We are all well aware of the recent unrest in the Arab world. We are aware because the media from various nations fearlessly strove to report the happenings and the proceedings from those countries. Journalists from top-notch news channels and newspapers were present there for the same. However, the question that arises is: were they fair? Or have we been lead to believe that the situation was worst than what was actually happening there?
In the Gulf Daily News (GDN), a local English daily from Bahrain, there was an article on how the international media was blowing the issue out of proportion, referring to them as ‘media bloodhounds.’ Here is an extract from that very article, “Turn on the TV and you would think we were in the middle of a civil war! I have news for you - we are not. The only thing I see and hear coming out of the international Press are one-sided reports, authored by self-centered journalists being spoon-fed a diatribe of anti-government propaganda from those seeking to profit from instability and chaos.”
It has always been accepted as a universal fact that the media does exaggerate, to make the news more interesting. What is the role of the media? To provide blatant facts, or to add ‘masala’ to the news item so that the viewership is enhanced?
During the 26/11 attack, the media had thoughtlessly broadcasted the positioning of the terrorists, which in turn did more harm than good. Was it necessary for the viewers to know where exactly the terrorists are bunking at the Taj hotel? Wasn’t this done just to hook people to their TV sets?
We as the media need to be more responsible. We need to think of the repercussions of our actions, instead of just concentrating on the ratings our channels and papers receive. Only then can we strive to achieve a balance in what is actually happening and how we report it.
