The media — be it the print, broadcast or Internet — has a social responsibility to the general public it serves. While great care is often taken to ensure that this responsibility is maintained, there are times when they are flaunted with no apology.
The December 16 gang rape of a paramedic in Delhi greatly shook the nation and saw unprecedented protests in many parts of the country. The rape of a five-year-old in Delhi, a few days ago, along with other reports of rape and police insensitivity, has produced similar anger and protests. Posed with a dilemma of not being able to disclose the names of rape victims (as it is a punishable offence) and the challenge to highlight the above mentioned two cases — one does not understand why these two cases — media houses lining Delhi’s Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and other places decided to ‘name’ the victim. Thus the December 16 gang rape victim got the names: Abhaya, Nirbhaya, Amaanat, among others and the five-year-old was christened Gudiya and Masoom. While on the face of it it appears to be an innocent and ‘helpful’ move, this nom de guerre is prompted more by news desk compulsions — a name, even an assumed one, makes good copy.
Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India prohibits the publishing of the name of a rape victim; publishing it is a punishable offence. This anonymity of rape victims poses a great challenge to the media. This was fine as long as the number of rape cases being reported were far from few. But of late, with a sharp spike in the number of rape cases being reported and with media presence much greater than what it used to be a few years ago, this faceless, nameless identity posed a problem for the media.
The most essential aspect before getting a product out in the market, and one which plays a crucial role in its success, is its branding. A product with a catchy name is more likely to be a hit than a product with a stale, unexceptional name. When it comes to the reportage of news relating to incidents of rape, some media houses tend to take this approach. Often this ‘branding’ of a rape victim is done with the excuse that it will help in furthering the cause of the victim, sensitising the public about the issue and serves a greater purpose of bringing tougher laws. This is as poor an excuse as it can get. Such ‘branding’ or commodification of a victim might help in giving attractive headlines, snazzy news packages and help in boosting sales/TRPs.
By using such disingenuous euphemisms the media cocks a snook at the law of the land and more importantly dehumanises a person who has already been subject of brutality. It is altogether another argument on whether the name of a victim should be made public. Minister of state for human resource development Shashi Tharoor, after the December 16 Delhi gang rape, rightly wrote on Twitter that “she was a human being w/a name, not just a symbol”. He was arguing for naming the victim (if the parents were for it) and honouring the victim as a real person.Hewlett-Packard president and CEO Margaret Cushing Whitman’s view that “When people use your brand name as a verb, that is remarkable” might be good for a product and business. But to apply the same logic to sensitive issues like rape/molestation is unfortunate. To say that such a pattern of reportage is cruelly insensitive is an understatement. The fourth estate, as much as it is touted to be a mirror of the society, should be sensible enough to know where to draw the line. The difference between responsible journalism and sensationalism is blurred in these cases.
How naïve of William Shakespeare to have written: ‘What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.’
(An edited version of this appeared in the Hindustan Times on April 25)
Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India prohibits the publishing of the name of a rape victim; publishing it is a punishable offence. This anonymity of rape victims poses a great challenge to the media. This was fine as long as the number of rape cases being reported were far from few. But of late, with a sharp spike in the number of rape cases being reported and with media presence much greater than what it used to be a few years ago, this faceless, nameless identity posed a problem for the media.
The most essential aspect before getting a product out in the market, and one which plays a crucial role in its success, is its branding. A product with a catchy name is more likely to be a hit than a product with a stale, unexceptional name. When it comes to the reportage of news relating to incidents of rape, some media houses tend to take this approach. Often this ‘branding’ of a rape victim is done with the excuse that it will help in furthering the cause of the victim, sensitising the public about the issue and serves a greater purpose of bringing tougher laws. This is as poor an excuse as it can get. Such ‘branding’ or commodification of a victim might help in giving attractive headlines, snazzy news packages and help in boosting sales/TRPs.
By using such disingenuous euphemisms the media cocks a snook at the law of the land and more importantly dehumanises a person who has already been subject of brutality. It is altogether another argument on whether the name of a victim should be made public. Minister of state for human resource development Shashi Tharoor, after the December 16 Delhi gang rape, rightly wrote on Twitter that “she was a human being w/a name, not just a symbol”. He was arguing for naming the victim (if the parents were for it) and honouring the victim as a real person.Hewlett-Packard president and CEO Margaret Cushing Whitman’s view that “When people use your brand name as a verb, that is remarkable” might be good for a product and business. But to apply the same logic to sensitive issues like rape/molestation is unfortunate. To say that such a pattern of reportage is cruelly insensitive is an understatement. The fourth estate, as much as it is touted to be a mirror of the society, should be sensible enough to know where to draw the line. The difference between responsible journalism and sensationalism is blurred in these cases.
How naïve of William Shakespeare to have written: ‘What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.’
(An edited version of this appeared in the Hindustan Times on April 25)
