Narcotisation by Media: A Public Perspective of Crime

 

Srabanee Ghosh

5^th  Year, Hidayatullah National Law University, Near Abhanpur, Uperwara Post, Raipur

*Corresponding Author E-mail:

 

INTRODUCTION:

Since time immemorial media has dominated a considerable portion of our lives. Before the advent of modern technology, media, even though at its nascent stage, had been the news-provider to the masses. Where once news used to travel by ship, it now hurtles across the globe at light speed and is available 24 hours-a-day at the push of a button. The media modifies our thinking regarding politics, the economy, investments, what is ‘in’ and definitely what’s not ‘in’. But reporting of crime significantly alters the society’s views and outlook so much so that we are almost forced to form certain judgements on the crime, the criminal and the victims which more often than not are incorrect.

 

Today’s society is fascinated with crime and justice. It is an age in which high crime rates and high levels of concern about the crime have become accepted as ‘normal’. From films, books, newspapers, magazines, television broadcasts, to everyday conversations, we are constantly engaging in crime "talk". The mass media play an important role in the construction of criminality and the criminal justice system. The public’s perception of victims, criminals, deviants, and law enforcement officials is largely determined by their portrayal in the mass media. Research indicates that the majority of public knowledge about crime and justice is derived from the media.[i] Therefore, it is imperative to examine the effects that the mass media have on attitudes toward crime and justice. The media also influences audience perceptions of police effectiveness.

 

 

Technological development has taken place to such an extent wherein the public assume that they can afford to let the media shape their opinions. Since primary information of crime is infrequent, the public perceptions are largely dependent and based on the mediated presentation of the state of affairs. These forced opinions have a profound effect on our lives and on the well being of the broader society.  The naive masses, putting their faith on media coverage, believe that they are being presented the whole truth. However the media is far less governed by norms of good reasoning then one might uncritically assume.

 

Mediated Presentation of the Crime

When we hear the word crime, instantaneously a series of dramatic images such as murder, rape, terrorism, etc shoot through our overburdened minds. We conjure up the image of an unknown and feared creature as a criminal, a hapless and pitiful victim and an overtly dramatic crime scene. This imagination is given a definite representation by television broadcasts of the crime. The universal finding that the media alters every piece of news to cater to the tastes and preferences of its clientele, says it all.[ii]

 

The media version of crime is largely oriented around events, in the sense that it focuses on certain specific criminal cases rather than wider debates about causes, prevention or policy.[iii] Popular news items having tabloid nature are reported in a more sensationalistic style than news items having quality.[iv]

 

“Media Criminology” is defined as the complex and constantly shifting intersections between crime, criminalization and control, on the one hand, and media, mediatisation and representation on the other.[v] In the hyper-realities of the 21st century, the blurring of nonfiction or news and fiction or entertainment as well as the overlapping worlds of hybrid infotainment and reality TV, for example, make it increasingly difficult to distinguish between these media and to separate out where the narratives of crime and justice of one end and the narratives of the others begin.  Most postmodernists argue that in societies where images, signs and codes are constantly recycled through the media, it is no longer possible to distinguish with any certainty between ‘image’ and ‘reality’, the ‘represented’ and the ‘real’.[vi] In an age of media proliferation, political spin, ubiquitous public relations operatives, and ever-more sophisticated media audiences, perceptions of credibility and the balance of definitional power may shift from story to story. The media caters to different audiences, different markets uphold different agendas.

 

The Nature and Extent of Crime in the Media

Apart from the said quantitative alteration, the media also alters the news-items qualitatively. Quantitative analyses are concerned first and foremost with measuring the amount of crime in the media- for example, the number of crime stories reported in a newspaper. Qualitative analyses by contrast are concerned primarily with investigating the nature of media representation of crime. A virtually universal finding is that media representations exaggerate both the levels of serious interpersonal crime in society and the risk of becoming a crime victim. This is the case for studies of newspapers[vii], television[viii] across news media. The representation of crime most significantly in the news media, is largely event oriented in that it focuses on specific criminal cases and incidents rather than wider debates around causes, prevention or policy.[ix]

 

It is quite vicious how each time the media reports a sensational crime. First, it berates the police for not solving the crime immediately and then follows it up by ridiculing the probe. The media satisfies itself by launching its own investigations, which are generally at variance with the police findings. It does not seem to matter if eventually the conclusions of the media sleuths turn out to be way off the mark.

