Chronicle of a death replayed endlessly

IN Media Practice | 01/05/2015

The media coverage of Gajendra Singh's suicide raises issues of ethics and sensitivity.

B. JAYASHREE was dismayed at how his death was treated. Pix: an India TV grab from 22 April, 2015.

When farmer Gajendra Singh took his life in the midst of a political rally and a crowd of political supporters, police personnel, the media and bystanders, the one image that shook me the most was when he was being lowered down from the tree.

Not because of his limp body but because of the sight of several cameras and mobile phones raised up in the air to get the best possible image. In a few hours, the entire nation would be discussing "Who killed Gajendra?" and whether he could have been saved.

During these debates, that image kept being repeated not so much for the shock factor but more as a reference point for prime and non-prime time news shows. It became almost a necessity over the next 24 hours.

Here are some classic "treatment" methods adopted by the media: One channel offered to play the incident out for you step by step, another ran a looped version of the suicide, a third had generous close-ups splashed exclusively for the viewer's benefit, while a few considerate ones kept playing this in the background while righteous discussions took place about whose fault it was.

It bewildered me to hear the many questions on whether the rally should have been stopped, whether the politicians or police should have climbed the tree earlier, who was in whose control and how the politicians were just 10 steps away and so on.

Very soon, Gajendra Singh and all the several hundred farmers who had committed suicide out of sheer misery, desperation and helplessness, were relegated to props in the drama and war of words that played out.

Year after year, farmers have been taking the suicide route, increasing more this year with several adverse climate incidents. Unfortunately, even then, bounced cheques and a human life valued at 100 rupees is what the dead farmers' families got. As long as politicians trade charges, the media captures and sells them for airtime, and the farmer’s land, support and financial returns keep shrinking, the farmer can do little but give up on life.

There is a simple question here: Could the media present have climbed the tree or taken any other measure to stop this incident from happening? This is the kind of question every ethics class in journalism should discuss. What do you do during an incident of extreme violence or insensitivity? The class is usually split down the middle with one half of the opinion that filming is part of the job.

Apart from being present and watching, the media went a step further and recorded the suicide. Is this ethical? Is it ethical to air it or publish it? Is this suitable for family viewing? Is there not something wrong with a system that has a certification for movies but no certification for TV news shows which depict disturbing events in graphic detail with the viewer having no control except switch to another channel which is usually showing the same visuals?

Of course, the networks made the right noises. With disclaimers, breathless indignation at political apathy, shock at police and volunteer inaction, blurred visuals, even a patronizing air towards everyone, everyone that is but themselves. Surely sensitivity is a bare minimum courtesy that can be extended in life and in death?

The famous childhood moral of point a finger at another and three fingers point back is something every media person, either present at the spot, or scripting, hosting, editing or directing the show should think about. A large segment of the media appear to have proved - consciously, unconsciously or through sheer peer pressure – that human life is a by-product in the land where news-entertainment is king.

Disclaimer: There were some extremely sensitive shows that handled the agrarian crisis in a balanced and in-depth manner in the pre-Gajendra phase. This is NOT aimed at those shows.

Former Bureau Chief South India with two leading TV news networks, B. Jayashree, is a development professional who heads the Media Resource Centre at the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation. The views expressed in this article are personal.

Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.