Media Trial: Role Playing in Public
When the journalists play the cops, the lawyers and the judges in the name of seeking the truth
Artistic Credits: Muskan Sharma, a brilliant artist-cum-friend
Don’t stop reading just yet. This post is not about exploring the death of Sushant Singh or the controversy his girlfriend has found herself in. The death of the Actor comes at a time when the loss of lives has, unfortunately, become routine and mundane, rather than shocking. After all, we’re all suckers for a narrative that involves an ex-girlfriend, the police, drugs and money. The entity that adds fuel to this scandalous and seductive tale, which speaks to our senses—is none another than our friendly watchdog of democracy: the media.
In the guise of undertaking the quest for the truth and exposing those responsible for the death of the actor, our media outlets are not just reporting the sequence of events, but assessing the veracity of it. Simply put, overnight they declare ‘WhatsApp chats’ and ‘witness testimonies’ as ‘evidence’ that is automatically ‘admissible’. Scratch that—they declare whatever they find as admissible evidence. This is not just concerning, but alarming. By assessing the veracity of facts and speaking to the truth of its existence, they’ve assumed the constitutional powers reserved for those black robes who preside over chambers of law, order and hope. The intention of this post is to highlight how our perception of evidence, truth and justice is distorted.
The myth of truth: fact, probability and evidence
You maybe of the opinion that whatever reporting is done by the media is factual, true and speaks to the cause of incidents. But, does your understanding align with the perspective of the law? We’ll have to revisit the fundamentals from Evidence Law 101. As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact is the defined in terms of how we perceive anything, a state of thing or a relation of things. This means that if a person heard, saw or holds an opinion about something— it could qualify as a fact. So when does a fact become evidence? The law says that if the Court believes, or considers the existence of this fact so probable that a ‘reasonable and prudent’ man would believe the fact exists, then that qualifies as evidence. To discuss what ‘admissible’ and ‘inadmissible’ evidence, would mean that we will have to talk about what the facts of the case. We’ll reserve this one for another time.
So, what do all these terms mean to those in the justice system? From the vantage point of the lawyer, you’ll try to persuade the judge by trying to prove your fact exists. To a lawyer, the girlfriend is either involved or not, no two ways about it. To a judge, it’s one story versus the other. This means that they are mentally engaged in weighing the probability of the narratives argued. The narrative that tips the scales of justice should pass the threshold of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’. Meaning, that if the girlfriend is guilty, then the evidence stacked up should show that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Another way of looking at it—is that the judge tends to sway to the side where there is a reduced uncertainty of a fact. Meaning that, if your evidence helps you craft a convincing narrative, such as, given the circumstances etc, the girlfriend was not involved in the actor’s death—the court may favour your side, since you've shown that your narrative makes sense,given the circumstances.
Whatever they chose to do, remember this: their decision does not speak to the truth of the events. It means that a judge agrees that given the circumstances, your story is highly probable, if not certain. Read that again and pay close attention. In the process of crafting a narrative that holds the girlfriend guilty, different stakeholders will interpret the same fact differently. As obvious as this sound, this reflects a snippet of the complex justice system. To demonstrate what I mean by this, consider the simple act of tossing a coin. As original of an analogy this sounds, Mr. Ian Stewart, is the author of this analogy. I pulled this one out from his book on mathematical uncertainty called Do Dice Play God? In this book, He does a brilliant job in contextualizing the principles of probability using courts. So, he points out that if somebody tosses a coin; they look at it, you don’t. To them, the outcome is known; in mathematical terms is 1, since they know the result, which is absolute. But to you, ½ is the probability for each heads and tails, which means that you’re assessing how likely your guess is right, and not what happened.
Similarly, just like how they know the outcome of tossing a coin, lawyers know where their client stands. At the same time, just like how you assess the probability of your guess in a coin toss, a judge assess how likely they’re right, and not what happened. Although that is what they are expected to do. To figure out the truth, to ensure justice is served and the guilty are punished. But here’s the thing, here’s what we always get wrong. If we wanted a system that permitted judges to direct the search for truth, our system would be inquisitorial and not adversarial. Theoretically, judges are not fact-finding bodies, the police are. Judges are not investigators, that’s what they are expected to be. Judges don’t make the law, they are the referees that interpret the law.
