Commandeered by a brutal worldwide code of moral brittleness that sees nothing untoward with irrevocably obliterating one’s rampart of respectability to score hideous points.
A repressive, exploitative and combative infrastructure that is undeniably controlled by the regrettable notion of the-end-justifies-the-means and uppity operatives hellbent on deepening their bond with harmful lies rather than the truth. These are the hellish realities of our times. At the stroke of a pen, a dignified and charismatic legacy purposefully and painstakingly crafted over decades can be ruthlessly shredded to pieces and thrown into the bin of oblivion under a cloud of suspicion, controversy and gross libel. Gliding over such toxicity will always be a tall order.
And lest you feel invincible, be warned, no one is untouchable, including individuals whose epitaphs would read: “Here lies the epitome of civility, propriety and grace.” In a world semi-impoverished of decency, social capital and humanitarian values, the issue that victims often grapple with is, how can they pull themselves from the mud of obscurity? In her poem titled, “I Rise,” an American poet named Maya Angelou shares a distinctively insightful perspective that immortalises the value of never giving up, “You may write me down in history, with your bitter twisted lies, you may trod me in the very dirt, but still, like dust, I’ll rise.” The key to untethering oneself from the grip of injustice is to be resolutely determined to rise every time we are thrown into muddy waters. Though fainthearted steps are likely to push us a little from such a quagmire, such infinitesimal movement would be ineffectual. We need to dig deep and courageously contend with our discomforts.
An effective way of upending the practice of destroying lives with a sense of impunity is to embrace the ethos of responsible journalism. Responsible journalists have an enquiring mind that always seeks to answer the question, why? Their antennae are always flipped out, ready to sniff information from hidden sources and where possible, test it for accuracy. The key here is not to regurgitate information from sources without conscientiously distilling it for verity. Under the cloak of balanced journalism, journalists worth their salt would not vapidly consume data, whether verbal or written, only to recklessly splatter it on the cover pages of their newspapers with headline-grabbing, reputation ruining and institution-wrecking antics. These principles coalesce into the hallowed non-negotiable obligation of refusing to succumb to the pressure to thrive on sensationalism if it would lead to misinformation.
Though we cannot run away from the fact that, owing to the ubiquitousness of the Internet of Things, the news ecosystem has been broadened to include the largely unregulated, non-conventional, and dare I say, weaponised digital landscape, disciplined journalists cannot reduce themselves to feckless conduits that dispense ‘news,’ generated by perfidious online yahoos, with a sense of lethargic apathy.
Particularly when tempted to copy and paste sensational argy-bargy rhetoric emanating from an unabashed howling bunch of disaffected online quasi-journalists bearing extensive latent power packed in a combo of fake news, yellow journalism and unprovoked propensity for character assassination. It doesn't take bundles of intelligence to work out that though some of these whiny, aggressive and freewheeling social media influencers, who control the tone and tenor of the no-holds-barred digital public squares of opinion, choose to posture as elegant patriots, in effect, they represent a smorgasbord of bizarre and unwholesome interests of thick-walleted ragtag coteries of unprincipled, self-centred and aggressive lobbyists.
Their focus is on whipping up discontentment and unrestrained emotionalism by motivating unsuspecting individuals to inhale blustery viral content larded with half-truths and bald-faced lies meant to stimulate public outrage against individuals of unquestionable moral stripes. After all, endowed with frail judgement, unwary souls tend to believe almost everything they read! More fundamentally, in situations where opposing parties share two or more contradictory stories, best practice and a credible commitment to the serving of news as a public good, not as a profit-generating commodity, demand that the ardent desire to share the truth with readers must kick in and motivate objective journalists to invest time and energy into unearthing the truth. Granted, that is not always easy, but the fact that it is challenging cannot be used as an excuse for feeding consumers with information of questionable authenticity. Though it might generate a spirited public debate, it would be irresponsible for journalists wielding considerable influence to assign the same degree of legitimacy to two or more opposing views, particularly where, with a measure of professional resourcefulness, journalists could have invested time and energy into digging the truth without enthusiastically veering into the monomaniac route.
This was beautifully illustrated by Jonathan Foster, an American journalism professor, who said, “If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the...window and find out which is true.” In simple terms, in the interests of sharing a good of public importance, dispassionately toeing the line of ‘Party A said, and Party B countered’ might not always be sufficient. Sagacious consumers of media content would be irked by such meaningless balance and interpret it not only as journalistic indolence but also as a condescending attitude towards readers. The validity of newsworthy content is a core value that all self-respecting journalists must uphold. While I would acknowledge that journalists cannot read hearts, the truth is, their training has fully equipped them with tried and tested techniques for questioning sources, gathering and interpreting facts, and verifying them. It is this method of journalism that must be followed with passion as opposed to resorting to gutter press megaphone tactics that only serve to undermine the value of this noble profession.
The bottom line is; it is not the vocation of journalists to aid ruthless individuals or entities endowed with overweening power in their quest to ruin the reputation of less powerful individuals. No matter how juicy the material is, its potential for earning a lot of likes online and its likelihood for wagging tongues, in their quest for writing informative stories, the probing minds of manipulation-proof journalists would seek to address questions such as how and why? Once in vogue, this inquisitive and dynamic persona would cut through the noisy charade, kill the flawed spirit of filling pages of newspapers with untested, harmful and devastating content, share unvarnished truth and hopefully turn the tide on the growing culture of defaming vulnerable people like you and me, who are husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, and above all humans.
It is morally incumbent upon us to objectively play our part in consciously and intrepidly fighting the moral dilemma gripping the globe! And to all culprits out there, devious characters bent on destroying lives without a flicker of contrition, please do yourself a favour; perceptively reflect on the insight-larded words of Pablo Neruda, a Chilean Nobel Prize-winning poet, “You can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from coming.” In simple language, wake up to reality!
