Opinion | False Equivalence, Tokenism And The 'Both-sides' Journalism Debate

First and foremost, my heartiest congratulations to Ahmad for writing what he did and I am overjoyed that his 바카라�open letter바카라� has gone viral on social media at a time when disinformation and falsehoods are read by a large number of people in the 바카라�post-truth바카라� world we are living in. Why? Because his letter highlights issues such as false equivalence and tokenism which need addressing.

At the risk of sounding as if I am myself guilty of false equivalence, let me also congratulate Outlook바카라�s editor Ruben Banerjee for publishing an article by his junior colleague, which publicly trashes him in the very publication (not printed on paper but online) he heads바카라�바카라�Ahmad does not mince his words when he flays Banerjee for displaying a 바카라�fanatical commitment to giving both sides a fair chance.바카라�

The editor could easily not have published his subordinate바카라�s views on the ground that he disagrees with him and as his boss, would not allow himself to be mocked at for the decision to publish an article by a person described as a 바카라�youth leader바카라� of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Abhishek Mishra.

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

If Banerjee chose not to publish Ahmad, he could have done little else but (a) swallow his pride and sulk in a corner; (b) publish his letter anonymously or by using a pseudonym; or (c) quit his job at a time when hundreds of Indian journalists have been sacked or asked to take steep salary cuts. That Banerjee chose to publish Ahmad is significant because the latter did not pull his punches when he wrote:

바카라�A lie is not an opinion. Plus an argument cannot be mounted on lies and unsubstantiated allegations, which the piece is riddled with. We cannot wash our hands of it by saying that it바카라�s another person바카라�s opinion. By publishing it, we gave it legitimacy. We normalised it. Amplified it.바카라�

For those who are coming late into the discussion, Outlook recently published two articles, one by Aishe Ghosh, president of the students바카라� union of Jawaharlal Nehru University titled "Why JNU Thrives Despite the Plot To Pull It Down" and the other by Mishra with the headline 바카라�JNU A Centre Of Excellence But It Must Get Rid Of The Anti-National Forces.바카라�

The titles tell much of the story. However, what Ahmad raises objections to are certain claims made in Mishra바카라�s 바카라�opinion바카라� essay, including the one wherein he alleges that 바카라�Ghosh and other Left leaders like Gita Kumari바카라� were seen on camera taking masked goons into (students바카라�) hostels바카라�바카라�

India바카라�s national capital is very much a part of the post-truth world. In a media environment where falsehood and half-truths travel faster and wider than 바카라�facts,바카라� Ahmad was bang on target when he wrote:

바카라�My only submission is that the spectrum of legitimate debate must begin where hate, discrimination and oppression end. Hate just cannot be an opinion. Of course, those opinions, if uttered by influential people, can be carried in news reports, sandwiched between facts and context, or they can be probed in interviews, but progenitors of such opinions can바카라�t be given a carte blanche on the op-ed pages. Journalistic debate, just like journalism, has to revolve around ideas of justice, kindness, progressivism, secularism, rationality, and as much as the word is frowned upon in journalistic circles, activism.바카라�

I have tired hearing people arguing that a journalist should not be an activist, that she should be completely 바카라�unbiased바카라� while reporting facts. None of us are unbiased, nor can ever be. Bias is inevitable in every human being and in each journalist, even when she is called on to report 바카라�facts.바카라� In the past and particularly now, in an era of 바카라�information overload,바카라� what we as reporters highlight and what we play down, what we emphasize and what we ignore바카라�바카라�all these define our bias and predilection.

My first editor, the late Bhabani Sengupta (1922-2011) who edited the now-defunct Perspective monthly out of Kolkata, told me in 1977 that a journalist should never flinch from acknowledging his or her bias. He said: 바카라�Ask yourself if you are biased against the corrupt and those who abuse their power and whether you are biased in favour of the underprivileged and the vulnerable.바카라�

I never forgot what he told me in 1977 and never will. And so I ignore those who argue that a journalist must swear by 바카라�truth, fairness and objectivity.바카라� These are three very difficult words. Disclaimer and a plug: these words comprise the subtitle of a textbook I wrote with the name 바카라�바카라� published by Oxford University Press, first in 2009 and again in 2012.

Incidentally, the late Vinod Mehta (1942-2015), who was the founder editor of Outlook, was one of the panelists at a discussion when the second expanded edition of the book was launched. I, among many others, consider him to be my guru in journalism and I am happy that Ahmad invoked his name in his article.

One reason why his letter to his editor has gained so much salience is on account of the debate that is current raging about the decision of New York Times to publish an op-ed by Tom Cotton on June 3 titled 바카라�Send in the Troops바카라�, in which the Republican Senator has argued that troops should be sent to quell demonstrators in the US following the killing of George Floyd.

Many NYT staffers were sharply critical in public of James Bennet, the editor of the editorial page, for publishing an article which sought to 바카라�normalise바카라� violent rhetoric. One editorial writer  even described Cotton바카라�s essay as revealing a 바카라�fascist바카라� mindset.

The day after its publication, the NYT stated that the op-ed piece did not meet its own standards, that Bennet had allegedly not read Cotton바카라�s essay before it was published, although he 바카라�invited바카라� him to write the article. Three days later, on June 7, Bennet바카라�s resignation was announced.

A NYT staffer has claimed that there was a 바카라�civil war바카라� within the publication between younger 바카라�social justice warriors바카라� and older 바카라�free speech advocates.바카라�

This is the nub of the controversy that has been debated endlessly and continues to be relevant. While books have been written on the subject, the question continues to be raised: Does the right to free expression include the right to incite hatred, disrupt public order and create social tensions?

A word and a phrase need to be explained here. The phrase 바카라�false equivalence바카라� is a logical fallacy, a colloquial version of which is the popular expression: Don바카라�t compare apples with oranges. Ahmad is correct. One must never concede that a lie can masquerade as an opinion.

The word 바카라�tokenism바카라� is a method of making a superficial or symbolic attempt to include a member of a minority community or an under-represented section in a group to appear 바카라�balanced.바카라�

Much of the Indian media remains as elitist as ever. And mass communications in the country has perhaps never been as polarised as it is at present. Still, attempts are made by sections of the media to appear 바카라�objective.바카라�

I speak from personal experience because I appear on what I consider 바카라�toxic바카라� television channels, where the panel of speakers is deliberately stacked to represent a particular position or point of view. Those with contrary views are given little time and often shouted down. The channel can then claim that it is 바카라�liberal바카라� because it has included among its panelists those holding the 바카라�other바카라� view.

Why do I appear on channels that are part of the godi media? Two reasons: the first is that sometimes I am able to get a sentence or two in after waiting for 45 minutes; but more importantly, as a freelance journalist, I have economic compulsions to appear on platforms that compensate me for my time, although I disagree with their editorial stance.

I am extremely happy that issues relating to false equivalence are being discussed in the Indian media today. Congratulations again, first to Salik Ahmad and then a left-handed compliment to Ruben Banerjee.

To conclude, one recalls the famous words of the French writer and activist Francois-Marie Arouet (1694-1778), better known by his pseudonym Voltaire, who apparently never said what he was reported to have said and was paraphrased by his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868-1956):

바카라�I disapprove of what you say, but I must defend to the death your right to say it.바카라� 

(The writer is an independent journalist, author, documentary film-maker, publisher,  teacher and consultant.)