Newspapers......

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Hmm..... so, the general consensus on crime reporting in newspapers seems to be that:


1) Newspapers should report 'facts' without any further embellishment.

2) Present 'both sides' of the story.


Though there were various other points raised as well, I was unable to grasp them in the melee. So, I'll concentrate on these two points, which seemed to be generally agreed upon.

I'd have agreed with them even a few months back. But, I have my doubts now. What exactly are these 'facts'? Suppose, you are the reporter in charge of the Scarlett Keeling case. What 'facts' do you have on your hand?


1) You have seen the dead body. Facts:

- It was submerged in the water for quite some time.
- Obviously, it's swollen up and the bruise marks (if any), are distorted/hard to find.
- It'd be impossible to discern anything without an autopsy (suicide/murder/rape), beyond a suspicion due to it's nakedness.


2) As far as I know, you cannot get the autopsy report before quite some time. So, you are forced to report what you've seen. What do you say? "Naked body of 15 year old British girl found on a beach in Goa"? Would you look twice at such a piece in the paper? So, as the reporter, just to make the piece 'readable', you are forced to add what the 'authorities' suspect. Or, the background of the incident.


3) The moment 'authorities' and their take on the case come in, you have stepped into the realm of conjectures or even, powerplay. How do you know if the police officer says it's a suicide, simply because he just got a call? (Ok, this is a bit soap-operaish, but, true in some cases nevertheless.) Or even just that he's inexperienced/formed an impressionistic opinion. In either scenario, the moment you say it's 'suspected to be a case of suicide', you've to follow it up with some 'background' support, just to make your article 'read' somewhat plausible.


4) The background information in any criminal case is a patchwork of conjectures, tied together with 'evidence'. These evidences are basically people whose version of events couldn't be proved false (hence, taken to be true) and inanimate objects (say, a logbook). Like everything else, these can be easily manipulated for personal goals.
Even without manipulation, if an Indian reporter chooses to say, "Scarlett's mother had left her under the care of her boyfriend to go for a trip with her other children"....... The very use of the word 'left' forms an impression in the mind of the reader. Why 'left'? If Scarlett was independant enough to have a relationship, why can't she have 'stayed back' herself? (The reporter might have used 'left' simply because Scarlett was a minor and the parent is supposed to be the authoritative figure in the Indian context, at that age.) After all, the story is just another version of events, mediated through the reporter's interpretation of events.


5) Finally, what exactly is 'both sides' to the case? The plot (facts) and the rest of the story (guesswork, gossip etc.)? How can you differentiate the two? Every person involved in the case will have their own version of events. How can you gauge their comparative validity as an outsider?



I'm not a supporter of unethical journalism or something. I'm just saying that it's too simplistic to expect newspapers to report 'facts' and show 'both sides' of the scenario. There are simply too many complications beyond the reporter's control, to reach the 'truth'. I've rambled for too long. Bye-bye!