History repeats itself, the only difference being in time, scale and relative importance. Reporting too goes through similar cycles and hence it is worth learning from the past.
As seen in Iraq, embedded reporting has its problems. Reporters who went mostly by official versions of events had to swallow their words, often, when confronted with statements of writers and non journalists (There is blood in your hands, Arundhati Roy, writer, wrote to the Chief Minister). So too had the journalists who went by rumours and unverified claims.
Both sides of the story:
It is the oft repeated principle of journalism that both sides of the story
should be given. However, this is a simplistic approach aimed at achieving
some balance in a situation where you have to report events within a deadline.
Truth or facts may not emerge from hearing just the two sides. This is especially
true in a conflict situation where both sides would be prone to exaggerate,
distort and colour their versions. Outright lies are also to be expected.
Several sides of the story:
There are often several sides to a story and presence of a third or fourth
party could be an advantage for journalists covering conflicts. This was
something that Muthanga offered. However, the journalists failed to make use
of this situation to the full extent.
On one side, there were policemen of different hues, the local police, armed police and officers. On the other side, there were tribals, some actively involved in the agitation, some allegedly misled by their leaders and others who came there merely with the hope of finding land. Then, there were the locals, the Wayanad Prakriti Samrakshana Samithi, political party units and the like who were not neutral observers but interested in the events in their own way. There were also people like K. K. Surendran who differed with the Samithi. (The local rivalries that existed at Muthanga prior to the encroachment of forests by the tribals had to be understood by the journalist if he is to have insight into developments like the arrest of Mr. Surendran and police case against Asianet reporter, M. K. Ramadas.)
No interviews for a while:The main problem the journalists faced at Muthanga was logistical. As the events occurred in a forest area, many could not be contacted and interviewed. Besides, the police had denied journalists access to the area for 16 hours during and after the firing. However, it was very important to get the versions of the tribals who were on the spot. There was a specific advantage in interviewing the tribals at Muthanga which is not available in other conflict situations. Ordinary tribals are not skillful enough to present distorted versions. So, several of them would have given the bare facts!
As the tribals have been scattered by the police, it was several days later that some worthwhile interviews were made. This was serious failure not only from a professional point of gathering information but also from an ethical point as journalists is ethically bound to hear the voiceless. Editors should have pressed more reporters into the job to verify allegation of violations of human rights and children's rights. In fact, the reporters who were needed on the spot were ones with good background knowledge of human rights and children's rights, rather than local stringers.
Eye
witness ignored:
The television cameraman of Kairali
television (identified with the Opposition in the State), Shaji Pattanam,
was the only journalist who had seen much of the the police firing first hand
and photographed it. Though he was a key witness, other journalists did not
interview him for quotes (except for a freelancer who went on to accept second
hand information from him without questioning).
Rumors like wildfire:
Rumours spread when first hand information is scarce. So, statements of
locals like that they had seen a bulldozer called in by the police to bury
several dead tribals got currency. Did anyone see it? Do two accounts match
when it comes to the details like the description of the bulldozer? Then,
there was the key question which needed to be answered: who set fire to the
forests, triggering the violent turn of events? (The officials said it was
the tribals while the tribals said it was the forest officials whom they
had held as captives for a day before they were released in the presence
of the district Collector.)
Journalists as activists:
Activism is not tenable with professional journalism, though there may be
fringes of journalism where it is justified. It has been alleged that several
of the journalists who reported on Muthanga and related incidents were activists.
There were two kinds of activists: those who argued for eviction of the tribals
on environmental grounds and those who justified the agitation by the tribals.
However, a close look shows that hardly any of them were activists in the
sense that they actively participated in or aided the agitation by the Prikrithi
Samrakshna Samithi or the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha. What they displayed
was empathy for a cause. Some actively pursued truth, which is a legitimate
journalistic objective. But for their efforts, many of the atrocities that
had happened at Muthanga would not have received public attention.
April 2003.