 

Wherever the executive or the legislation falters, it’s the media who takes up the issue as in a democracy it’s the people who have the power in their hands. But sometimes, this power of being able to reach to the masses and the ability to shape the public opinion is not aptly handled by the media.

 

The Causes of Media Representation of Crime

The foregoing shows how the media coverage of crime can influence public opinion. It raises questions on the choices made by the media with respect to the criminal events on which they report. These choices do not seem to fall in line with the true criminal reality of our society.

 

Crime news is not simply plucked out of thin air. Nor does it exist in a vacuum. It is the end result of a complex process of selection, processing and prioritization and is shaped by interaction between journalists, editors, their working conditions, the wider environment, newsworthiness and crucially, news sources. News sources are those individuals, organisations and institutions which provide the information. In relation to crime news, key sources include the police, prison services, politicians, victims and a host of other interested but unrelated parties.

It is not desirable to report everything that happens in the world. Only a tiny fraction of events, more desirably criminal events, are deemed sufficiently ‘newsworthy’. It is more probable that a single murder would be the top headliner in a newspaper or news broadcast rather than hundreds of people dying due to a natural disaster.

 

The news reporters themselves sift through information, choosing only those areas which are ‘newsworthy’. The distortion of information arises from the commercial and highly competitive nature of the news papers and channels and their fight to obtain a wider readership and viewership which is generally achieved by titillating their patrons and/or by stimulating their lives with sensational information. Crime reports, particularly of violent and/or sexual crimes, sell news, which gives the media a powerful incentive to give most prominence to the more graphic cases of criminal behaviour.[x] News papers select events which are atypical, present them in a stereotypical fashion and contrast them against a backcloth of normality which is over-typical.[xi]

 

Reports will be presented in a dramatic and unusual way so as to capture the readers’ imagination, for example , reporting of a rape focuses on dramatic attacks by strangers in public places, whereas women are more likely to raped in private by someone they know. Reporting of a terrorist attack would focus on the victims’ sorrowful plight rather than ways to make the people aware of the menace of terrorism and how to react in such situations. In this way the ‘story’ is supposedly rendered more interesting to the public.  Normality would be boring to read about, so media naturally pick out the unusual. To gain newsworthy status it is therefore necessary to fall outside many people’s experiences ergo out of this world experiences.

 

The media constitute the backbone of democracy. The media are supplying the political information that voters base their decisions on. But we fail to ask ourselves if the information supplied to us is the ‘image’ or the ‘reality’. Typically emphasis is laid on how the media sways public opinion so as to promote a particular political party against another. More crucially the gullible masses need to discover the cause for this- the medium’s political affiliations. The politicians and parties use media, as a tool to simplify events, sensationalise them with shock headliners; present the story as good threatened by evil, to their own advantage. In addition, a number of researchers suggest that a symbiotic relationship exists between news media personnel and the police. It is suggested that the police and the media engage in a mutually beneficial relationship. The media needs the police to provide them with quick, reliable sources of crime information, while the police have a vested interest in maintaining a positive public image.[xii] Not just the Home Office and the police, but the professional associations and trade unions as well as the many pressure groups all work hard to influence media coverage which they see as influencing public attitudes.

