As a journalist myself, I try to take an impartial view of everything I read although that is not always easy to do. Still, I always attempt to confirm the veracity of a story before I post it on social networking sites. And for someone with limited resources, checking a story is as simple as googling it to see if major news media are reporting it.
Yesterday, for example, someone I know posted a story that claims the new Penal Code will penalize any journalist reporting on government corruption. Naturally, this immediately raised flags as I am indirectly affected, so I checked the story. This Google search shows the results. The first 13 results display the exact same story verbatim. But guess what? All these websites are blogs or forums, and no major digital newspaper or TV news site carried the story. Doesn't it stand to reason that this news item would appear on ALL news media sites if this piece of legislation has the ability to affect the livelihood of news reporters? Wouldn't there have been a public outrage at the mere suggestion of a gag on press freedom? Well none of these things happened, and that led me to believe the story was a fabrication by someone trying to discredit the current administration for his or her own personal gain, or simply because it suited his or her own political agenda.
Today, another story appeared on how Amina, a Tunisian member of FEMEN, the Ukrainian feminist organization known for their topless protests, had been condemned to lashings and death by stoning for posing topless on Facebook as a protest against the second class status of women in Tunisia. The news site, Vanguardia, appears to be a legitimate Mexican news site. Personally, I have little to no knowledge of Mexican news media sites to determine its trustworthiness.
To be fair, the death sentence was not issued by the government or any of its judicial institutions. It was a Fatwa issued by Adel Amni, cleric and president of the Moderate Association for Awareness and Reform, a conservative, back-to-basics Islamic organization; nothing moderate there. Again, I don't know much about Tunisian politics other than Sharia law was supposed to have been abolished in 1956. However, that said, it is also true that since the Arab Spring, Tunisia has been trying to find a balance between democracy and traditional Islamic values.
The question, then, becomes one of legality versus perceived legality. Is the Fatwa (religious edict) legally binding? Not under current Tunisian law. Is it seen to be morally binding by a minority group, and thus, perceived as legal? To the conservatives it might be even though it has no legal executive standing. That does not mean that this edict does not represent a real threat to Amina's life.
What I object to in this instance is the way the Vanguardia article was worded. The reader is led to believe that this death sentence is a done deal, that Amina's sentence was tacitly approved by the government and that it will be carried out in short order. We don't know that; no government spokesperson has confirmed (or denied) the sentence. We only know that a fundamentalist cleric has issued a fatwa.
In the first case, I find it reprehensible and irresponsible to disseminate stories based on hearsay with no facts to back up the claim. The mere fact that it conforms to one's political beliefs is not sufficient reason to spread falsities. Isn't there a law against prevarication and defamation? Shouldn't journalists be held to the same standard?
In the second case, the issue is subtler but just as misleading. Should we condemn what's happening to Amina? Absolutely. But we must also get the facts straight. Her death sentence was issued by an Islamic fundamentalist cleric who believes we live in the 7th century. The Tunisian government, as far as we know, is not party to this verdict in any way, shape or form. That has to be made clear unless the contrary is proven.
The Internet is inundated with all kinds of stories and factoids, some of them true, others ironic, sarcastic or just plain humorous meant to entertain. Due to the ease with which we are able to disseminate news stories, now more than ever, we should take extra care to verify the facts we purport to uphold as truth.
This is not to say that all journalists are liars; on the contrary, most are conscientious reporters that seek only to shed light on the truth. And it is precisely for these journalists that it behooves us to uphold the integrity of the profession rather than besmirch it with amateurism.
thought provoKing...
ReplyDelete