Indian Journalism Is In Deep Crisis, All In The Name Of 바카라�Balance'

바카라�You Don바카라�t Have to Publish Sides When One Side is Fascism바카라� is the provocative headline of a piece in the left-wing American weekly The Nation. The article analyses the decision of The New York Times to publish on its comment page a piece by Senator Tom Cotton who called for a strong response against black protestors against police brutality. The New York Times acknowledged that the piece did not meet editorial standards, but that was only after its African-American reporters protested that the piece put them in danger; initially the paper said the article was in tune with the voice to 바카라�all sides of the spectrum.바카라� In other words, balance.

Journalists are taught early on in their careers that they must always be fair and objective and strive to get 바카라�both sides of the story바카라�. Essentially, it means that they should not inject bias or their own ideological or other kinds of views when they report something. Besides, they must get a response to, let바카라�s say, an allegation. This is called being balanced. 

ALSO READ: Dear Editor, I Disagree With Your 바카라�Both-sides바카라� Journalism

Thus, if someone who gets arrested claims that he was tortured in police custody, then the police (the individual or the institution) should be asked to give their reaction. The police could refute or say they will inquire into the allegation바카라�that must be reported alongside the allegation, even if the accuser바카라�s version sounds plausible. This is really journalism 101.

But this notion of 바카라�balance바카라� is often carried to ridiculous lengths and is a fig leaf for the absurd convolutions to project a particular point of view. Balance then becomes the cover for false equivalences that news organisations deploy to show professionalism and to allow voices of hate, prejudice and plain bigotry. The most incendiary statements are given a platform on television channels바카라�even if we take the charitable view that this is not done to increase viewership, we still have to consider whether such people should be given the oxygen of publicity.

For example, if some neta in UP says that those of a particular community are all treacherous and unpatriotic, spying for another country, what should a journalist do? Show this and get a 바카라�spokesperson바카라� from the community to refute it? Who is the best spokesperson? A religious figure, a political leader, the man on the street? Why not exercise discretion and not show the original, bigoted view, at all?

ALSO READ: Impartial Media 바카라� The Truth Lies Only In 'Both-Sides' Journalism

Another common practice of television channels is to invite a panel that heavily leans to one side and pretend it is balanced. I used to get often called to discuss an issue on TV, only to find someone from the Congress, the BJP, the RSS and another commentator who I knew was close to that ideology. The result often was the others ganging up against the Congressman and shouting to drown him out, with me a token objective voice. The result was pandemonium. The anchor leaned back with satisfaction, the channel was happy, the audiences got their nightly entertainment.

That바카라�s what it is바카라�entertainment, and dangerous at that, all in the name of balanced journalism. These are instances 바카라� too common, unfortunately 바카라� when the notion of balance is made a mockery of by journalists who actually may believe they are being professional.  The question to ask here is바카라�why debate that issue in the first place?

A counter question may well be바카라�should journalists or publications then be 바카라�ideological바카라� and only push their agendas? Shouldn바카라�t they be objective and let the reader/viewer decide? 

ALSO READ: False Equivalence, Tokenism And The 'Both-sides' Journalism Debate

The answers to this are easy. Publications should not push a particular ideology all the time바카라�they should provide a platform for sensible commentary or analysis for every shade of political opinion. The operative word is sensible바카라�a politician spewing hatred or making patently false assertions does not deserve the legitimacy of a place in a credible publication. Allowing a writer to claim that Muslims should be disenfranchised바카라�as Subramaniam Swamy did, in DNA바카라�is simply unacceptable. Regrettably that did not stop from channels from inviting him on their shows. Secondly, it is not as if publications or channels are exercising restraint in proclaiming their ideology, so that question becomes redundant.

In the present climate, with polarised politics and social views, with hate-spewing political leaders, with growing intolerance against minorities and dissidents, the media can and should be a beacon of hope for not just liberal, secular and democratic ideas, but also to ensure that extreme views don바카라�t get into the papers or on television. Instead, the media in India has become part of the problem, either enthusiastically participating in whipping up of hatred against the vulnerable, or behaving in a mealy mouthed way by allowing the worst elements a free run of valuable time and space on their platforms. Entire generations of journalists are growing up with the idea that they are performing some kind of valuable service; they have few role models to look up to, since their own bosses, who should know better, are either sold out, ideologically committed to bigotry or are wishy-washy, without firm convictions or simply cowardly. Either way, Indian journalism is in a deep crisis, all in the name of 바카라�balance.바카라�

(Sidharth Bhatia is the Founder Editor of The Wire. He tweets @bombaywallah.)