Journalists, journalism and media houses have been under intense scrutiny for a while now. In a rather unusual turn of events, a non-journalist appears to have conducted a sting operation on a journalist, hauling the journalist up for some of the contents of her news report.
There has been a lot of heated debate about the possible culling of dogs in Kerala, owing to an increase in cases of canines biting people; in many cases, little children.
A report by an international news website carried on July 27, however said that 40,000 dogs had been culled in Kerala recently, earning the state online calls for “national boycott”.
On August 5, a reader, Kenney Jacob, uploaded on SoundCloud, an audio recording of a conversation he had with the journalist.
In the audio clipping, Jacob is heard asking the reporter how she arrived at the figure of 40,000 dogs being culled in the state. The reporter says that she got the figures from two other news reports and names two leading national dailies. When he persists in questioning her about the veracity of the numbers, the reporter asks him to get in touch with her editor. At this point, the man asks her whether a reporter does not have any responsibility for the contents of her / his own report. (One of the national dailies stated that 40,000 bites had been reported but the other said that 40,000 dogs had been killed in three districts according to NGOs.)
"I live in Kerala, and I have never seen dogs getting killed in recent times. When I read 40,000 got killed I wanted to know the truth. Who caught them? We are a state that struggles to get manpower for such jobs, how did we then manage to kill 40,000 dogs. Who killed them? Where are they buried ? I contacted their UK office to know the source, the editor there confirmed that the sources are credible, but did not respond further." Kenney Jacob.
This raises an important question not just for journalists, but also for social media users and news consumers because the internet and technology have disrupted hierarchies of information control, making it possible for every person to become producers, publishers, journalists and transmitters of content.
In this instance, the man recorded the entire conversation, meaning that the intent to publish it may already have been there.
Recording conversations is often a handy tool for journalists, given that they speak to all kinds of people and may have to furnish proof of statements made to them.
But as this instance shows, this very idea can be used against journalists too. One of the most recent instance of this was when Lalit Modi published a series of WhatsApp messages he exchanged with a journalist.
Both instances raise important questions of what is public and what is private. When journalists record conversations, or conduct sting operations, there should be a justifiable reason for it – the public good. Without denying that they have been misused, sting operations do serve a purpose.
In this case – if the audio clipping is authentic – a reader of news about his home state did a number on the journalist, and showed that the claims in the report may need re-examination.
The democratization of technology, and access to and control of information is a double-edged sword. With media reports invariably fueling angry reactions and campaigns in many cases, it is perhaps the next big step that journalists and media houses need to watch out for. If information is not authentic, the camera could be on us.