The factors that led to >Brexit , the emergence of >Donald Trump as the >presumptive candidate of the Republican Party and a host of domestic developments within India have one common thread. They are the product of deliberate lies, calculated propaganda, the whipping up of xenophobic fears, and demonising the other. There is a particular intensity to the demagogues’ language where myths masquerade as the truth. During that carnival of democracy called the elections, these blatant untruths seem to have the approval of a large section of the people.
What is the role of the media in these circumstances? Should it abandon its cherished rules of maintaining the distance between news and views to call the bluff of the fear mongers? Should it indulge in editorialising in news reports? Is fact checking of a politician’s statement in reportage editorialising? Should it avoid reporting the provocative rhetoric? Will it amount to self-censorship? Holding people in power accountable is one part but how does one do it for people who aspire to wield power? Are the rules different? Can rigorous fact checking help to stem the tide of growing misinformation that flows from social media and other vested interests? These are not easy questions and they do not have easy answers. A referendum-like response to these important questions that have a bearing on our life, governance and information ecology will not only erase the crucial grey areas but also create a false dichotomy. Our reality is multilayered, and any answer must retain nuances and refrain from a reductionist approach.
Before venturing into what the media should do, let us look at some of the myths by the Leave group in the Brexit referendum, the Trump campaign and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Hukum Singh’s claims of a Hindu “exodus” from Kairana town.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump’s attacks on HillaryThe Washington Post has done some excellent fact checking on claims made by Trump and his vitriolic attack on Hillary Clinton. He said: “Hillary Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was secretary of state plus millions more for her foundation… The government of Brunei also stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Hillary's Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she would absolutely approve if given the chance.” But, The Washington Post clearly established that Ms. Clinton accepted a gold, sapphire and diamond necklace worth $58,000 from Brunei’s queen. This is because it is an official position where top U.S. officials may accept gifts on behalf of the U.S. government in circumstances where not accepting the gift would cause embarrassment to the donor and to the U.S. government. However, as per the federal law, the necklace was recorded in the Federal Registry and transferred to the General Services Administration.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
These are like the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The amount of misinformation that flows from people who wield power and those who aspire to wield power is growing in an exponential manner. The digital revolution and the spread of rural telephony have given a sharp edge to the spin and distortion of facts. Given the profound impact propaganda has on our social fabric, at times journalists may think of editorialising in the field report as an answer. But that will only undermine journalism. The need of the hour is to establish a new section, in one of the prominent pages, like the Op-Ed page or the National page, called Fact Check, where rhetoric from political leadership is scrutinised closely so that people can sort the wheat from the chaff.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in