutions that weren’t in it for the money. Political parties, therefore, were a primary source of news. Horace Greeley’s Jeffersonian – an outlet for the Whig Party – had a decidedly partisan point of view. Others, like The Bay State Democrat, had names that told you exactly what they were doing. When Henry Raymond founded The New York Times in 1851 as a somewhat more independent outlet despite his Whig and Republican affiliations, it was an anomaly. Nonetheless, partisan newspapers, for economic and political reasons, were common throughout the 19th century, particularly during the early 19th century.

The information in partisan newspapers was hardly unbiased. But nobody expected anything else because the concept of a neutral press didn’t really exist. The development of a neutral press on a large scale required both a different economic production and distribution model and the recognition that there was a market for it.

The muckraking era that began in the early 20th century brought such journalism into the forefront. Muckraking, the forebear of investigative journalism, traces back to Upton Sinclair and fellow writers who uncovered corruption and scandal. Its success demonstrated demand for papers that weren’t partisan, and production and distribution models developed that allowed more nonpartisan papers to turn a profit by filling a gap within the market.

The economic principles at work are always the same. There is a balancing act between the costs of entry and the size of the audience that can be reached which determines when new media outlets can form, just as in any other market. The trick is that costs and benefits change over time.
 

Neutrality norms in a complex media environment

Just as market incentives supported the development of a neutral press, market incentives, combined with technology, have allowed institutions like Fox News and MSNBC to provide news coverage from decidedly conservative and liberal perspectives, with internet sources further fragmenting the media environment into narrow ideological niches.

These media outlets, though, muddy the signals: A nonpartisan journalist strives to levy valid criticism, but a partisan journalist will always criticize the opposing party. Thus a weakly informed voter will have a difficult time distinguishing between, say, a valid accusation from a nonpartisan journalist that a Republican is lying and partisan bias from a left-wing journalist who fails to acknowledge that bias.

The current media landscape is a hybrid, combining opinion-based outlets that resemble the party-affiliated newspapers of the 19th century and journalistic outlets that attempt to follow the muckraking model that developed in the 20th century. The way the latter attempt to distinguish themselves from the former is by following norms of neutrality and asserting that both parties are equally guilty of all political sins. This model breaks down when the parties are no longer equally guilty.

Consider the first presidential debate of 2016. Hillary Clinton mentioned Trump’s 2012 claim that global warming was a Chinese hoax. Trump interrupted to deny having made the claim. Not only had Trump engaged in an outlandish conspiracy theory, but he also lied during a debate about having done so.

“Both sides do it” is not a valid response to this level of dishonesty because both sides do not always engage in this level of dishonesty. Yet it was relatively normal behavior for Trump, who rose to the top of the Republican Party by gradually taking leadership of the “birther” movement and eventually even tried to switch the blame for that to Clinton.

The strategic problem in this type of situation is more complex than it appears, and it is what I call “the journalist’s dilemma.” The nonpartisan press can let the lie go unremarked. But to do so is to enable Trump’s lies. On the other hand, if they point out how much he lies, Trump can respond with accusations of liberal media bias. Trump, in fact, goes further than past Republicans, even directing crowd hostility toward specific journalists at rallies.

The media landscape, though, is populated by outlets with liberal leanings, like MSNBC, so uninformed news consumers who lack the time to do thorough investigations of every Trump and Clinton claim must decide: If a media outlet says that Trump lies more than Clinton, does that mean he is more dishonest or that the media outlet is a liberal one? The rational inference, given the media landscape, is actually the latter, making it self-defeating for the nonpartisan press to attempt to call out Trump’s lies. This might explain why a plurality of voters thought that Trump was more honest than Clinton, despite a record of more dishonesty from Trump at fact-checking sites like PolitiFact.
 

Nonpartisan journalism in a Trump presidency?

Is there a way for the neutral press to point out when Trump lies and not have that information get discounted as partisan bias?

The basic problem is that the norms that have guided the nonpartisan press are built around the assumption that the parties are mirror images of each other. They may disagree on policy, but they abide by the same rules. The nonpartisan press as we know it, then, cannot function when one party systematically stops abiding those norms.

The 2016 campaign was an example of what happens when the parties are out of balance. Trump simply lied far more than Clinton, but the nonpartisan press was unable to convey that information to the public because even trying to point that out violates the “both sides do it” journalistic norm, thereby signaling bias to a weakly informed but rational audience, which invalidates the criticism.

