Credible voices in the media fraternity believe that Rhea Chakraborty deserves an apology by large sections of mainstream news platforms. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) gave her a clean chit in the case involving the death of her partner, Sushant Singh Rajput.
Chakraborty was vilified without evidence. Even her family was not spared as sensationalism triumphed over objective reporting. The media freely twisted the case to attract viewers. News outlets were driven by ratings. Ethical reporting went for a toss as the case became a goldmine to generate revenue.
Acting as the jury, the media accused her of manipulating her partner, providing him drugs, and causing his death, claims later found baseless.
Her brother, too, was linked to drugs. Reporters went on a witch hunt, seeking details of drugs. Whether the prohibitive substances were consumed or not became secondary at one stage.
WhatsApp conversations were broadcast as “evidence.” Many actors with no connection to the case were linked to it.
Slang and casual phrases were sensationally framed. News anchors became loud performers. She was even called a “dayan” (witch), who practised black magic on Rajput.
A section of the media resorted to regressive stereotypes to assert that “women can be possessive” and that a wife or girlfriend doesn’t really like too much of a man’s relationship with his family.
Their decibel levels reached fever pitch as they deviated from the very tents of journalism that must make facts and accuracy in cases non-negotiable.
Further, Chakraborty’s personal life was scrutinised without the scantest regard for privacy. Prominent actors were questioned to coax out a reaction.
This is a persistent challenge in Indian journalism, senior writers lamented, calling it the darkest phase in the country’s media history. There is no fear of defamation. Private messages and personal relationships are treated as headline material.
This is in stark contrast to media accountability frameworks in other countries that have the necessary remedies and deterrents.
Free press is a sign of healthy democracy, reckless reporting is not.
This case is a reminder of the responsibilities that accompany journalism.
An eminent lawyer, it was reported, described the misogynistic narrative surrounding Chakraborty. The case, the lawyer said, should serve as a reminder of the dangers of being judgmental.
The lawyer called it rabble rousing, voyeurism, catering to certain people’s endless fascination for gossip.
One senior writer has said that many consumed this public execution like pornography.
Trusted voices in the media have appealed to the audiences to influence the right media practices. This could be done by discouraging sensationalism through choices and feedback.
The least the media can do is give Chakraborty a recognition of her exoneration. And a hope of reclaiming the dignity that was publicly undermined.
