Editors Guild of India Failed Manipur, and Journalists
It's embarrassing and a lost opportunity for editors to self-reflect. But it's not criminal.
The report by The Editors Guild of India on the conflict in Manipur is fundamentally flawed in its methodology and focus. Multiple factual errors, displaying a lack of diligence, have sparked a debate about the entire effort undertaken by the guild.
The report has garnered some fair criticism from some quarters in Manipur. In my opinion, the Guild could have been more thoughtful and thorough in defining the scope and method of the task it had undertaken. It missed a valuable opportunity as an association of newsroom leaders. As a consequence, the guild has done a disservice to both journalists and some sections of Manipur society.
Regrettably and am sure unintentionally, it has played into the hands of interested parties in the conflict, including the state chief minister N Biren Singh, who have used the report to solidify their acrimonious and polarizing positions.
However, there is absolutely no reason why the state government or anyone else should attempt to criminalize their failure. The Supreme Court should dismiss all proceedings against the guild and the authors. The guild should issue an apology and subsequently withdraw its report. If it wishes to, it can conduct another investigation.
Those who disagree with the report should limit themselves to civil criticism and refrain from imputing motives. The blame for failure lies not only with the authors but also with the guild itself. Perhaps more with the latter.
Let me justify these assertions
The guild claims it decided to review the fairness of the reportage on the Manipur conflict in response to a specific request from the armed forces and complaints from others. There are numerous established methodologies and parameters for conducting a media review and content analysis. Almost all of them require a thorough examination of the reportage. They could have selected the most significant and comprehensive news outlets reporting on Manipur and methodically reviewed their content. Alternatively, they could have chosen specific events in the conflict and analyzed how all news outlets reported them. They should have employed basic parameters, such as evidence-based corroborated reporting, and adhered to cautionary principles of reporting on civil war and communally-charged processes.
The guild's report does not demonstrate the use of any such method. Instead, it cites random samples and facts. It relies a lot on hearsay and unverified opinions originating from a charged and violence-ridden environment where physical safety takes precedence over truth-telling at this juncture for most in Manipur. This mix shaped the report authors’ understanding. The report, therefore fails to meet fundamental journalistic standards.
The guild devoted most of its report to a task it claimed it never intended to undertake – becoming the final arbiter of journalistic truth regarding Manipur. If the guild believed its name and reputation gave it credibility, this report ironically reminds us that all journalists are only as good as their most recent story.
Answers are limited by the questions one asks. The most important question the guild, a body of editors heading news organizations, should have asked is: Did we, as newsroom leaders and editors, fulfil our responsibilities?
This question could have been answered without leaving Delhi. I am willing to bet that the answer would have been that newsroom leaders failed much more than the beleaguered reporter. We know that Indian newsroom leaders are largely failing for various structural reasons. Manipur has simply exposed this truth to us. It is shortsighted to blame only the reporter; the failure in Indian journalism lies with leadership and the organizations.
We should have asked ourselves whether the editors equipped their reporters with sufficient time, resources, and perspective to do their job. Did we instruct our reporters to educate themselves, listen, and mentally and intellectually prepare for the task? Did we encourage them to move beyond spot reporting and avoid rushing to be the first to produce a story, instead emphasizing thoroughness and skepticism of everything and everyone, while maintaining empathy?
How many editors realized that reporters were dealing with a divided and charged society, safety concerns, and the experience of an armed conflict where the state had failed?
Many years ago, as a reporter, I had to confront physical armed violence in a conflict at uncomfortably close quarters. That experience continues to influence my life. I had the option to escape, but I know of many journalists for whom such environments are their homes.
The guild's approach to journalists and newsrooms in Manipur lacked empathy, painting them with broad brushstrokes. They failed to recognize the diversity within Manipur's journalism landscape and did not report empathetically on how poorly paid journalists in the state manage to balance their safety, the pressures of living in a dangerous communal divide, and dealing with armed groups. Many of us can share stories of courage, humility, frustration, failures, and limitations if someone is willing to listen.
How many media outlets acknowledged that reporters were operating in an environment where groups conducted information (and disinformation) campaigns to shape narratives? A place where people scrutinized every word of journalism zealously and resisted being used as mere subjects. And, rightly so.
Reporters constantly had to contend with targeted anger from one or the other group of interested parties, whether rightfully or wrongfully.
The guild failed entirely to scrutinize the work of Delhi-based media outlets. They gave the more powerful media landscape a pass. Had they not, they would have found that a significant portion of this journalism too failed to adhere to the fundamental principles and rules of the profession. This failure often stemmed from shortcomings on the part of editors and organizations. Nevertheless, some journalists underwent a steep learning curve over months to produce more nuanced and insightful reportage with time. Am sure some were aided by supportive editors to go beyond the ‘spot’ and yet others did it on their own steam.
The guild committed the very journalistic sins it set out to investigate. Several uncorroborated statements and accusations, often lacking hard evidence or adequate context, found their way into the report. Accusations were made against communities, groups, and individuals without presenting supporting evidence. While they may have been correct, the evidence needed to be presented.
The guild's report gave a pass to one powerful stakeholder in the conflict, the Assam Rifles, without conducting a thorough investigation into the claims being made. Given that they went at the request of the armed forces, they should have exercised greater caution. Then, the report did not adequately address the role of the Union government and its instructions to the state and the armed forces.
Some of the guild's conclusions are accurate, but they did not require a visit to Manipur. For instance, the report correctly identifies that the internet ban was detrimental to journalism and highlights the partisanship of the chief minister. Journalists for whom Manipur is a homeland had to navigate pressures from their respective geographic regions and the political leadership of the dominant communities in various areas of Manipur. The most prominent news organizations in Manipur are based in the capital, which inevitably skewed information and news distribution during the conflict and internet ban.
The guild could have used its platform to encourage introspection within the profession. Unfortunately, it missed that opportunity. It is regrettable. They made an attempt and fell short. Sometimes, those who strive to do right may fail. We all have and will. However, the guild neither committed nor intended to commit any act that deserves to be treated as a criminal offense.
There are many amongst us who do not even try to do fair by the profession. The expectations from them is so low, that we don’t even imagine them to be a part of this conversation. Â
Nitin Sethi is the founding editor of The Reporters’ Collective and has family and loved ones in Manipur. This his personal opinion.