‘Let’s prosecute Arnab Goswami. Let’s not prosecute Arnab Goswami! Republic-type television, and let’s not rush to call it journalism, has for years occupied the space previously occupied by conventional journalism. Its political and monetary influence, driven by a growing ultra-nationalism in politics, has allowed it to dominate the space and its screeching decibels have driven saner voices, sober analysis and fact-based reporting.
For many of us trying to ensure the survival of journalism, let alone journalism with a public purpose, it has been, in turn, frustrating, outrageous and terrifying to fight for our space while constantly vilifying ourselves for the toxicity created and amplified by some. in the media.
There is nothing better than many of us would like to do – this writer included – Than reveling in the well-deserved pay of someone who has come to symbolize some of the worst excesses in the media. Arnab Goswami’s type of journalism has reduced the space for independent media and independent journalists, and the fact-free telethons on his channel have created more space for hateful public discourse. Since you seem insensitive to the basic principles of journalistic practice, we are quite happy that you get what you deserve. – One way or another.
Journalists with a lifetime of work of great integrity have been arguing whether or not he needs support, while some media and journalistic organizations such as the Editor’s Guild have been quick to defend him. So what do we do with the problem that is Goswami? Or put another way, do we have to defend the indefensible, lending our support and our voices to a man whose work undermines ours? It is certainly not necessary for all of us to talk about Goswami’s arrest for fear of being judged deficient. In the multitude of problems we face, we all pick and choose what we want to talk about, if only for the fact that we are overwhelmed. The problem, therefore, is really to imagine how we can think about it before deciding if we want to say something about it.
Some compelling arguments have been made in favor of keeping silent on this issue. There are many other clear cases of journalists of integrity being persecuted for their journalistic work, about whom no statements have been made and who have received little support in public forums. Furthermore, Goswami has not been arrested for his journalism. Both arguments are correct, strictly speaking.
However, the first argument leads to the phenomenon of ‘whataboutery’ leading nowhere. As for the second, as we well know, in the art of the political persecution of journalists, governments do not always follow a principled approach to prosecuting journalists for their journalistic activity. Censorship comes in many forms and large swaths come in disguise.
We have seen journalists and the media being attacked for their journalism, repeatedly, for reasons other than journalism. These types of attacks carry low attrition for the government, as they can always be justified as necessary prosecution rather than censorship, especially if they come in the form of cases and investigations related to financial or administrative matters. We know that prosecution is becoming a method of persecution. We also know that, increasingly, targeted prosecution is the preferred form of political persecution.
While Goswami is not being investigated for financial corruption, what few dispute is the political intent of the ruler Shiv Sena in recent actions related to Arnab and his channel. Journalists who have risked a lot to stand up and fight for ethical journalism have argued that journalists do not need to talk about this case which is a political struggle between two parties, the BJP has jumped to their defense.
Regardless of who has an interest in this fight, if we accept the premise that Goswami has been the target of a political fight because of what he broadcasts on his channel, we need to think carefully about whether this meets the threshold that requires journalists to speak. , even if it is two parties (within a broader intolerant right-wing culture) that are currently engaged in shadow boxing.
The grounds for arrest also seem weak if he is blamed for the suicide of an architect, as the bar for complicity is quite high and requires mens rea as reported by The wire: “In January 2010, the Supreme Court had ruled that for there to be a case of complicity, there must be mens rea or intent, so the accused must have intended the person to commit suicide. Given that, a suicide note is not enough to press charges of complicity, several legal experts have argued. “
It should be possible for us as journalists to employ the nuance that we think is a necessary part of good journalism. Not to run to their defense or remain silent, but simply to emphasize the need for the law to take its own course. Not to support Goswami in a knee-jerk response, but to emphasize that while no journalist is beyond prosecution, all citizens should be beyond prosecution and call on the Mumbai police to prosecute actual crimes committed. If there is sufficient evidence to point to non-payment of fees, the charges to be brought against Goswami are probably section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and not 309 (attempted suicide or assistance for the suicide) the CPI.
That still leaves doubts that many of us may still have, not for technical reasons, but for the broader ethical question of whether we want to extend our support to defend a journalist against indefensible accusations even though the journalist’s practice of journalism is indefensible.
Tactically speaking, despite our momentary glee at seeing someone we don’t like intensely getting their due – his arrest, for reasons unlikely to hold up in court, is more likely to make the man a political martyr who looks down on him. However, the label that follows a case of 420 – of being a cheater – it is much harder to shake.
Finally, if we find Goswami’s type of media problematic, and many of us do, we should try to counter it through discourse, legal remedies, and the use of the organizations and media that we still have available. This could include a vigorous prosecution of hate speech and a denunciation of fact-free media production on all available platforms. Taking help at any other shortcut can be futile and undermine our own strengths.
Aunohita Mojumdar is a senior Southasian journalist and a former Himal Southasian editor.
.
