22 September 2021 04:01 am Views - 425
How does one choose who to give space in a story and where to place those inputs? Questions that not every
In Sri Lanka, there is an overwhelming tendency to give that space to those who already have access to the proverbial public loudspeaker. Politicians, business entities, celebrities and the like. This is not to say that we should not be reporting or talking to those that matter. By all means we should. But we should also understand the multifaceted, complex nature of the world we live in. More so given the age we live in where information and scarily utter lies can be digitised and weaponised quite easily.
Two decades ago, a rumour, a lie and constructed plant would take days to make its way through information channels, jumping off from informal to the mainstream. Today it takes 280 characters or less and it could be in the palms of tens of thousands in seconds.
There are advantages as well disadvantages in all this. Without this accessibility to mass dissemination channels that in effect take out the interlocutor role of the media, we would hardly get information out of places like Afghanistan and Myanmar where citizen journalism has come to define information under the jackboot of dictatorship. Traditional journalists are no more the sole custodians of public information nor are they only conduit. They have been relegated to bump and grind in the same crowded social media spheres as everyone else.
"Two decades ago, a rumour, a lie and constructed plant would take days to make its way through information channels, jumping off from informal to the mainstream. Today it takes 280 characters or less and it could be in the palms of tens of thousands in seconds."
Dangers galore
As I write, among the trending topics on social media in Australia are a bunch of Hashtags associated with right wing extremism. Why? Because there are protests in Melbourne against the mandatory vaccination policies placed on construction workers and the two-week shutdown of construction sites because of COVID-19 outbreaks. There is no one step connection between construction work and right-wing extremism. But that is hardly an impediment for extremism to latch on to receptive social media narratives and take them over. They will eventually change the trajectory of these conversations. That is how vile this can become.
This brings me back to my original question; why should we as journalists pay extra attention to whom we give space to? Because it matters who we highlight. Whether it is giving space to politicians to spread their lies or to others to fill public space with the mundane, if it is our choice, then we should hold that choice sacred. Be arrogant about it, but don’t be a powerbroker’s note taker.
Right of reply does not equate to the right to lie. Journalism is the professional task of truth seeking in public interest. It is most certainly is not the job of reproducing repeated speech. If we seed a lie, it will also now not take days for the reaction to be felt. Within minutes we will feel it.
COVID-19 has shown how those who have control of the public narrative have attempted to keep the public story within politically expedient scripts. It is not that easy to do when you have millions with access to social media.
Professional journalism is also tasked with the job of helping people make informed decision. In other words, to help them wade through the smoke screens. Here is where journalists should consider themselves as information specialists and those who are entrusted the responsibility of making that choice between viral slapstick and vital information.
Unfortunately many who wear the badge of journalism seem to yearn for vitality. No surprise there in this time of click-bait that not only baits the machine-based algorithms but also the men and women caught in the net.
The choice is simple; the real-life job is a bit more tenacious.
The writer is a journalism researcher and a writer. He can be contacted on amantha.perera@cqumail.com