|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Friday, 25 July 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Media freedom and sensationalism by Prof. D. G. Harendra de Silva, Chairman, National Child Protection Authority, Sri Lanka. We humans all love freedom, and there have been many a battle and loss of life over generations for the sake of the word "freedom". In a democracy, we all believe we all are free, and the media is supposed to ensure freedom of the people through expression, in terms of achieving and safeguarding it. Whatever the party in power, it has and will be accused of interfering in the freedom of the press. In this context I believe the media quite rightly has a duty to protect the rights of the people they are supposed to represent without giving into bullying authorities. However, the media-men should remember that they have the obligation to protect the rights of the whole community and not their personal rights or rights of one sector of the community. At present, unfortunately the term "press freedom" is used mainly in the context of politics. Over the last few years there has been an increased awareness and reporting of child abuse, and we must thank the media for their part in making the people aware of the problem and sensitizing them. Humans have a weakness for sensation and controversy. We all like to watch a film or read a book with a controversial and a sensational plot. Similarly the public loves sensational news items, and the media caters to this need and needless to say, "thrives" on this weakness. Obviously child abuse, especially sexual abuse is something that interests the general public and is an extremely sensational issue. As media persons we could use this topic quite effectively to please not only the public by catering to their 'needs' but also the Editor who is in addition interested in the profit of sales. Another issue is that news articles have to have credibility in order to be acceptable to the public, especially the sensational reports. To establish credibility, we need names, addresses, photographs and statements from credible persons. Unfortunately, in child abuse, names, addresses and photographs mean identifying the victims. Even though photographs or identity of the victim is not published, identity of relatives, teachers or even the school or pictures of the house will eventually lead to the identity of the victim. One of the biggest issues especially relating to sex abuse is the social stigma it carries. Due to increased awareness more people come forward to report incidents. This alone is inadequate, since the next important task would be to protect these children. When doctors and social workers refer to protection, they mean, protection from further abuse. We must consider yet another form of protection; i.e. protecting the child and the family from the "cruel" society which 'stigmatize' them rather than sympathize with them. The child and the family are often ostracized by society, and hence the need for confidentiality. This phenomenon is referred to as "secondary victimization". In the absence of confidentiality, how are we going to overcome the issue of stigma? Wouldn't it prevent the abused from coming forward? While praising the media for bringing up child abuse as asocial issue, I blame some for irresponsible, sometimes erroneous and non-confidential reporting, which brings shame and stigma to those abused. Is this the freedom of the press the people want? In reference to the "Beruwala incident" a few years ago, one paper showed a picture of a woman who was erroneously referred to as a prostitute. In a recent case regarding an incident of child pornography, the reports were so "accurate" that the people of the area had no difficulty in pinpointing the family. The mother and child, who have faced many agonizing moments from the loss of her husband in battle to this incident, have to face a vindictive society for the rest of their lives. In another incident the victim committed suicide when she was identified in the papers. What about names and sometimes pictures of child soldiers (which should be considered a form of child abuse) who have escaped, especially when statements are made against the abductors? I saw such a report a couple of years ago in a very popular New York Sunday paper. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
