A well known actor (not limiting to India), had committed suicide in mid June, 2020. Although, his case has been still under investigation, a couple of (vulture) media channels with a high ratio in subscription and abundant followers, have been disseminating information about the closed ones of the deceased.
Instead of being empathised or rather expressing condolences to his family and closed ones, the aforementioned media channels and their followers started accusing the late-actor’s closed ones after the revelation of his financial statements and mental conditions. A media channel went even further to pinpoint the crime on his flatmate who was believed to be accompanying the late-actor in his final days. It is a fundamental ground rule when interviewing a person an interviewee shall, priorly, be asked whether they are comfortable (if questioned) on live.
However, the media channel (which was live on two different portals- YouTube and through a media channel at the time) simply made a declarative statement to the interviewee that it was live and shall answer to their questions. The interviewee was nervous and had mixed emotions when responding about it.
Nevertheless, the interviewer kept on bugging by stressing the questions repeatedly to confuse before the interviewee although, he hardly uttered any. The interviewee left since the interviewers were not listening to them despite he making many attempts to explain them clearly. Even, the commentators on the YouTube channel (of the concerned media channel) judged his flatmate without any logical and critical perspective. The interviewee shivered throughout the interview.
Imagine, if we were in that position and on live, responding to randomly asked questions, and viewers (of the concerned media channel) would go on to blame us for something we are not responsible for. It should be made a norm for media channels to give brief insights, facts, or any other kind of information only after the case has been cross checked with reliable sources. This process may, especially, give accurate info. May it be a victim or criminal, a human-being is entitled to have privacy and have the right to talk through a lawyer/advocate.
The question we must ask ourselves: What if those were not the victims and those who appeared to be innocent initially have been playing the victim game all the time and actually are criminals?
After all it is us, who brought down talented actors like Heath ledger and of course, as things stand, the talented actor- Sushant Singh Rajput. We must honestly ask ourselves how many of us mocked Heath Ledger when we got to know that he would be playing the Joker character in the movie, The Dark Knight. It is us, our society, our milieu- that we were brought up in and by- must be accountable for.
Although, currently, the case has been dealing with by the CBI and NCB too due to involvement of drugs, it shall be better if the national media channels respect accusers’ privacy and not conduct any media trails. The aforementioned insight of the media trail can be one of them which define accuracy to the present scenario how moral the Indian Journalism is.