 

 

Effect of Mediated Representation of Crime

Can mass communication—text and visual—be used to stop war, abolish the death penalty, cultivate genocide, reduce ethno-political conflict, or mediatise peace and nonviolence? In terms of genocidal murder or rape, for example, or more generally in the context of collective and/or organizational crime, the causes of ethnic conflicts (or peace) involve “structural factors,” including economic, social, and political dimensions relating to both the distribution of wealth and inter-ethnic relations, “facilitating factors,” such as the degree of politicization and ethnic consciousness, and “triggering factors,” including sharp economic shocks, intergroup tensions, and collapsed central authority. The restricted question has always been: Do the various mass media and mediatised representations of these behaviours elicit fear or imitation from their audiences? This is because surveys have shown that up to 95% of people say they rely on the media as their primary source of information.[xiii]

 

It was shown that the type of policies people want may depend on the feeling of fear instilled by the media’s coverage of criminal events. Use of the media is important in defining the relationship between people’s knowledge of events and how they are affected by said events.[xiv] This relationship is believed to lead citizens to favour two types of crime-fighting policies: punitive or preventive. Opting for prevention requires a complex thinking process, whereas calling for punishment is apparently directly related to a sense of fear. Both scenarios depend on use of the media. The use of more complex media is believed to lead to more complex reflection on crime, whereas exposure to information shows and TV news magazines is believed to be linked to low levels of complexity.

 

1.      Media and Imitation of Crime

The public are primarily affected in two ways when viewing a crime report- imitation of the crime or fear of the crime. Certain audiences are motivated to imitate the crime and thus for a crime to occur there are several logically necessary preconditions: labelling, motive and means. The media potentially play a part in each of these.

 

2.      Media and fear of Crime

The consequences of crime fear ranges from not walking home alone at night to withdrawing from society altogether and living in isolation.[xv] Fear of crime is influenced by a range of social and demographic variables- perceptions of risk and vulnerability, age, geographical location, ethnicity and experience of criminal victimisation.[xvi]

 

Moral panic is used to the disproportionate and hostile social reaction to a group or condition perceived as a threat to societal values. It involves sensational and stereotypical media coverage, public outcry and demands for tougher controls. Moral panic has a tendency to exaggerate statistics and to create a bogey-man, known as a folk-devil in sociological terms. Moral panic goes back as far as World War One when the wartime British government used the media to portray the Germans in a certain manner in the hope of provoking a response. The same happened in World War Two. In this case, the media did not have to portray Hitler in a certain manner as the public already had its view on him that was an identical one to the government.  This continued into the 1960’s with the media’s portrayal of the clashes between Mods and Rockers. The whole idea of the media’s coverage was to convince the general public that these youths were operating outside of the social norms desired by society as a whole.

 

It is suggested that the media can reinforce the stigmatization of certain groups (youth, ethno-cultural communities and indigenous peoples) and of certain geographical locations or neighbourhoods. The problem is that most people learn about the justice system mainly from the media, “dominant cultural understandings about young offenders are developed in complex interplay between media, political players, audiences”. Thus, inaccurate or inappropriate media coverage on specific individuals and places can lead to harmful policies and generate stereotypes about certain groups as offenders.[xvii] For example, After 9/11 it was obvious that certain communities would be targeted under the new security agenda. Visas for the Americas and Europe were denied to people belonging to the South Asian countries. Racial profiling was taking place at various ports of entry to the United States and other European countries. Racial profiling is commonly defined as a practice that targets certain individuals and communities for investigation based on stereotypes about race or ethnicity.

 

The study found that in the post 9/11 world, the lens through which individuals are judged as security risks is often coloured by complex notions of ethnicity, religion and place of origin.

 

Security agents singled out Arabs or Muslims at what they called the new “hot spots” — the airports, the borders and the mosques. It’s both systemic and random. It’s systemic discrimination and people are hit randomly based on how they’re perceived. Whether it is a common person belonging to a specific targeted religion or someone as high profile as Indian actor Shahrukh Khan- no one is spared. These are powers that can destroy people’s lives. claims surrounding the need for improved intelligence gathering in a post 9/11 world should not be enough to supersede basic human rights. Of course security is necessary, but these agencies have a responsibility to be accountable and to demonstrate that what they do is the bare minimum needed to get the job done.