Given what we know now, the current situation highlights a case where the watchdog assumes the role of a fact-finding body and the interpreters of the law. They do this in the name of bringing ‘facts to the attention of the viewers’. When facts are tuned to suit a narrative: it’s an opinion. They bring in ‘witnesses’ who testify to the ‘veracity of the facts’. They release images of the dead body of the actor, and conduct ‘sting operations’ not in search of the truth, but as material that serves as a confirmation to the narrative fed to their viewers. Whether this narrative is right or wrong is not for me to judge. But the way you force feed the narrative is concerning.
It’s reasonable for you to point out that the Police were actively sleeping at the wheel, and at least somebody is digging into this. But then again, reminding the police to do their job is different from deciding what the truth is. So, where do the watchdogs of democracy draw the line between reflecting reality and reminding the need for accountability? Does the media have the licence to decide what our opinions are, or, what they should be?
Media Trial: Everybody’s favourite word
The word media trial finds its origin in the controversial case of the post-war black marketer, a famous Sri Lankan swindler, Emil Savundra. Somewhere in the mid sixties, this man was accused of committing bribery and fraud on an international scale before settling down in the U.K. He garnered the attention of the press, since he publicly denied all allegations levied against him. When everybody knew that the collapse of his insurance company left many people without coverage, he denied all moral responsibility. Because the scandal allegedly involved Russian Intelligence, women escorts and high-class government officials—the media was relentless in their reporting. It was in this case the popular rhetoric of ‘ trial by media’ was born. It’s no secret that when the media reports the news regarding a criminal case, the concept of fair trial is challenged. In the sense, it is nearly impossible to execute ‘a fair trial’ in the event that the media goes berserk.
At the same time, the fact that our watchdogs of democracy have to go to the extent of assuming the functions of the police, and the courts is an indication of how well our institutes are functioning. In other words, they are definitely not working as they are supposed to. This gets me wondering, why was this kind of up-roar absent when suppliers sold masks and sanitizers at absurd rates? For some reason, they thoroughly failed to focus on the plight of our migrant workers, who cycled and walked home—that were hundreds of kilometres away. To add to the orgy of criticism, the reporting of the impact of the pandemic on our economy has been nothing short of invisible.
This post was meant to remind you that every dinner table conversation that is driven by the television news reflects a minute portion of reality. Today, the media appears to create reality, rather than reflect it. The idea of media in a democracy is to report facts so that there is a constructive discussion, which leads to accountability. To create, focus and develop a single narrative, and to forcefully feed it to its viewers goes against everything we believe in. Yes, the murder is important, but what about the concerns of national security, the state of our economy and the plight of the people during these times? Does this not satisfy the requirements of a high TRP rating? In Orwellian terms, people believe what the media tells them to.
So, as viewers, we need to remember this: read and listen to things we don’t agree with because perspective matters. You don’t have to believe what you see; you have the liberty to choose what you believe in. Before you jump-in with an opinion, stop for a second and think why you hold that opinion. If you are not in a position to articulate it— you have more homework than you think you do. Even, if you are in a position to justify what you believe in—think about it from a different vantage point. At the end of the day, if you believe the ‘truth’ exists—you’re completely mistaken, it’s all about perspective.
Very well put. I agree on all accounts but one. It's true as viewers and readers we need to be more aware of what consumes our time or how we need to be wary of the 'other side'. Sadly however, this is not possible for many as the other side you speak of isn't even shown in any of the channels/papers. Even if it does, all the trash talking and the 'cancel' culture of the respected channel/paper just goes to show the extent people go to, to believe in what they WANT to believe. I think it's completely possible at this point to assume that, even if the courts (in due course of time) declare her innocent, the mass (media and people alike) will simply choose NOT to believe it cause that's not the narrative they have painted in their heads. They have already villified her. I won't be surprised if in the future, the masses call of this a 'cover up' or a 'miscarriage of justice'. Talk about the irony!
are you saying media should stop putting up other versions of what could have happened? where will that take us? no freedom of speech????