Sleazy journalism?

IN Media Practice | 08/01/2012
The interest in the video is only likely to increase and the report did a fine job of promoting the video and demeaning the girl,
says SOURAV BURMAN
On January 7, 2011, the Hindustan Times, Kolkata edition created a new bench-mark for sleazy journalism by carrying a front page, seven column lead story on a MMS clip,  purportedly the "hottest of this year."
The story under the byline of HT Kolkata correspondent Soumen Datta was about how a student of a city college recorded a sex session with her boyfriend and posted the clip on the site of an "adult Indian English magazine." A lead story of this nature smacks of an  attempt to titillate readers and has many precedents. But what is unprecedented is that the story goes on to name the girl (but not her partner) and her college, disregarding the standard practise of changing or dropping names before publishing.
Sample this - "Although nobody really knows since when the MMS has been doing the rounds, one thing is clear that the third-year English honours student wanted her act to be recorded. She was even heard directing her partner to place the camera at a suitable position to record everything properly." 
The reporter got the girl, her friends, teachers, psychologists and even poet Sunil Gangopadhyay to comment on what she did. But the comments only added to the  critical labelling which becomes clear as the story unfolds. The report quotes the girl as saying that "It’s personal. I don’t want to discuss this with anybody”. It  then expresses 'amazement' at the 'indifference' of her teachers and friends towards her 'mercurial', if not ‘indiscrete,’ act because they were quoted saying that “We don’t want to interfere in the personal lives of two adults".
But it also mentioned  how people outside the immediate circle of her teachers and friends do not hold the same view and chose to condemn her 'act'. “Her act will do no good to society” and “I think  the girl is smart and innovative. Society has to change” were some of the quotes used to drive home the point.
According to Damayanti Sen, joint commissioner of police (crime), uploading the video was illegal  and in case a complaint is lodged a case could be initiated against 'them'. But it is not clear what was the motive behind playing up this story? Why did the reporter choose to name the girl? It is interesting to note here that the name of the girl's partner was not mentioned anywhere in the report.
The reporter Soumen Datta was asked about the inconsistencies and missing links. According to him the girl was named because she had no issues with that and was going about town with nonchalance. Apparently he was unable to find out the partner's name and  the girl chose not to divulge his name.
And lastly the only reason for doing the story according to him was to highlight the growing trend where such clips are being made only to be used later  for blackmailing, which is  also leading to suicide attempts. But this was an unique case according to him so he went ahead with the story and took the opinions of  many  people, all of whose quotes could not be accommodated.

The interest in the video is only likely to increase and the report did a fine job on promoting the video and demeaning the girl. On Wednesday (January 4, 2012) Samar Halarnkar wrote in an opinion piece in the same paper on how people in positions of power routinely demean women and wondered about the "kind of  thoughts coursing through the mind of emerging India." Next time he can use this news story as an example to make his point.

Subscribe To The Newsletter
The new term for self censorship is voluntary censorship, as proposed by companies like Netflix and Hotstar. ET reports that streaming video service Amazon Prime is opposing a move by its peers to adopt a voluntary censorship code in anticipation of the Indian government coming up with its own rules. Amazon is resisting because it fears that it may alienate paying subscribers.                   

Clearly, the run to the 2019 elections is on. A journalist received a call from someone saying they were from Aajtak channel and were conducting a survey, asking whom she was going to vote for in 2019. On being told that her vote was secret, the caller assumed she wasn't going to vote for 'Modiji'. The caller, a woman, also didn't identify herself. A month or two earlier the same journalist received a call, this time from a man, asking if she was going to vote for the BSP.                 

View More