writer: Anshu N. Chatterjee
Media is an essential pillar of our society; yet, there appears to be an increasing doubt in the public about its capabilities. To bring some clarity to the crucial role played by this institution: it provides information about what the government is up to and is a communication channel between citizens. In our modern governing system made of a large number of people governed by a few at the center, the media provides information on activities nationally and globally.
Borrowed from the New Yorker from an article on disappearing journalist....
This role of the media is unfeasible without journalists, who usually perform their low-wage jobs with significant danger to their lives; during riots, wars, or in a room full of people with sub-automatic weapons or lathis. It doesn’t take imagination extraordinaire to visualize the dangers journalists regularly face. In 2018 alone so far, 44 have been killed globally. And these deaths were not all in authoritarian systems. In fact, five died in Maryland this year, Marie Colvin was killed in Syria, quite a few in Pakistan, Shujaat Bukhari in Srinagar and Gauri Lankesh in Bengaluru. Yet, the public appears to be increasingly disillusioned with this important source of information.
Some explanation is needed for this phenomenon, because in Asia, this growing disdain is a threat to the independent-thinking media institutions that are frankly, late-bloomers. Historically, the state has dominated media institutions and mainstream media has only recently ventured away from nationalism that protects the state (with a small number of daring exceptions).
A major beneficiary of this disdain is the state, the very institution the media is supposed to watch over. Constant claims of fake information, usually by unverified sources, has expanded the space for denial of anything. The state often uses the following formula: Info A must be fake because Info B is obviously fake. However, this behavior by the state is not surprising; the clash between the state and media is eternal. Especially in spaces of conflict, states have long used anti-media tactics to prevent critique; this is when they are unable to control the media through regulations or funding.
Some examples. Recently, President Duterte had the country’s security commission go after a website he declared as engaged in producing fake news. Their crime was to disclose Duterte’s assistant meddling in a defense contract. The local journalists are increasingly intimated by the regime. Earlier, Duterte even suggested that journalists who get killed deserved it, because they have done something wrong. The absurdity of Duterte’s relationship with the media is apparent: he also often uses information put out by his supporters as a source to make claims of what is real or fake. Pause and think about this for a minute.
Prime Minister Modi’s administration recently declared that those affiliated with fake news will lose their accreditation and face arrest; however, it quickly rescinded that promise when it realized the regime’s own supporters and politicians are just as guilty. Or PM Modi, like his predecessor, decided silence is the best policy. And therefore, silence reigned at the murder of Gauri Lankesh, a critical journalist. His supporters believe that the media institutions are not to be believed but BJP politicians are. If they are silent then everything must be okay.
Meanwhile, the Chinese leadership, the envy of many leaders around the world, are also using this opportunity to belittle media. Recent reports on human right violations by the state were declared as “cleverly orchestrated lies.” No one who really loves their country should read such articles. The propaganda goes as such: Let’s keep control of our country before it corrupts our children who love fast cars and designer bags. This model is clearly problematic but much admired by states and elite in democratic societies. All that I don’t like is fake news says the benevolent leader. Saudis and others are also engaged in similar activities. But the fact that authoritarian states engage in such misinformation should not come as a surprise.
The biggest loser of this new setting is the relationship between the citizen and media in any representative system or one that is trying to become one: that of co-dependency. Citizens need the media and the media needs audience/readers/browsers. Instead, globally, citizens are looking at their media institutions with increasing suspicion and turning to unsubstantiated sources of information. This new scenario is dangerous for the future of any polity.
The foundation for this disdain towards the media lies in the transformation that is occurring in our information systems globally, particularly in the West. An obvious example of this is the Trump administration's relationship with the oppositional media. And then there is the internet. Let’s acknowledge that the internet provides some ridiculous amount of information on just about any subject. While in theory the internet is an emancipating entity, giving voice to the subaltern, it produces mega-levels of information which is impossible to process for an average working human being. Indeed, many subaltern voices are simply drowned out by the quantity and their only hope of being heard is for larger media institution or bloggers to amplify their voices. So, the internet has not solved the problem of providing access to the public sphere for those that have limited resources; instead there is widespread disillusionment due to the overwhelming quantity of information.
The question here then is who is the public to rely on for information that is needed to function as a polity?Here is a suggestion which may draw some ire. Let’s not give up on our established media institutions; even those like CNN or Fox! No doubt, 24-hour news feeds can be mind-numbing, but is it fake? One can critique them for lack of objectivity, biased context and constant flow of inane information, rather than untruths. Is NYT, Times of India, Dawn, Korean Times, etc. biased? Media companies have owners, editors and managers with opinions and agendas and while some try to be objective, it is a difficult goal. But they remain our only reliable source of information in this global, meta-information world. We need them and they need audience. Facebook recent attempts to weed out fake news is a positive sign; perhaps a turning point? So turn to CNN, Fox, India Today, NYT, Al Jazeera, Geo TV, BBC and more, all at the same time. Our power as an audience appears to be the only tool left. Let's use and critique!
