I guess it’s true what they say about time. Or most of it anyway. Time heals; time teaches; time changes. Time essentially also means age. It means growing older, and hopefully, more mature. Time can be your best friend and your worst enemy all at the same time.
In a land far from home, where the weather is different, the people are different, the culture, the traditions are all different, time is your only hope to make it through because you know, that no matter how bad it gets, it’s going to pass.
Another cliché about time is that it teaches you to value that which is precious and discard that which isn’t worth your time.
At home, comfortable in one’s space, surrounded by familiarity in faces, places, names and food, one tends to take all of that for granted. People complain about their country, its politics, its financial crises, its corrupt officials, its miserable education system, inflation, food quality, crime rates, safety system, basically anything that they can express their opinion on. And it’s real easy to do all that in a familiar environment.
But once you’re out of your comfort zone, in a new place, those social, economical, political and environmental problems of your homeland travel with you in your mind and bug you no matter where you are.
Personally, I prefer to criticize something only if I intend to do something about it myself. I think the people that take the effort to do their homework and make an informed choice when they vote, have the right to complain or protest about their lazy politicians. Which is why, the rest of this “article” will focus on such people. Not the ones who crib about issues without ever intending to work towards resolving them. I call these people, these second kinds, drawing room heroes [meaning they can watch a patriotic movie and feel the need to do something for their country till such time as they leave that room]. One of my English teachers in school used that term once and it stuck with me.
I know that there are a lot of things wrong with the world, and specifically, with where I come from. But where I come from, has a lot to do with who I am, as is true for everyone. Our culture and our education influences us enormously.
As an Indian citizen, I have the right to criticize the things that go on in my country which anger me or hurt me or just simply baffle me. I do not, however, think that as a journalist, I am allowed to present to people, only one side of a story, of an issue, of a crime; while leaving out the ‘significant other’ to eventually have an incomplete collection of information.
I think this tallies significantly with the ethics and biases that journalists should and should not have respectively.
We do, probably, as journalists already go in with a bias when we cover stories, or write articles, or even do interviews. The questions we ask, the people we interview, the way we edit our videos, the quotes we choose to leave out, all of that probably reflects a bias. Note: “probably”.
But where is the line between a “white-bias” [kind of like a white lie that doesn’t really harm any one] and losing your objectivity?
When we cover important, sensitive issues, like human trafficking for the sex trade, is it ethical/objective to leave out, even in a preview or a sample of your work, facts, which if included, would definitely change the impact it would have on your audience?
Is it right to put an entire country in bad light and illustrate how prominent this heinous trade is in that country, and then let a completely different country come in and play hero? I have no problem with Nepal being the hero here. I have a problem with India being cast almost as an indifferent, cruel, sold-out country.
Yes the infamous illegal sex trade in Mumbai is high. But is it not your responsibility to tell your viewers how much it is has gone down since serious crackdowns began and were implemented, or since cops were suspended for not doing their duty and accepting bribes?
Is it right to say that an NGO from Nepal came in and rescued this young girl who was sold to a ‘hustler’ in Mumbai and that the Indian police are involved in tolerating and ignoring the continuity of such crimes?
Does generalizing all of the Indian police make you an objective reporter? The sheer number of people you point your finger at when you accuse them of taking bribes, should itself make you want to be more specific and thorough in what you present.
I have never had a harder time than this last one-hour ever since I’ve been in the United States.
A fellow journalist made a video about human trafficking and how traumatic it is for those who are victims of the trade. In the subtitles, as a victim was being interviewed, was the line, “..and the Indian police are involved in these crimes. It’s like they sold us too.” The translations said that they [the cops] would take a little money and let the prostitution racket continue under their noses.
The worst thing for this film was to have me sitting there. I didn’t come out speechless because I was hurt by what that lady went through. It must have been shattering, I’m sure. I came out speechless because I could not believe that this journalist had just generalized an entire country, and its work force. I’m sorry but because this is not a ‘journalistic piece’ I’m just going to be honest and say- I can never trust anything that this reporter writes or says again.
I don’t know if she had researched NGOs and government organizations in India who work endlessly for rescuing and rehabilitating victims of human trafficking. These groups look after, treat and find employment for such victims who end up getting infected with HIV or AIDS.
Either way, she had completely missed, or didn’t have in her video, this entire “other side of things”. It doesn’t concern me because it would have neutralized her coverage if she had it, but because it would have made her entire endeavor seem much more objective, and genuine.
Just for the record, if a journalist, including me, is ever thinking of accusing an Indian, or more than one Indian [or a person of any other nationality] of being involved in such horrifying criminal activity, that journalist had better be seriously backed up by chunks of evidence. You can’t say that 75% of Nepal’s trafficking victims were sold to India in the 1980s and walk away. You owe it to your audience to tell them what the situation is 21 years later in 2011. If you’re accusing thousands of people in one go, you HAVE to be sure that they are all guilty. If not, stop generalizing.
I don’t take what I saw lightly. I was and am offended by something that shows my country and its people in such bad light.
I am, like any young educated and responsible Indian, fiercely patriotic. I will not stand for this kind of finger pointing. But I have been taught by generations before me, that if someone else puts you in bad light, work towards eliminating that perspective by being a controlled, respectable person. And most of us will silently work our way towards letting people know how we really are but you never want to get on our wrong side.
Hopefully, being the bigger person and learning to forgive are things that get easier with time. For now though, I am just an angry, offended Indian sympathetic towards the girl who was sold at an age when she should have been in school, learning.
I think I just understood what objectivity means. People sometimes link the meanings or usage of certain words to experiences they have had, or things they can draw from. Each individual has a unique thought process. Mine just told me that this is how I am going to remember objectivity and ethic.
Three years ago, I would have included the name of the concerned journalist. But with time, age, and thankfully, some maturity, I understand that it would be unfair, and unethical to do so.
Questions, Comments, Criticism, Insights- welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment