Religion and Reporting

Among the most sensitive matters pertaining to any individual, religion ranks very high, right up there with matters about income or age or race or medical history. It is therefore considered rude to ask questions pertaining to religion in social situations equally rude to make general remarks about any religion. There are many countries where there is a clear demarcation between the state and the religion, this means that no governmental organization can ask for the religion you follow, they cannot in any way interfere in any religion i.e. neither can they promote or attack any religion.  In the end, religion is a set of rules that are followed by a group of people, it often has philosophical and spiritual implications as a wall.  

For the followers of religion, it is a way of life. Religions can mean different things to different people, some are devout and allow religion to govern their lives while some are selective about the principles of religion to follow, some follow religion merely a formality to please their mothers, and then there are those who do not believe in religion at all. It is essential that there is respect, understanding and tolerance among all groups for each other’s beliefs or the lack of it. If there is to be respect, it is essential that both the majority religion and the minority religions get equal protection and respect. 

A religious extremist can be defined as a person who misinterprets religion in a way that makes him intolerant towards other people’s beliefs, it is essential that we must not regard these people as followers of a religion but instead as a loons who may have personal or psychological problems and are uses religion as an excuse to propagate intolerance and hate. Hence if a religions extremist were to cause an attack it has to be called an attack by that individual and not the follower of a religion. Our constitution also states clearly that each and every religion will be treated as equal.

The rules of social situations and the constitution must obviously apply to the new media, i.e. the religion of an individual must always be kept out of the picture unless there is a situation where there is irrefutable evidence that when followers of a religion have been systematically targeted such as the Holocaust. So let’s have a look at three cases where incidences have been reported and let’s focus on the headlines formed.

Case 1: This is an article about a techie who was beaten to death in the city of Pune, the headline in states ‘Muslim techie beaten to death in Pune, 7 men of Hindu outfit held’. It is interesting to note that the article deals with allegations made by aides of the victim and denials made by alleged perpetrators. The details of this affair are rather sketchy and yet the paper chose to have a headline that states the the religion of the victim and perpetrators making it appear that the writer was certain that this was crime driven by religion and that it was based on substantial proof.

Case 2: This is an article about a man being beaten up by a mob, the headline states ‘Muslim man assaulted for trying to ‘convert’ girl’ Again the articles deals with allegations and conjectures, the assaults was alleged, the claims of ‘conversion’ are unconfirmed. But still the religion of the victim is clearly mentioned giving the impression that his religion had something to do with the assault.

Case 3: This is an article about a mob beating up a PETA activists.  The headline states ‘Peta members promoting vegetarianism roughed up’. Upon reading an article it is clear that the PETA activists were campaigning against animal sacrifice during Bakr id near a mosque, a group of angry Muslims from the locality raised objections saying it amounted to interfering in their religious practices. The PETA activists were beaten and pelted with stones. Please note that all of these incidents were confirmed and yet the headline chose to be excluding the religion of the perpetrators of the crime also ‘roughed up’ seems like a push and a shove rather than stone-pelting or beating.

A headline should ideally convey the gist of the article and clearly, in Case 1 and Case 2 the headline is rather misleading while in Case 3 the headline is ambiguous.  Ideally the principle of Case 3 should be consistently followed since zealots do not define any religion. So why did the paper in question think it was permissible to state the religion of the individuals involved in Case 1 and Case 2 when the articles were peppered with ‘alleged’ and exclude the religion of the individuals in Case 3 when it was there was ironclad proof that the incident had occurred and why it had occurred.  I will not get into the business of speculating the reasons for doing so; instead I will leave it to the enlightened reader to infer.

It is the job of the editorial board of any newspaper to define a clear policy while authoring articles and forming headlines, especially when it is dealing with the sensitive issue of religion. But most importantly it is essential that the editorial board ensures that the guidelines are adhered to.  In this case, it is either a case of bad policy or blatant double standards or perhaps plain carelessness. This could be very reckless especially to the casual reader who forms an impression by merely glancing at a headline.

Once upon a time, it was one of a handful of newspapers and magazines to read from and only one TV new channel to watch these were the only sources of our news. There was a high trust in everything we read and watched perhaps a sign of naivety.  But today the scenery has changed, we have a variety of newspapers, blogs and online websites, some are even politically and ideologically driven, there are sites that monitor the news and then there are social media where people are quick to find bias in reporting. 

This has made us polarized people, we often go to their corners to get news that echoes the opinion we already hold. When we read or listen to a piece of news or opinion that is critical of the party or the individual we support we automatically assume that the news is biased and do not even consider the possibility that it may be true. Trust in the mainstream news media is at an all-time low. In this volatile climate, an irresponsible report can clearly have consequences of disastrous proportions. It is therefore essential that the utmost precaution be taken while wording an article and specifically a headline.

Nobody is suggesting that the media should censor itself, a free media is the cornerstone of any healthy democracy but with the right of freedom comes to the duty of fairness and it is essential that it be applied, only if this is practiced will the eroded trust in the media be regained.