Have some media outlets started behaving like internet trolls?

Does the media set the agenda for discourse or does it follow the existing trend and tailor content accordingly? Many believe that in the current day and age, it's a mix of both, where the breaking news ticker is the default mode of channels. Following societal trends in news presentation and interpretation isn't essentially a bad thing. But what if some outlet does it for their own ulterior goal which can have deep reaching ramifications?

Times Now's call for virtual censorship of NDTV airing the BBC documentary India's Daughter falls into that dangerous area where a channel internalises a mob mentality. It kind of gives vent to the tone and tenor used by internet trolls to browbeat any contrarian voice. 

India's 'largest news channel' in its marquee show The Newshour, literally gave a call to the nation and its stakeholder to ban content of a rival news channel because it was scheduled to air the 'controversial' documentary. According to judge (jury and prosecutor) Arnab, no Indian wants to see the views of a "pervert" (rape accused, Mukesh Singh). Now leaving aside the irony of speaking on behalf of all 125 crore Indians, the view for a blanket ban is essentially an antithesis to the principle of journalism. As news disseminators, our work is to educate, elucidate and show the faultlines and crevices of the society to the paying public. We are the mirror to the society and just because one side of it is ugly doesn't mean we can sweep it below the carpet. The need of the hour is for an honest conversation about a deep social malice like rape and to buckle down to work towards a line of action. 

But journalists with clout calling for a ban of content hurls us towards a slippery slope. It ends up giving legitimacy to the legions of trolls out there, who in any case are not willing to listen to any contrarian point of view. It may give more legitimacy to an already oppressive institution like the CBFC to play hardball. Is India as a  Nanny State an acceptable phenomenon?

On a daily basis, news outlets, thinkers and politicians face troll attacks on the internet. Way back in 1951, American social psychologist Leon Festinger proposed the cognitive-dissonance theory. In simple words, it means that if a certain news is contradictory to one's belief system or perception, the person is likely to get angry and agitated. Many of the internet troll reactions are a broad representation of this theory. People like to move to a state of cognitive resonance and hence the often abrasive reaction. From PK to AIB to India' s Daughter, getting offended is in fashion. And joining the public and the state is sections of the fourth estate in this instance. In case of the news channel in question, it is probably more of a sour grapes syndrome- which is also a cognitive dissonance of a kind. 

But what this petty fight actually does is disrespect the memory of the Delhi rape victim. This form of dog-eat-dog form of journalism shifts the goalpost from the real issue which needs to be focused on. While one can debate ad nauseam about BBC's 'motive' to air it, what the documentary describes is the truth, and not a figment of imagination. Hence, pitting the issue as a morality debate or one in which the invasion of the west is dissected by the media, is merely rhyming a popular school of thought which, at the end of the day, is despicable. 

Not every issue is a cause for garnering eyeballs or resorting to hashtag-activism. Some issues need sensitivity, nuance and a certain prudence in handling. Not that the channel concerned is known for being very sensitive, as the #PreityNessMess hashtag has shown us in the past. Media outlets for a long time have played bandwagon to popular public sentiments. A few years back, a Hindi news channel used to run a programme called 'Match ka Mujrim' whenever India lost a game of cricket. It projected cricketers as criminals for losing. After India crashed out in the 2007 World Cup, a mob pelted stones at houses of players. Somewhere, the media needs to exercise caution and not give in to mob frenzy, even if it means forsaking a bit of profit for this. It's the least it can do for being socially responsible. 

"News is what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising", is a famous quote (attributed to George Orwell among others) which sums up the profession we practice day in and day out. While the nature of the medium might have changed and evolved and despite the pulls and pressures of everything peripheral to it, the basic tenets of news reporting continue to be the same. It is of reporting facts and incidents as we see, without fear and favour or being judgmental of the news. 

The above mentioned quote, apart from its usual context, is particularly relevant now in the age of taking offence. Increasingly, people who have no direct stake with any particular case or news item are trying to be a voice in determining whether it should be disseminated or not. The practice should stop NOW and the fourth estate has no business to further fuel this trend. Anything news worthy needs to be reported, no matter how gory it may be so. And there are regulatory bodies who can chip in if any code of broadcasting is violated.

At one point of the debate regarding airing of India's Daughter, the celebrity anchor in question says, "For God sake, this is not journalism!" Well, the jury may be out on that, but calling for the blatant use of censorship isn't also exactly the watermark of journalism either. And the 'voice of nation' may do well to introspect.