By Ranjona Banerji
I met a brave and relentless activist yesterday, a man fighting for fair compensation for people who lost their lives in a man-made environmental disaster. Through his story what stood out was the fact that the media is not there when you need them. Journalists may show up, but they are not always likely to report on what you tell them. More probable is that they will not show up at all.
I met a brave young journalist, who covers issues that are anathema to the administration: sectarian assaults and segregation, human rights, the distressing effects of environmental disasters on humans. Large mainstream media houses are unwilling to cover these subjects, and in some cases, friends say that they have strict instructions not to carry or cover events of sectarian violence, especially when perpetrators are from the majority religion. There is fear for personal safety and for the family. Do they know where I live? Will I be attacked?
Is it remarkable that in this India, reporting on human misery or documenting environmental damage would be so scary and terrifying for the media?
I know you expect me to say “Of course, yes”. But think about it. The destruction of between 6000 and 3 lakh deodar trees in the Himalayas affects all of us.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/6k-deodar-trees-of-bhagirathi-eco-sensitive-zone-to-be-felled-for-widening-of-char-dham-road/articleshow/91056619.cms
But the problem is the road that is responsible for their destruction. The road ravaging its way through the mountains, a road described as the prime minister’s pet project. For such a road, no environmental law is so big that it cannot be sidestepped, no court is so powerful that it can overturn the decision, and no human stands a chance. And you can forget about trees, forests, water, the environment.
Yawn, yawn, yawn, some more climate change stuff says the editor. No young Greta Thunberg to abuse here either. And my next increment depends on my limiting criticism of the mighty leader and the mighty majority community. How do you like my new saffron scarf? The owner gave it to me last night.
Am I being unfair?
The environment affects us all. But so what?
A newspaper owner once said to me: “I want only positivity in the newsroom, not negativity”.
It was a dogwhistle directed at me, only I did not know the term dog whistle outside dogs and whistles at that time.
What he meant was the opposite of what he said: He wanted to create a toxic atmosphere where no one employed was allowed to complain about working conditions or criticise company policy. That is not “positivity”. That is a labour camp.
It is similar when people groan: “O, there is no good news in the media. It is full of negativity.”
What is good news in the context of news? That your neighbour’s daughter has won a scholarship? Your son has got married? You doggie has had pups?
You don’t need a massive mainstream media vehicle to tell you any of this. And you’re lying if you say you would consume this news on a daily basis: even the lies and disinformation on Whatsapp will soon be much more exciting. In fact, consumers of news already find misinformation on Whatsapp more exciting than actual news.
There is no good news. And the bad news is that the more you ignore the bad news, the sooner disaster will creep up on you without your knowing or preparing.
Let me put it this way: How would the Covid19 pandemic had worked if all media houses had concentrated only on positivity and “good news” and ignored the virus?
Yes. No one here to read or watch anything.
The good news: the planet has a better chance of survival.
Hmm. I seem to have worked myself into a spiral. O well. I would still choose the planet.
Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She writes on MxMIndia every Tuesday and Friday. Her views here are personal