Not just big lies but small things that are half true or tantamount to falsehood now steal show. As cheaper recipes of social discourse are served, 'busy' people jump into the next debate losing peace and value of time. And the process continues.
A minister's comment that 'Pharaoh couldn't find alternative to bureaucracy', a vice chancellor's late night class, a businessman's alleged assault on a female movie star, an aggrieved cricketer's kicking of stamps, the US president's statement defending Israeli air attacks killing Palestinians and the Indian prime minister's claim of escaping Pakistani radars during a 'surgical operation' amid cloudy weather were all widely trolled with anger and amusement.
These days, the not-so-actionable issues are seen overriding constructive discussions on life and society. The trend has presented authorities with the occasion to ignore some important issues and selectively pick others.
The new poor of the pandemic era have not found any mentionable share in the proposed budget, regardless of the suggestions for their inclusion. Neither has the banking sector reform initiative actually been taken after innumerable scams exposing governance crisis in the sector.
Policymakers can afford, as it's understood, to do what they want to - the influence of the pressure groups outside the realm of power has been eroded over the years.
The words of the obvious winners in social media debates can hardly win the fight for pursuing 'fair' policies and taking actions to serve public interest. Unorganised individuals have, after all, found a platform to express and sharpen their arguments. Some of these practices also lack decency and social utility.
Whatever is the case, people look contented by quickly passing their opinions online. The reality that their well thought-out suggestions and demands are largely overlooked is also frustrating.
This has given rise to questions as to why experts would take pains to analyse the situation or journalists report and write to highlight flaws and corruption in the system.
It's not that the powerful quarters alone always and deliberately refrain from acting justly; the anarchy of the information regime also leads to killing of important issues: Worthless talks outnumber objective truths almost every day. While having advantage of placing authority over conscience, the incumbents need not impose censorship, restrictions can't either solve the problem of misinformation/disinformation regime.
Then, journalism shall matter if true professionals can pass the test of troubles that have threatened newspapers and television media.
On the worldwide web, genuine newsmen have the scope to demonstrate utility of their works. But production of unique contents highlighting stories and aspirations of men and women is the answer.
"…if journalists can determine what audiences want, and if they can use that knowledge to determine how to make audiences trust and value them, then they have a stronger chance of saving their organizations and perhaps the industry at large," notes Jacob L Nelson in a piece on 'The Case for Journalistic Humility' published by Columbia Journalism Review. In the face of threats to sharing of authentic news and critical views, PolitiFact's editor-in-chief Angie Drobnic Holan offers a few solutions. "The social media companies - especially YouTube, Twitter and Facebook - have to be more consistent in their penalties for spreading misinformation, and that must include politicians," she writes in an article titled "To control online misinformation, we need real-world solutions". She emphasises regulation of tech companies seeking to establish fairness in information ecosystem and identifies that threats to it 'are closely related to lies and conspiracy theories'. "They're attempts to smother corrections of false narratives, and sometimes the threats work."
Bangladesh is not immune from such practices. So, corrective measures are necessary to revive the industry. Journalism is dead, as we often see all around, unless it's the righteous act. Journalists may have to engage in moral clash with the evils, every now and then.
The 'power' (please read trust) of the media, in the 21st century, has been constrained by triple challenges of (i) technology, (ii) shrinking space and (iii) financial uncertainty.
This, futurists believe, is not a permanent phenomenon, rather perhaps the beginning of a changeover. It's high time journalists had reasserted the 'lost' freedom through creativity for the sake of exercising freedom by greater society.
