Although it is six years since I left mainstream television journalism, the insensitive, scandalous and over the top saturation coverage of actor Sridevi's demise on certain TV channels, made me hang my head in shame.
What on earth were the editors of these channels thinking when they approved such distasteful reconstructions and outrageous pieces to camera from bath tubs, with a wine glass placed at the corner or sneaking in to show the place where the actor's embalmed body would be placed? Were these antics meant to boost ratings? Are viewers that silly? The possible attempt to draw a parallel between the deaths of Sunanda Pushkar and Sridevi may have been to prolong the shelf life of the story, beyond the last rites.
Public figures are also entitled to privacy. Their families have a right to grieve in peace.
Public curiosity is not the same as public interest. That's why Section 8(1)(j) of the Right To Information Act exempts “the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or causes unwarranted invasion of privacy”even of those holding public office.
The Sridevi coverage came close on the heels of a nine member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Vs Union of India upholding privacy as a fundamental right.
The court observed that “there are innumerable activities which are virtually incapable of being performed at all, and in many cases, with dignity, unless an individual is left alone or is otherwise empowered to ensure his or her privacy. Birth and death are events when privacy is required for ensuring dignity amongst all civilised people.”
Privacy flows from the Right to Life & Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Although Article 19(2) stopped short of listing privacy as a reasonable restriction to free speech, the term ‘decency’ exists. The reckless tv coverage, and indeed, some social media ranting and memes were far from decent. These folks should be informed that according to Explanation 1 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), “it may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person, if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.” The offence carries a 2 year jail term under Section 500 IPC.
The rat race for exclusives and so called sting operations take place when those manning news desks with zilch news gathering experience push reporters on the field for periodic ‘breaking news’ when there are really no updates. This triggers speculation and the crossing of boundaries. This is not to suggest that a mysterious death of a newsmaker must be out of bounds for media scrutiny, under the pretext of sensitivity. But there are legal limits to what may pass for investigative journalism.
The News Broadcasters Association had laid down Principles of Self Regulation in 2008 to be monitored by a jury of its peers. Under Clause 6, it mandates that “as a rule, channels must not intrude on private lives or personal affairs of individuals unless there is a clearly established and larger identifiable public interest for such a broadcast.” It further states that the “intrusion of private spaces” must not be for “salacious interest.” Under Clause 9, the guiding principle is that sting operations should be “a last resort” and “sex and sleaze” must not be allowed “as a means to carry out sting operations.”
It disapproves of any “deliberate alteration of visuals or editing or interposing done with the raw footage in a way that it also alters or misrepresents the truth or presents only a portion of the truth.”
Although the guideline does not specifically mention ‘reconstruction’, such ‘special effects’ like bath tub and wine glass props to boost ratings can be interpreted as ‘deliberate alteration of visuals.’ Reconstruction can originate only when there is an eyewitness. It cannot be fictional.The impact and reach of the visual medium is there for all to see. Irresponsible sections will give credence to the perception: ‘Lies, Damn Lies and TV News’!
(The writer is an advocate at the Madras high court, columnist and author)
