The idea of accountability and public interest in journalism is more than two centuries old. The institutional framework has been evolving over the last century – technological disruption has brought a new set of challenges. However, the core concerns remain the same. For example, the 1947 Hutchins Commission report on the media, “a free and responsible press”, concluded that freedom of the press was in danger.
Robert M. Hutchins, who served as president of the University of Chicago, concluded in his report that press freedom was at risk for three reasons: “First, the importance of the press to the people has increased greatly with development. of the press as a means of mass communication. Also, the development of the press as a means of mass communication has greatly reduced the proportion of people who can express their opinions and views through the press. Second, the few who are able to use the machinery of the press as a means of mass communication have not rendered sufficient service to the needs of the society. Third, those who direct the machinery of the press may, from time to time, engage in practices that are condemned by society and, if continued, will inevitably act to regulate or control. “
privileged position
Former National Public Radio (NPR) ombudsman Jeffrey Dworkin once observed that ombudsmen were in a privileged position to link the need for audience accountability with the recognition of media outlets that they should be able to improve their work in our present day. is required.
He summarized the role as being “a mediator between the expectations of the public and the responsibilities of journalists”. This framework gives a glimpse into the factors that shape my concerns, fears and concerns about the future of journalism.
When I became a journalist in 1985, most editors used to write special stories on 3 December to mark the Bhopal gas tragedy, one of the most horrific industrial accidents faced by humanity. After many years, we have yet to ascertain the exact death numbers, the long-term impact of allowing toxins into our environment and contaminating groundwater. While the question of unfair compensation remains valid today, a series of journalistic interventions helped the Indian state partly enact the act. December 3, in a way, marked the importance of follow-up.
check status
It is time for editors to make up stories on the status of investigations into crimes against journalists. My concern about quality journalism is related to the well being of journalists. Although the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution in 2013 declaring 2 November as the ‘International Day for Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists’, crimes against journalists are endless and crimes against criminals are increasing. Punishment appears to be. The failure of law enforcement agencies across the world, including in India, is a disturbing feature.
As I am writing this column, I remember editor Gauri Lankesh was killed on this day four years ago. On September 5, 2017, he was shot dead by two assailants outside his home in Bangalore’s Rajarajeshwarinagar Nagar, widely believed to be part of a larger conspiracy to quell anti-Hindu voice. The next year, this newspaper carried a detailed report, “Gauri Lankesh Murder Case Revealed” (June 16, 2018), which had an interesting head deck that said, “Karnataka Police think they have solved the case.” Why do they think so. And how did they do it.” In February 2019, the Supreme Court had noted the murders of Lankesh, Kannada writer MM Kalburgi, and activists Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare were part of a “very serious case”. Still, investigations are slow and efforts to arrest those who commit serious crimes remain a distant dream.
Senior journalist Pamela Philippos’s tweet on September 4 spoke the bitter truth. “Yesterday marks four years since India’s dynamic editor Gauri Lankesh was unceremoniously murdered in her own home. So far 17 cases have not made it to the courts as evidence of the direct involvement of the politically embroiled Sanatan [sic] institution surfaces,” she said on Twitter. The report documents how several arguments were deliberately made to prevent the trial.
If we fail to save journalists then it is impossible to save journalism.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
.