Good journalism, Carl Bernstein of the Watergate fame said, is “trying to “obtain the best attainable version of the truth,” which is “a simple matter but difficult to achieve.” This search for the truth becomes complicated in situations of conflict when different sides have different versions of the truth. Multiple vantage points can lead to multiple versions of the truth, but a reporter has to try to be objective and file copy before the deadline. The dominance of electronic and digital media, which demand instant reporting, has made the handling of conflicting versions all the more difficult. Now, when the state tries to be the ultimate arbiter of the truth, and uses law and the police to discipline the media, the journalist is faced with an impossible situation. Journalism easily turns into a conflict with law.
Reporters who seek to unravel facts about ethnic, caste, and religious conflicts have faced various charges in recent years. The state has been clear that it wants to restrict reporting or direct it in a particular course. The government wants to use fact-checking as an instrument of control. When the state claims monopoly over violence and fact, or even truth, its dominance over the society becomes unchallengeable. While the state’s attempt to control the media through formal and informal means is dangerous, what is also dangerous is the proliferation of misinformation that creates strife and triggers violence. The state wants to exercise its authority to control the narrative, in the name of controlling misinformation.
Traditionally the role of the editor was to judge what is publishable news and enforce a process for making that conclusion. The era of so-called citizen journalism has made the role of the editor redundant. Anyone can write or broadcast anything without verification or adherence to any rules. This is part of an anti-elitism that has gripped all democracies. The demise of editorial process in news production has had violent consequences. But using law enforcement to resolve this problem will lead us to authoritarianism. The answer lies in reviving the role of the editor, and re-establishing the rigorous processes for news gathering and dissemination.
