(Riya Singh, Intern Journalist): In the middle of real-life protests and social media outrage for the Dalit woman who succumbed to her injuries after she was brutally gang-raped and injured in Hathras, a picture of a young woman went viral. Many social media users posted it with outpourings of anger and condolence. However, a fact check found that the viral photo is of another girl, entirely unrelated to the incident. Several news websites used the same fake picture in their reports on the incident.
During the course of debates on gender violence, a heavily discussed aspect is the role of media and the way they cover such news.
While in the case of the 2012 ‘Nirbhaya’ gang-rape and murder, relentless media reporting brought the case to light, it is common knowledge that enthusiasm to cover the details of the case can result in the survivor’s identity being revealed too much emotional and another cost.
Ethical journalism and guidelines of reporting
Journalists are required to follow five principles of ethical journalism — truth and accuracy, independence, fairness and impartiality, humanity, and accountability.
Even as Section 228A was inserted within the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, in 1983, to stop social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offense, its compromise within the name of freedom of expression was widely prevalent, even during the coverage of the 2012 Delhi rape case.
The victim’s name was revealed, her photographs were spread by media houses, without blurring, for more than a week. It was only later that a variety of pseudonyms like ‘Nirbhaya’ and ‘Amaanat’ were used by media organizations.
Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code prohibits publishing the name of the victim or survivor in rape cases, including all categories of rape cases. In case of the death of the victim, her next of kin can allow her name to be revealed by making a written statement to that effect to a registered welfare organization. As per the law, the identity of the victim can often be revealed in specific cases if the concerned cops issue such a written order, or if the survivor states in writing that her name can be revealed or used. The 2012 Delhi rape victim’s mother went on air saying that she didn’t object to her name being made public.
In January 2018, the kidnapping, rape, and murder case of an 8-year-old child in Kathua came to light. Several news outlets used her name too. In April 2018, the Supreme Court urged the media to not sensationalize rape cases and maintain a cap on the breadth of detailed coverage in terms of visual description. The law has been enforced since 1983 and was strongly reinforced by the I&B ministry in 2012.
Several other guidelines have also been issued by media bodies to the present end. One among them is Section 6 (ii) of the Press Council of India’s “Norms of Journalistic Conduct.” These guidelines affect the need to withhold the name of rape survivors from media reports and also reiterates that the names, photographs of the victims, or other particulars resulting in their identity shall not be published.
Why then, does media need to be reminded of the guidelines and ethics it has to follow?
A peer-reviewed research paper by BMC Women’s Health titled ‘Media coverage of violence against women in India: a systematic study of a high profile rape case,’ published in January 2015, said that the global media response of the December 16th gang-rapes in India resulted in the highly inconsistent depiction of the events. It also mentioned that of the 534 published media reports which they identified, only 351 met their eligibility criteria.
Interestingly, as per the paper, the amount of media reports increased after the victim’s death. The authors’ content analysis revealed significant discrepancies between various media reports. “These findings suggest that although the spread of data through media is fast, it has major limitations,” the paper recognized.
About Post Author
