There are lessons to learn from journalist Shujaat Bukhari’s assassination. In the lead story, “ Stop press? Not at Rising Kashmir ” (June 17, 2018), Peerzada Ashiq reported on how a team of dedicated and defiant journalists worked to bring out the newspaper Rising Kashmir hours after their editor was assassinated. The poignant statement that paid tribute to Bukhari read: “You left all too sudden but you will always be our guiding light with your professional conviction and exemplary courage. We won’t be cowed down by the cowards who snatched you from us. We will uphold your principle of telling the truth however unpleasant it may be... RIP.” Journalism is an interminable, life-affirming journey and violence has never succeeded in stopping its onward march.
It requires herculean emotional resolve for the staff of a newspaper to bring out the next day’s edition after their editor has been shot dead in front of their office. With a lump in their throat and tears in their eyes, the journalists at Rising Kashmir worked overtime to deny Bukhari’s killers their joy. While there is pride in journalism, journalists are insecure today. The elimination of voices is the most gruesome form of censorship. The Committee to Protect Journalists, in a report titled “Dangerous pursuit”, had warned in 2016 that India’s culture of impunity in the killing of journalists leaves the press vulnerable to threats and attacks.
Culture of impunity
The attempt by some on social media to normalise violence against journalists and cast aspersions on their professional decisions and judgments is as disturbing as the impunity enjoyed by killers due to shoddy investigations and poor law enforcement. They should read the entry for the word ‘journalist’ by Denis Diderot in 1765 in Encyclopédie Ou Dictionnaire Raisonné Des Sciences, Des Arts Et Des Metiers : “He [journalist] would have at heart the progress of the human mind; he would love the truth, and would link everything to these two objectives.” Those who undermine journalism have no idea about the passion that binds those who have chosen this profession, despite it being littered with literal and metaphorical minefields.
The norms for public discourse are essential in a plural society for dialogue and for the emergence of a common democratic and public opinion. Anyone who wishes to share an idea or an opinion on a public forum is obliged to respect these norms. The proliferation of social media platforms, where slander and intimidation have been normalised as opinions, is constantly lowering the standards of public discourse. These platforms are undermining the space for dialogue, dissent and democracy through wilful smear campaigns. If this trend continues, very soon these platforms can be called ‘anti-social’ media because they fail to recognise that accountability is an inviolable component of true freedom.
Online attacks
A recent study by the Centre for International Media Assistance warns about the spread of a new wave of censorship — the distributed attacks on freedom of expression. According to Daniel Arnaudo, the author of the study, these online attacks are “insidiously difficult to detect, and often just as effective, if not more, than the kinds of brute force techniques by state agents that came before”. He argues that the goal of these attacks is not always to block users, content or themes, but to attack democratic discourse, weaken trust in institutions like the media, other governments, the opposition, and civil society. He establishes how the aim of those indulging in distributed attacks is to polarise, which will result in a more dangerous and confined space for the media and civil society.
Arnaudo also highlights some of the tools and tactics of these growing new forms of censorship. Some of the major maladies he examines are censorship troll farms, bot networks, distributed denial of service attacks, personal data exfiltration and expropriation, hacking and leaking of media, civil society and other private information for political, commercial, or personal gain.
This does not mean that the media is beyond criticism. There are ways to express contrarian views with civility. Abrasive vitriol cannot masquerade as criticism because it undermines the public sphere and takes a toll on lives. Preserving the space for dialogue is a collective responsibility.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
