Victims: Journalists vs the Public

We were always taught in university that journalism is the "fourth estate", a watchdog on those in power, a force that challenges them and keeps them alert for they know someone will hold them accountable. But, more importantly, this "fourth estate" is on a noble mission to give voice to the voiceless, bring attention to the unnoticed, and shed light upon what's been cast in the dark. Our professors told us time and time again that: journalism should reveal wrongdoing, raise awareness and demand justice - it is an active (and much needed) player in democracy.

And so journalism suddenly became the most intriguing thing that I ever came across, especially that this happened after the 2011 revolution when the whole country was bubbling with enthusiasm.

I was quite lucky to have worked with colleagues in on-campus newspapers who were (and some still are) vehement believers in such values of journalism. They were extremely enthusiastic about the potential impact news can make. We reported night and day on stories, interviewed tens of people, discussed scenarios and plans for hours - thinking this was our next journalistic breakthrough, that we'd be our university's Woodward and Bernstein.

It was all about "let's do some real journalism" - and to me, this "real" journalism was always about the story. We wanted to find the important stories, the good stories, work properly on them and get them published.

However, I started to feel recently that it isn't actually always about the story. A lot of the time it's more about the journalist. And this issue can have a lot of elements to look at and factors to consider. But what really drew my attention recently is how reporters are treated with superiority when it comes to situations where they are jailed, injured or killed.

The argument is that journalists are out risking their security to inform everyone else of the truth. And if you arrest or kill a journalist - you're silencing a channel of vital communication. And so the significance of the crackdown is doubled - you do not only trespass over a human being's freedom, but you deny the public the important service this journalist is giving them.

 

This is not completely false. However, I think giving attention to journalists becomes unacceptable when it overshadows the suffering of other "normal" members of the public. Journalists are not risking their lives anymore than anyone else on the street is.

Why do jailed journalists get extensive worldwide attention when hundreds of other "regular" jailed people do not get a quarter of that? Why are journalists more important? Why do their lives, apparently, matter more? Why is that happening in the media instead of seeing real attempts for good coverage on what everyone is really experiencing in jails?

The significance of life loss is the same. If we unfortunately lose a dedicated and sharp journalist who was best at telling us about an issue, someone waiting at home is losing the woman who fed her one-year-old child. Someone else is losing the man who made life worth living.

Very much like the state, the media tends to report on the public using abstract numbers and a cliche anecdote for a good lead to an article. But journalists are not members of that, they get separate attention - the justification being that they are a "fourth estate for the people". However, it is exactly here when the "fourth estate" loses its essence.

I think journalism isn't journalism anymore when it becomes more about the journalists than the people.

We can argue today, even, that journalists are no longer the gods and goddesses of publishing information. It is arrogant of journalists nowadays to still think that the information that comes through them, or is compiled by them, is the only information that counts. That they are really the only "fourth estate". This superiority is no longer justified. But this needs a new blog-post.