Voyeurism or necessity?

Two back-to-back incidents pertaining to the security realm were subjected to sharing of graphic content on social media (even mainstream), some fake or unrelated, and the others, questionably appropriate for sharing, on account of privacy sensitivities. The first entailed the unfortunate Nagaland firing incident, and the second, the tragic helicopter crash carrying India's foremost Military officer. First-finger-first phenomenon of individuals and media houses sharing 'visuals' is part of the sensational 'breaking news' culture, narrative-supporting contexts or plain and simple voyeurism. With no official confirmation of authenticity, speculations and conspiracy-theorists who thrive on uninhibited content, had a field day.

The extent to which images of tragedy, violence or death need to be shown is a matter of unresolved debate – public opinion is deeply conflicted on documenting death in its rawness. One side argues that it brutalises, dehumanises, and disrespects the inherent dignity and privacy of life, and the other side believes the argument of galvanising opinion and nurturing transformational ability. Perhaps, 'intent' besetting the sharing of visuals is the only plausible filter to adjudicate, one way or the other. In mature democracies with generally self-censoring media, like in the United States, it is common practice to not show closeups of dead bodies of US combatants killed in action or that of the dead in the incidents like 9/11, or odd and distant shots of unrecognisable people jumping off buildings in desperation — to capture the poignancy of 'moment' for posterity, in still sanitised images.

Visuals can indeed be a powerful medium of change, or at least, trigger an alternative perspective. Iconic images like the nine-year old Vietnamese Napalm Girl (originally called as The Terror of War) fleeing naked with a blazing village behind her in 1972; three-year-old Syrian refugee, Alan Kurdi, lying gut-wrenchingly lifeless on a beach in Turkey after the boat carrying him and several others had capsized; or more recently, of the last moments of life of African American, George Floyd, had led to much-needed societal introspection. Supporters argue that each of these haunting images had disrupted the mass tendency to ignore, gloss-over and even conveniently rationalise death of 'others', while some others called it craven, degrading and even 'pain porn'. Importantly, on the lever of 'intent' besetting such visuals, the family of George Floyd insisted that but for the goriness of his struggling last moments, injustice would never have come to light as many deprived citizens (in this case, African American community) struggle for daily visibility, and that privacy is a privilege that they cannot afford. The dilemma of 'identity' sprung forth in the barbaric case of Nirbhaya (read, fearless), where the struggle and death of a young girl became a symbol of multiple ills in our society – pseudonyms were widely used to describe her identity, as prescribed (protected?) by law. Later, suffering the frustrations of the Indian legal system, her mother insisted on her real name, Jyoti Singh, "We want the world to know her real name. My daughter didn't do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself. I am proud of her. Revealing her name will provide courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my daughter". The parallels of 'intent' and seeking societal transformation in the cases of George Floyd and Jyoti Singh were obvious, and it was not about voyeurism, TRPs or recklessness.

In the Indian context, the definitive image of the Bhopal gas disaster (world's worst industrial disaster) of the little girl partially buried with her dead eyes open, tells the horror of the tragedy, in just one frame. Thankfully, her identity remains unknown, unpoliticised and unclaimed as that image speaks of wounds that afflict all, beyond the meaningless rhetoric and preying of pain – this was also the time before mobile phones, computer graphics and morphing abilities had come into picture.

Sadly, and increasingly so, despite being a civilisational land, our civic sensibilities are impaired by a deluge of aggressive and desperate media one-upmanship, which when combined with the no-holds-barred and wanton politics of the times that be, naturally breeds unrestrained instincts, expectations, and expressions. Insisting on facts, sobriety, or balance in reportage, is almost a sure recipe for getting replaced by more sensationalist, provocative and biased coverage platforms – the viewership/readership data and virality figures validate this regressive trend. News anchors are seemingly the new knights-in-shining-armour of national consciousness, patriotism, and tenor. However, any contrarian or hard-hitting (perhaps even biased) coverage by the international press is met with an angry barrage of name-calling like 'anti-national', 'on the payrolls of…', 'pro-China' etc., and the lack of context and objectivity, is finally called out. Ironically, 'intent' of the way of coverage gets discussed, for once. Only facts and 'intent' should govern what both domestic and international media showcases, as it cannot be a matter of convenience and topical choice, but an underlying professional principle, without differentiation.

Sometimes, amateurishly 'stitched' or outrightly fake visuals are passed off as ground-zero visuals to support an ostensibly nationalistic narrative – this too, often does inadvertent harm to the credibility of the 'supported' institution and to the sovereign, with its misplaced sense of nationalistic duty. On the occasional instances of getting called-out for dangerous inaccuracies and sheer leniencies, there is hardly ever a public apology or retraction from anyone, and the masses digest and retain the inexactitudes, for posterity. While it is expected for 'enemy nations' and for the secessionist forces within to attempt 'manufacturing emotions', our own citizenry and media houses should see through the same and instead posit the true picture, as opposed to reciprocating with the same indignities, falsehood, and boorishness. LK Advani famously noted that during Emergency when the media was asked to bend, it crawled – that should not be applicable anymore. Indian experience in democracy deserves better than voyeurism, 'manufactured emotions', outright lies or jingoism, as short-termism can corrode the sovereign's values, irreversibly. Media ought to hold the societal mirror and relevant stakeholders to account, and not assume the responsibility of building narratives or pander to voyeurism, under the garb of necessity.

The writer is the former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands & Puducherry. Views expressed are personal