How much does the nation want to know?

Hubris the ancient Greek term for overweening pride is quite the word of the moment. Not just to explain crimes of sexual assault and cover-ups but also to describe the arrogance of the media that has hysterically played out the Tejpal-Talwar stories over the last week to the exclusion of much else, including an impending cyclone and an alleged rape and death in Assam.

It’s the Aristotelian take on the conflict between objectivity and obsessive reporting, due diligence in reporting and frenzied portrayals. And it was this hubris of the media that was evident  when the two stories broke. The world, it seemed, had stopped in its collective tracks if the clamour on television and newspapers was anything to go by.  What we got was the Tejpal story, in every prurient, uncomfortable detail, giving way briefly to the Talwars.

“The Tejpal hounding is unusual because the media normally handles its own very lightly, there is an inbuilt self-censorship. But the print media has taken to unrelated investigations of Tehelka, its owner, and related businesses, and some of it smacks of a desire to go after the man. And TV news, while breaking no new ground, has taken to verbal lynching and reading out emails exchanged, which is unconscionable,” editor of the media watch website thehoot.org Sevanti Ninan told dna.

The Talwars and now Tejpal, have both been under the relentless media scanner and victims of shrill reportage that seeks to demonise not inform. In the case of the Talwars, the verdict was five years in the coming, but talk of incest, wife swapping and honour killing have been doing the rounds from day one, their guilt presumed by the media and the public.  “The media just does not cross-check or verify facts,” said the Talwars’ lawyer, Rebecca John, adding that prosecuting agencies put out selective leaks and the media becomes the “B team” for prosecuting agencies.

The uncorroborated, unregulated coverage of issues leads to unbalanced portrayals. It is about sex, sensationalism and sometimes even Sachin  Tendulkar, whose retirement from cricket saw the same frenzied coverage. This time, of course, it was adulation leading to idolatry.

The high-profile Tejpal was the subject of the ugly flip side. And, ironically, so was the gutsy journalist.  “Why are the details of what happened to the Tehelka journalist out in the public domain? Why are these being so endlessly debated in the press and social media?” additional solicitor general Indira Jaisingh wrote in a column, adding that the TV channels which had allegedly broadcast the full email sent to Tehelka must be prosecuted.

Is this kind of up-close-and-personal journalism a product of the times where the advent of television and the rise of social media have changed the rules of the game? Sociologist Sanjay Srivastava sees in this the decline of the “broadcast media attitude”.  The electronic media, he believes, is largely tabloid in nature reflected in the sensational kind of journalism being increasingly seen. Sex sells and the salacious nature of certain cases is ready fodder for media looking for the next big headline. The Tejpal case was such and so was the Aarushi Talwar case, with its hints about a young girl’s sexual liaison with her domestic help.  “The prurient interest in sex has become mainstream,” said Srivastava.

There is no denying that media interventions are beneficial. The murders of Delhi women Priyadarshani Mattoo and Jessica Lall are amongst the cases where the media’s activism ensured that the culprits did not get away. But how easy it is to forget that effective role as crusader. The media is not a homogenous entity,  but its carpet bomb coverage of events has certainly been in unison. Some restraint is called for, some checks to balance the obsessive reportage.