Some of the language newspapers published from the state capital devote as many as six to seven pages everyday to news from the capital city. Even the English newspapers do not lag behind and some of them do devote three to four pages for news from Ranchi. Just five years ago, it would have been difficult indeed to fill up even two pages. Obviously, the creation of the new state has given a fillip to the media. But then more news is not necessarily good news. And judging by the nature of the content, we might even ask if it is “news”’ that is finding increasingly more space and time in the media.

Statements, for example, of all kinds. Charges of corruption are flying thick and fast, with every Tom or Harry ( or make that Ram or Madhu) who matters, levelling all kinds of vague allegations and generalised statements which throw little or no light at all. Now, do allegations make news ? They do if they are specific. They also do make news if they are levelled at somebody who is important or levelled by someone who is responsible. But beyond that, the media would probably do well to steer clear of such charges, which are often half-baked and motivated, and levelled by disgruntled elements. Seasoned journalists often can read such news and make out the sources which might have planted such stories. The simple enough test is to ask who could gain by discrediting the target and even readers will be able to make some shrewd guesses.

Even more insidious are reports which are clever by half. They take shelter in the time-honoured tradition of stating the allegation and then innocently adding that the target, when contacted, had denied it. The reader is naturally left high and dry, not being able to make out whether the charges are well-founded. But many among the readers still tend to take the printed word at face value and would probably believe that where there is smoke, there must be some fire.

The litmus test for “news” must be public interest. If civil society needs to know about corruption, the media owe it to the people to unravel the truth. But there are two kinds of people in the media who stretch the line. First, there are the armchair revolutionaries, the idealist fanatic, who have strong likes and dislikes and feel it is their duty to allow themselves to be used for a “good cause” and take pot-shots at targets of all kinds. There are also those who become willing and passive tools in the hands of mischievous elements out to settle their personal scores and notch up political brownie points. Such reports, unfortunately, will increase in number with the elections drawing closer. Newspaper clippings then would be submitted to party leaders to scuttle the chances of some candidates and promote others. But will such “news” make any difference; or will they influence public policy; will they improve the functioning of some department by exposing venality and will the real big sharks be caught with their pant down—are some of the questions which do not have an easy answer.

For decades, enterprising people have bled Jharkhand white. The forest mafia, the coal mafia, the transport mafia, the mining mafia, the real estate mafia, the sales tax mafia, the health mafia, the animal husbandry mafia, the education mafia—well, the list is bound to get longer but the point is that there is really no dearth of corruption to be exposed in the state. But the media seem to be taking the easy way out by publishing allegations and not investigating them.

ENDS