Media Ethics and Laws Assignment

- By Aditi Sharma

In 2009, P Sainath, a former Rural Affairs Editor of The Hindu, documented the plight of
farmer suicides rampant in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. The 1-hour long
documentary, dubbed “Nero’s Guests” draws a parallel between the Indian citizens, Indian
government, and the mainstream media of the country with the Roman Emperor Nero and
his guests, who are infamous for their insolence towards the Roman population. 

He spoke of Tacitus’ account of a party thrown by Nero, wherein, Nero’s guests enjoyed the
mirth of the occasion, without paying heed to the burning population of the Rome, much like
how the citizens of India turned a blind eye to the sufferings of the Indian farmers in the
wake of the mounting debt and insolvency they had to endure. 

P Sainath’s coverage of the event drew nationwide attention, and for all the right reasons.
Amid all the Sainath’s fervour with which he presented the accounts of deceased farmer’s
family members in the documentary, telling facts about him could be protruded as a
journalist. In this paper, I have ventured to analyze Sainath as a journalist of one of the
most-read newspapers in the country, and how he has, or has not, upheld the values and
principles expected from the media personality. The analysis has been done based on the
following parameters; 

a) Work ethic, 
b) Framework of ethical decision making, 
c) Provisions of article 19 (1) (a) and 19 (2)
d) Role, responsibility, and accountability 
e) Pressure groups

2. a) Work Ethic: 

Within the purview of work ethic, P Sainath can be analyzed based on his knowledge,
competence, aptitude, and attitude which were reflected in the documentary. 

i) Knowledge: The documentary kicks off by summarising facts and figures circling
the Agrarian economy of India and how a large portion of the population is
impoverished. While Sainath spoke about different themes throughout the video, his
focal emphasis was on the soaring suicide rates of Indian farmers, largely driven by
mounting debt and distress. 

The statistics that were displayed during the video time and time again reflect the in-
depth research that was done before the documentary’s inception. Bits of helpful
information was provided, such as how Mumbai rarely experiences any power cuts
on the account of the concentration of the massic urban population, and with
numerous shopping districts crammed up in the region, while rural areas of Vidarbha
experience prolonged power cuts, massively affecting the way of life of the farmers. 
“[With] A 20-minute power cut in the main Mumbai, you can give 2 hours of electricity
to all the troubled districts of Vidarbha”, says Sainath. He also brings the obscene
number and amount of subsidies the rich get in the garb of “incentives”, while poor
farmers are left to fend for themselves. “The richer you are, the bigger the subsidy
you get, or rather the bigger the “incentive” you get”. 

Not just that, but as one of the farmers complained, they also have put up with
expensive fertilizers, and other materials used in farming, with no substantial relief
from the government. Meanwhile, the budget allocates $6 million per hour is
allocated to the Indian corporate section in the form of concessions, as reported by
Sainath, which is a telling fact considering that little to no monetary relief is provided
to the financially-distressed farmers of the country. 

By using data and information to draw the differences between how the rich are
treated despite having money, and how the poor are treated, despite having no
money, shows just how unfair and profit-driven government policies can be. 

ii) Competence: Competence consists of deliverables such as performance,

dependability, discipline, quantity, and quality. Sainath collected stories of several
farmers from their surviving family members to give a first-hand account of what the
farmers went through in the days leading up to their deaths, and how their deaths
affected the family at large. This empowered the performance and dependability of
the documentary manifold. Sainath also managed to strike the right balance between
quantity and quality, by focusing on the selected stories. However, I believe he could
have been more disciplined with the way he approached some of the stories. 

For instance, at 25:51, the camera was focused on a farmer who had attempted to
take his life by consuming chemicals. The farmer in agony was brought into the
Government hospital, and during the entirety of it, the camera focused on him. 

No attempts were made to blur his face. While it’s one thing to publicize the images
of deceased individuals, it is totally another thing to publicize the identity, or a flash of
the identity of a living person who had attempted to take his life, which is also
criminalized under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. This I believe, reflected the
journalist’s momentary lapse of competence, with his failure to draw the line between
accurate reporting, and insensitivity.

iii) Attitude:

Sainath’s attitude could be judged based on three parameters, his character and
personality towards his profession as a journalist, himself, and his audience. Sainath
used his platform to shed light upon one of the most elusive topics in mainstream
media, yet one of the most powerful subjects that required the attention of the world. 

In his documentary, he not only put the government on trial, and demanded answers,
but also tried and tested the general public, as well as the capitalist establishments
that enabled the system that pushed our country’s farmers into a corner. His attitude
towards his audience was not only of an educator, but also of a judge, who was
baffled by how the public could turn a blind eye to the plight of the farmers, and go on
about their lives. Primarily, he took a negative attitude towards the capital
establishments. 

By frowning upon how elite-class events such as the Lakmé fashion show get
massive correspondence, while the same media outlets vanish when the topic of our
nation’s poor is raised, he throws some light upon the irony and selective coverage of
our mainstream media, who are meant to be the fourth estate of democracy. In doing
so, Sainath deftly pointed out how there is no correspondence for the world’s poor,
and plenty for the world’s rich. 