 

The discrimination was to such an extent where five passengers were removed from or prevented from boarding flights after the September 11 terror attacks. They filed suits against four major U.S. airlines, accusing them of racial profiling and discrimination. The separate suits were filed against Continental, American, United and Northwest airlines in federal courts, respectively, in Newark, Baltimore, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Recently, The US Department of Homeland Security has brought out a presentation that aims to educate people on recognising terrorists and how to report them.[xviii] The report titled "Terrorism Awareness and Prevention" warned that people yawning, developing goose bumps and appearing fidgety could all be potential terrorists. If an individual has a cold stare, "trance-like gaze" or wide "flashbulb eyes", they may be a terrorist, according to the report. If they seem to exaggerate yawn during conversation, repeatedly touch their face or ears, or excessively watch a clock or fidget, these may also be indicators of a terrorist. If they pace, tremble, perspire or have goose bumps, these also may be indicators.

 

The Middle East and North Africa region is not the first area to come to mind when discussing human trafficking in the world. Human trafficking is considered a contemporary form of slavery. Slavery has historical roots in the Middle East, especially in the region bordering African states. Keeping this in mind, Indian parents do not want to marry their daughters to Indian men residing in the Middle Eastern countries as they suppose that their daughters would be sold off once they reach the Middle Eastern countries. All of this is due to the image conjured up by the media.

 

Regulation: International Scenario

UK: In the United Kingdom, the print media is essentially self-regulating. There is no statutory Press Council, no statutory complaints body and no requirement that journalists be registered or belong to any particular association. There is, however, a body established by newspaper bodies themselves, the Press Complaints Commission in early 1991. A Code of Practice for the press was drawn up by the committee of editors and all British editors and publishers committed themselves to upholding the code. The first article of the Code of Ethics calls for the Press to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures; to correct all significant inaccuracies, misleading statements or distortions; to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact and to report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.[xix] In addition, the Broadcasting Act 1990 prohibits the broadcasting of any programme which incites crime or disorder; or is not impartial and accurate.[xx]

 

One very high profile case involved payments by a newspaper to Louise Woodward, a British nanny convicted in the USA of killing the baby she was looking after. The Code of Practice forbids payments to witnesses or criminals, subject to a public interest override. The newspaper argued that the payment had allowed new information to be published and was, therefore, in the public interest. This was particularly so given the widespread revulsion the trial had caused in Britain and the campaign being run by the newspaper to overturn the conviction. The PCC took four factors particularly into account in finding that the payments were, taking into account all the circumstances, acceptable and that there had been no breach of the code. First, the newspaper had clearly considered the public interest aspect of the case before making the payment. Second, the timing of the payment meant the information published might actually have affected the outcome of the case. Third, the matter was clearly one of high public interest. Fourth, the payment was necessary, given the financial plight of the Woodwards.[xxi]

Despite PCC’s lack of legally enforceable remedies, it claims some success in addressing cases where the media clearly oversteps legitimate boundaries.

 

USA: In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission regulates the media content to a certain extent.[xxii] There exists no legislation which places a blanket prohibition of certain content of media as the US has a very stick take on the concept of prior restraint. In Near v. Minnesota, the Court held prior restraints to be unconstitutional, except in extremely limited circumstances such as national security issues. The Court held that the state had no power to enjoin the publication of the paper in this way and that any such action would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.[xxiii] In Patterson v. Colorado, the Court had written:  In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is 'to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,' and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare.[xxiv]Hence in the US, there is poor regulation of media content with respect to narcotisation by media. The media houses are expected to follow ethics followed by journalists internationally.

 

Regulation of Narcotisation: India

To counter the above stated problems, certain legislations have come  into effect. The second part of the project contains a brief description of the relevant provisions of the legislations alongwith their effectiveness illustrated with case-laws.