Unfortunately, then, the nonpartisan press is essentially stuck, at least until Donald Trump is out of office. While there is no longer a “he said, she said” campaign, the fact that Trump is not only the president but the head of the Republican Party makes his statements informal positions of the Republican Party. For the press to attack those statements as lies is to place themselves in opposition to the Republican Party, making them de facto Democratic partisans.

Because Trump is an entertainer rather than a policymaker, it is difficult for the press to even interview him as a normal political figure since he does not respond to facts in conventional ways. Each time he lies, any media outlet that aspires to objectivity must decide whether to point it out – which would make it indistinguishable from the Democratic-aligned press – or to allow the lie to go unremarked, thereby remaining complicit in the lie, tacitly aiding the Republican Party. Neither is likely to inform anyone in any meaningful way, which renders the model of the neutral press nearly inoperable.

Author is Associate Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve University

Courtesy: The Conversation
 

The post Does nonpartisan journalism have a future? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision of the Ramnath Goenka Foundation to invite PM Modi this year for the most prestigious award ceremony in the field of journalism had raised many eyebrows in the media fraternity. Akshaya Mukul – a renowned journalist from Times of India boycotted Ramnath Goenka Awards, as he could not “live with the idea of Modi and me (him) in the same frame.”

However, Raj Kamal Jha, editor-in-chief, The Indian Express, who had the responsibility to offer the vote of thanks during the ceremony, reflected on Modi’s speech, and took on him subtly by reiterating the definition of good journalism.

Here’s the transcript of Jha’s speech during Ramanth Goenka Awards, 2016 that took place on November 2.
 

Thank you very much Mister Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji.

After your speech, we are left speechless. But I need to say a few things as a vote of thanks.

Your being here is a very strong message we hope that good journalism is defined it should be defined by the work we celebrate this evening, done by reporters who report and editors who edit. Not by the selfie journalists we see a lot of these days who are always obsessed by what they think, by their face, by their views, who keep the camera turned towards them. The only thing that matters to them is their voice and their face. All the rest is backdrop, a silly background noise. In this selfie journalism, if you don't have the facts, it doesn't matter. You just put a flag in the frame and you hide behind it.

Thank you very much sir for your speech, for your wonderful underlining of the importance of credibility. I think that's the most important thing that we can take away as journalists from your speech. You also said a few wonderful things about journalists that makes us a little nervous. You may not find it in Wikipedia, but Shri Ramnath Goenka, and it's a fact and I can say that as the Editor of the Indian Express, he did sack a journalist when he heard that the Chief Minister of a state told him that, "Aap ka reporter bahut achchha kaam kar raha hai." That's very very important especially in an age, and I turn 50 this year so I can say that, when we have a generation of journalists who are growing up in an age of retweets and likes. And they do not know that criticism from a government is a badge of honour.

So just as they do in smoking scenes in cinemas, I think we should have a ticker tape running whenever we hear praise of a journalist that criticism from a government is wonderful news for journalism. I think that's very, very important for journalism.

Thank you sir for your speech. You made some wonderful points. I think the most important point was of credibility and I think that is very very important. We cannot blame the government for that,that is our job, we need to look within and we will surely reflect on your remarks.

Thank you to the winners of the Ramnath Goenka Journalism Awards. There are two remarkable facts about this year's awards, which I want to share with you. We got 562 applications, this is the highest ever we got in the last 11 years, from 128 news organisations. This is also the highest ever and it is very important for me to underline this number because this is a reply to those who say good journalism is dying, that journalists have been bought over by the government. It is not that good journalism is dying, not at all. It is getting better, and it is getting bigger. It is that bad journalism makes a lot more noise than it used to do five years ago. And that is why I think the remote control should get the RNG Award for Excellence in Journalism. And so that is why I would like to request you to lend a hand to all those who have won the award this year.

In the end, thank you to all of you who have come here this evening. There are people from the government, there are people from the Opposition, we know who is who. But when they applauded journalism, it did not matter. You could not make out who is in the government and who is in the opposition. That is the way it should be. Thank you very much.

The post Jha’s subtle take on Modi: ‘Criticism from Government is a Badge of Honour for Journalists’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.