By bringing these themes to light, he fulfilled his journalistic role, as he became the
spokesperson of the grieving farmers and successfully got the attention of the
country and the politicians in the wake of the agrarian crisis in India. 
 That is not to say, Sainath did not fail as a journalist in some ways. At 21:20, Sainath
took the bites of three personalities, an actor, a journalist, and a choreographer, who
were ignorantly downplaying the degree of poverty in our country by thinking
donation camps are enough to eradicate poverty from our country. While the blatant
disregard for the truth was evident in the bites, it’s the fact that Sainath attempted to
make a mockery out of the three personalities, who in all probability, were in fact
under the impression that their little effort could have a major impact, that made him
appear insensitive and unprofessional. 

As a viewer, we would be inclined to be smug at the imbecility of such a mentality,

that is why it only goes on to defame the individuals. Sainath could have delivered
the same message in some other way.

iv) Aptitude: 

When looking at the bigger picture, Sainath proved himself to be the ideal journalist
to cover the farmer’s crisis in Maharashtra. Be it story recognition, presentation,
vocabulary, deliverability, or, identifying the relevant pieces of stories, he ticked all
the boxes of being an adept reporter in the larger scheme of things, even though we
could pick out some flaws when we put him under the microscope. 

b) Ethical Decision-Making:

Out of the three ethical decision-making approaches, namely, the Utilitarian

approach, care-based approach, and duty-based approach, Sainath has appeared to
have adopted the care-based approach. Sainath presented the farmer crisis by
putting himself in the shoes of the aggrieved farmers, and in doing so, showed
empathy towards the group. 

His empathetic approach towards the issue was evident from the fervency he
displayed while speaking to the viewers and then the ministers of the parliament. The
result of his empathy was the benefit of the troubled group, which is the ideal aim of
the care-based approach. 

Nevertheless, there were a few instances where Sainath did not make the most
ethical decisions. One of them is when at 14:12, he made the family members of the
deceased farmers hold the portrait of the farmer, for the sake of the camera. This bit
of the film served no visible purpose, and only put the raw emotions of the individuals
further on display. 

c) Provisions of article 19 (1) (a) and 19 (2)

Perhaps one of the key challenges that most journalists face is striking a balance
between article 19 (1) (a) which gives the citizen of India the freedom to express, and
by extension, the Indian press the freedom to carry out their reporting, and article 19
(b), which places reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. 

Under 19 (a), Sainath exercised several rights, including the right to broadcast, and
the right to criticize. He did the latter by criticizing the Indian government and the
policies initiated by the body. Sainath did not make any attempts to mince his words
when he said that “If this government even had brains, let alone cynicism, if it had
even brains, (they would have realized that) stopping the suicides is much easier
than stoping the rural distress”. 
 He had also exercised his right to impart information and ideas under the same
article, by bringing the sufferings of the farmers to the light, and educating the
masses about the anguish they are facing on a day-to-day basis. During the end
credits, Sainath cheekily made one of the most powerful quips in the entire
documentary that struck a chord with me the most. One of the reporters admitted to
Sainath that she is “not cued into the (farmer’s) issue completely”, to which, Sainath
remarked, “Join the club, there are a billion people who are not”. The documentary
may have been made over a decade ago, but it is still as relevant today as it was
back then. He exercised several of his fundamental rights during the course of
making the documentary and appears to have not violated anything. 

d) Role, Responsibility, and Accountability:

The key role that Sainath has appeared to have adopted is one that of an educator
and changemaker. He set out to make this documentary to bring about a change,
and help the impoverished farmers get some attention and relief, and he succeeded
in doing so when several of the high officials in the government were compelled to
visit Vidarbha by Sainath’s reportage. 

So much so, that as reported in the documentary, between 2006 and 2008, one loan
waiver and two relief packages were declared for the aggrieved farmers. Sainath
went on to speak in the Parliament and had his voice heard directly by the
lawmakers, and spoke of the unfair treatment of the farmers in regards to the
subsidies. 

He fulfilled his journalistic responsibility of bringing about a change and having the
voices of the aggrieved farmers and their family members heard. He also educated
the masses about the issue and attempted to make his viewers resonate with the
Agrarian crisis. Sainath appeared to have been accountable to the farmers who were
still suffering from debt and wanted some assurance of relief from the reporter.

e) Pressure Groups

Sainath did not face any pressure from established pressure groups, as I have
gathered from the documentary. To my knowledge, he does not name any pressure
group either. 

Self-Reflection:

One of the aspects of the documentaries that stuck a chord with me is how Sainath
used the poems written by one of the deceased farmers to inspire empathy in the
viewers. The poems were clearly written by an individual with certain suicidal
thoughts in their head. It could have been written by the deceased farmer during the
time of his distress due to the mounting debt, and he ventured to pour his emotions
on paper. 

The farmer himself may have given up on life, but his words continued to live and
saw the light of the day through Sainath’s presentation. The poetry added an
excellent touch to the whole narrative. As a human, Sainath’s sheer empathy towards
the farmer crisis, and his vehemence in letting the whole country know inspired awe
in me. 
As a student of Journalism who herself wants to bring a change in society by
improving the quality of women in the Indian society, I was inspired by the zeal
Sainath showed in accomplishing his goals, that of improving the quality of life of
Indian farmers.