 

1.      The Constitution of India, 1950

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression.[xxv] It has however, got to be read along with Article 19(2) which lays down certain constitutionally permeable limitations on the exercise of the right. These include limitations in the interest of the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, decency, morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.[xxvi] Under Article 19(2), narcotization of public opinion is kept in check to some extent as illistrated in the following cases:

 

In M.P. Lohia etc. v. State of West Bengal¸ the Supreme Court opined that freedom under Article 19(1)(a) could be curtailed when the media hinders the administration of justice as that amounts to a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) and observed as quoted:

“Having gone through the records, we find one disturbing factor which we feel is necessary to comment upon in the interest of justice. The death of Chandni took place on 28th February, 2002 and the complaint in this regard was registered and the investigation was in progress. The application for grant of anticipatory bail was disposed of by the High Court of Calcutta on 13-2-2004 and special leave petition was pending before this Court. Even then  an article has appeared in a magazine called ‘Saga’ titled “Doomed by Dowry” written by one Kakoli Poddar based on her interview of the family of the deceased. Giving version of the tragedy and extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to his version of the case. The facts narrated therein are all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in his case and we have no hesitation that this type of articles appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate this practice and caution the publisher, editor and the journalist who were responsible for the same article against in such trial by media when the issue is subjudiced. However, to prevent any further issue being raised in that regard, we treat this matter as closed and hope that the other concerned in journalism would take note of this displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the administration of justice.[xxvii]

 

As can be seen from the bare provision of Article 19(2), the restrictions upon media’s freedom is left mostly to the discretion of the court as there cannot exist a strait-jacket formula for the same. This often  leads to problems in interpretation resulting in an varying application of law.

 

2.      The Press Council of India Act, 1978

The Preamble of the Act states one of the objects of the Act as to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.[xxviii] In consonance with the Preamble, in Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India and Ors., the Supreme Court observed that the Press Council is required to be formed for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.[xxix] For accomplishing the above purpose, the Council is also empowered to constitute Committees within itself and amongst its members to give effect to all the functions of the Council.[xxx] The functions of the Press Council include the following functions pertaining to the concerned topic:

·        Building up a code of conduct for newspapers, news agencies and journalists as per high professional standards.[xxxi]

·        Ensuring that newspapers, news agencies and journalists maintain high standards of public taste and foster a due sense of both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.[xxxii]

^·             Encouraging the growth of a sense of responsibility and public service among all those engaged in the profession of journalism.[xxxiii]

 

If the Council believes that a newspaper or news agency has offended the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or working journalist has committed any professional misconduct, the Council may, after giving the newspaper, or news agency, the editor or journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry in such manner as provided by regulations made under the Act. It may then proceed to warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist or disapprove the conduct of the editor or the journalist for reasons to be recorded in writing.[xxxiv]

 

3.      The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 95 of the Code deals with the power of the Court to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search warrants for the same.[xxxv] Such publications include those promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.[xxxvi] The journalists, editors, reporters are allowed to ventilate views only within the limits permitted by law.

 

In Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that judicial notice cannot be taken of the facts stated in a newspaper being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence unless it is backed by evidence.[xxxvii]  In Samant Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, it was held that a news item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value and is at best second hand hearsay evidence.[xxxviii] The same was reiterated in Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta and Others.[xxxix]

 

The implementation of the concerned provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is much more effective in comparison to the Press Council Act, 1978 on account of the Courts being much more efficient than the Council. The regulation still remains inadequate as it fails to penalize the media by looking at the adverse change in public perception that the media brings about. It also has no regulations in place to ensure that a crime is not imitated because of unnecessary details being portrayed in a gruesome manner by the media. Although the regulations seek to control the content of newspapers and other published articles, there is no effective system in place to ensure that the medium which affects the public the most, that is, the television is regulated.

