ON ONLINE / SOCIAL MEDIA AND FREE SPEECH

The Internet (and social media) is a change agent bigger than anything I‘ve seen in my lifetime or am likely to see. It has also completely changed news consumption and how people relate to it. No doubt, the abuse and venom online would make a Black Mamba blush, but in my view that’s a small price to pay for its sheer disruption of power dynamics, hierarchies and homogeneity of opinion.

Twitter, facebook and the very lively comments sections of all news web sites are places so democratic that I have seen many reconsider their position on democracy. This makes “old school” mindsets extremely uncomfortable. When I say “old school” mindset it has nothing to do with the age of an individual. There are enough young people with shockingly primitive minds, and there are some very progressive ideas in those who have more than a few decades under their belts.

The Foundation for Media Professionals organized a debate titled “Only Tweet No Press Meets – Can Social Media Replace Journalists in Government’s Outreach?” (Here is Arunabh Saikia’s report on the event.) While that is one aspect of how social media is changing the journalistic landscape, there are other aspects too.

For those in the news business so accustomed to cornering the opinion space and used to one-way communication, dealing with a tsunami of comments and counter-views is overwhelming. The transition from – I Write And Opine While You Read to I Write And Opine While You Read And Opine Back Usually With Sickular/Sanghi/Paid-media/Libtard (and these are the polite ones) – is an agonising one.

There are two significant old school newsmedia-conventions that stand exposed and will most likely be jolted from complacency.

The first is the selective nature of standing up for freedom of speech by news professionals. Freedom of expression is a fundamental axiomatic position, not merely a political point of view. A few months ago, I met the former Chief Executive of Index for Censorship, Kirsty Hughes just before she left the organization.  Index for Censorship defends the right to freedom of expression – what some Indian journalists will label as “NGO types” or “activist types” displaying their intellect. Kirsty and I spoke about independent journalism, alternative models for news and the many consequences of free speech. The one thing that struck me from our conversation was Kirsty’s story about her having to stand up for those she violently disagreed with.

Kirsty related an incident of standing up to defend the right to expression of a far right-wing politician in United Kingdom well known for racist rants and cringe-inducing views on immigrants. This is a stereotype any liberal will love to hate. The politician had, as usual, shot his mouth off and politically correct-UK had reacted by coming down on him with a criminal case.

When Kirsty described what he said, it was offensive, even racist and betrayed a prejudiced mind –but it was not a crime. To put it in my words, you can be a dick but there is no law against being a dick. Since she had been part of several advocacy groups and the mandate of her organisation is to defend freedom of expression she was called upon to defend him too. While her gut instinct, no doubt, would have been “You kidding?”, she did stand up and defend his rights. In spite of him being someone whose point of view she is at the opposite end of. She said, if she can’t stand up for the freedom of expression of those she disagrees with, there is no reason to expect others to stand up for hers.

If something like this happens in India, it is most likely that journalists on the opposite side of the political divide will rub their hands in glee and many will actually tweet ridiculously lame statements justifying the action. This was on full display during the Dina Nath Batra controversy and later when DNA removed Rana Ayub’s Modi-and Amit Shah-bashing columns. Some journalists even went so far as to say – “What’s the big deal if she’s gagged? It’s the newspaper’s prerogative and her writing is terrible anyway”. Seriously!

Sure, because we all know that the biggest threats facing a free media are bad writing and a management bullied by freelance columnists; gagging dissent is a distant third. These were positions of adults who are considered journalists – the first line of defense for free speech. That’s the magic of social media. We stand exposed by ourselves even while we are being exposed to abuse.

Similar hypocrisy is displayed when a Togadia or anyone from the Thackeray herd shoots his mouth off with a statement that is offensive, but not a threat to hurt. It’s important to distinguish between expressing an offensive opinion and calling for violence or threatening assault. The latter is a punishable offense. The former is not and should never be.  Condemning such rants is necessary, desirable and well within one’s right and duty – but calling for them to be jailed or gagged is not. People say offensive things. Deal with it. This will slowly change as people get used to the noise.

In a society where rigid hierarchies make alarmingly idiotic statements such as “iske muh na lago” and “teri himmat kaise hui mujhse aise baat karne ki”  completely acceptable phraseology, it will be an uncomfortable but persistent transition.

The second alien concept that some (I think most) journalists and management are still unable to grasp is the non-editorial position or independent voice. A voice which speaks for no one, but that individual.

An organisation having an editorial position is tradition, and with the disruption blogs and social media cause it can’t stay that way too long. Manu Joseph wrote a piece on the Tejpal Thinkfest case in Outlook. One can agree or disagree or trash the piece on its merits and demerits, but journalists who have been in the profession for years trashed Outlook with – “RIP Outlook” or “Outlook used to be a great magazine but is no more” etc. All because of one piece by Manu who is not even on Outlook’s rolls -a magazine with almost two decades of journalism behind it.

This outrage demonstrated that for far too long journalists have been working in an environment where they don’t understand that independent views can exist and not every position is the management’s position. Why else would one assume that what Manu has written is what the editor, management and everyone in Outlook agrees with? The environment which journalists have worked in, muzzles contrarian points of view, compromises promotions, determines status at office – and most have come to accept this as how it must be.

The quality of one’s work is not one’s prime professional identity. Rather, one’s politics or social positioning is. You know this. Many of you have called me telling me what determines who gets which stories to do or which slot is given to which anchor. The reactions condemning the Outlook piece revealed more about the professional expectations of the critics, than they did about Manu Joseph or Outlook. (For the record, Newslaundry carried an article too and it was amusing to see everyone thought I held the same view as the columnist – only because I happen to be a co-founder and – the column was written by my sister.)

If an organisation has many people, and they all – by and large – agree on their politics, it’s not a very bright organisation. And to expect that to be the case isn’t very smart either.

Management too will slowly realise this and have to embrace this change – or be convinced to do so while kicking and screaming. If journalists and independent voices are muzzled on official platforms, they will articulate their views on platforms like Twitter and facebook which can potentially create as much of an impact as traditional media. Asking employees not to tweet the links of articles by journalists from other media houses will do more damage than good. Trying to make everyone in your organisation think like you, will ensure a team of dimwits.

Also, what online exposure does is, it ensures that only those committed to writing/web-casting opinion/reports because they believe in what they say or report (or are paid very well) will remain in the game. Those in it for shallow popularity, the thrill of studio lights and make-up, mug-shots, fan mail and being recognised at parties won’t find the space all that attractive anymore. We will all be abused and attacked, often correctly for being sellouts, cowardly, craven or politically motivated- and sometimes viewers/readers will curse us just for fun. This is Spaartaaaa…

Old school management and editors who want to cling to cocoons, fiefdoms and homogeneous editorial views will become an anachronism. It is inevitable. It won’t be smooth and it won’t be pretty.