 

4.      The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

Section 21 of the above stated Act prohibits publication or report of name of any juvenile associated with any proceeding under the Act or any of his particulars which will lead to his identification.[xl] Violation of the provision imposes a penalty extending to twenty-five thousand rupees.[xli] Therefore, the media is thus prevented from making thoughtless conjectures with respect to an immature mind and the alleged offender is shielded from media and hence public attacks.

 

5.      The Right to Information Act, 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 expressly states that there exists no obligation of giving that information which is expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or any tribunal as it would then constitute contempt of court.[xlii] It also prohibits giving information which would precede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.[xliii] This Act does fulfill its bit with regard to information but again due to absence of penalties, this provision is not effectively implemented.

 

6.      The Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 66A of the amended Act prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine for the following offences:

·        For sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.

·        Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,— any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.[xliv]

 

In J.R. Gangwani and Another v. State of Haryana and Othersan application for quashing of criminal proceeding was presented in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, drawing attention to a complaint which was filed under Section 66-A(c). This complaint was filed under Section 66-A(c) on the ground of sending e-mails under assumed e-mail addresses to customers of the Company which contained material which maligned the name of the Company which was to be sold as per the orders of the Company Law Board. The Complainant in the case received the e-mails which were redirected from the customers. According to the accused and the petitioner in the current hearing, the e-mail was not directed to the complainant or the company as  is required under Section 66-A (c). The High Court held that, “the petitioners are sending these messages to the purchasers of cranes from the company and those purchasers cannot be considered to be the possible buyers of the company. Sending of such e-mails, therefore, is not promoting the sale of the company which is the purpose of the advertisement given in the Economic Times. Such advertisements are, therefore, for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience to the company or to deceive or mislead the addressee about the origin of such messages. These facts, therefore, clearly bring the acts of the petitioners within the purview of section 66A(c) of the Act.”[xlv]

 

Though the IT Act, 2000 does its best to allievate the dangers of an easy and convenient medium, and is amongst the elite group of legislations which is being implemented by the authorities; it still fails when it comes to narcotization of the public perspective. On account of the fact that this medium connects the public with almost anyone, anywhere; boundaries across the globe are broken and the public is given access to almost anything and everything. The authorities at present are unable to distinguish between content which ought to be restricted and content that should be made open to the public. Sometimes the legislation is implemented irrationally that results in free speech being curbed. Arrests of citizens voicing their opinion against current leaders of the nation is a point in case.

 

CONCLUSION:

The project has therefore successfully illustrated that the media has been adversely effecting the public’s response to and perception of crime by sensationalizing items so as to make them ‘newsworthy’. In the second part of the project, existing laws on the subject matter were examined and were found to be inadequate to deal with the problem. Thus to achieve the desired objectives, stricter implementation of the existing laws is required along with modification of certain laws so as to establish well defined parameters of offence. Also, it can be seen that certain conditions are necessary for a successful partnership between the media and the general public at large, such that the masses receive the whole truth about a crime from the media.  One such method is the establishment of a ‘Communication Policy’. This policy suggests changing the mindset of government and community groups, in order to enhance openness and proactive interaction with the media, to understand communication implications and to make communication a strategic issue. A communication policy aims to build partnerships between the media, government and the masses and thus requires several processes. Such a partnership may involve governments and NGOs engaging journalists in local coalition public events and meetings in order to stimulate ‘civic journalism’ and participation in crime prevention.  In this case, the government needs to develop a relationship with the media – one that goes beyond using them as simple advertising tool for public announcement. They, with the help of diverse scholars in multiple disciplines, need to work to influence general reporting practices on crime-related issues throughout the development and implementation of the strategy. This strategy would be successful in building community cohesion and trust between parties. It demonstrates the effectiveness of partnerships between multiple groups in order to open dialogue, encourage collectivity, promote responsible reporting and dissemination of information, and reduce stigmatization.

 

Finally it is also the duty of the individuals to broaden their thinking and not digest whatever is fed to them. In today’s world, the term ‘seeing is believing’ does not apply as what we see might have been filtered so as to appear ‘newsworthy’.

 

 

REFERENCES: