Last week, a very noble and renowned actor ended up his life at his own flat in Mumbai. In the prima facie report, it has been allegedly declared that deep depression led him into taking such a catastrophic step. Many were heartbroken and were grieving, but among these were a group of people who very boldly made advantage of the situation by sharing an extremely distressing image of the actor. One last picture of the actor clicked with multiple angles started flooding the feeds and chat boxes. The image was really miserable and left a lot many devastated just by looking at their favorite star in a grim situation. Later on, after much juggling, the image was apparently removed from social platforms and the IT Cell of Mumbai Police started taking legal action against the ones sharing the image and other such false updates. The story doesn't end here, many newspapers, rushed to his house back in his hometown and without giving any thoughts, started sharing images of his grieving father and asking him questions. The next morning, a renowned newspaper posted an image of his fainted father on the front page which was objectionable. This was not the first case when media along with people has portrayed an insensitive attitude towards any incident. Day by day, journalism is getting more ignorant of a person's personal life.
Nowadays, if we open any social sites or chatting apps, plenty of videos and images could be found which are heinous enough to affect the mental state of a human being. A million of incidents have been witnessed where people run after recording and capturing the sensational accidents just to gain attention and traffic on their posts. Not only in India but the New York times also, back in January 2020, covered a story of a man who was pushed before a train in the subway. The photograph of the man just before he was killed was published on the first page with bold headlines saying, "Doomed: Pushed on the Subway Track, This Man is About to Die." (Source: npr.org). Many social groups and human rights groups took to the photographer and other people there for capturing a man dying rather than saving him. This insensitive act has raised many questions about ethics in journalism. When questioned about the laws against such acts, it was said that there are no hard and fast rules.
In standard journalism, there ought to be a barrier between what should be telecasted and what not. But the difference between the ethical and unethical broadcasting has been narrowed down lately. In an ideal world, media brings out the facts and facets and with properly censored content, the news is broadcasted via various channels or print media. But, with the advent of technology, digital media has taken over. People have been opting for digital media as a more viable platform for news and facts. This sudden shift has forced the media marketing agencies to ultimately bring attractive contents to their viewers. For a while now, sensational photographs have been attracting every age group. Switching attention to photographic journalism regardless of the contents and ethics has made the media highly futile. The mass media at some point appreciate when people take up the initiative and share the ground reports in the form of spontaneous images and videos. This has resulted in a rat-race among people. They, in order to gain popularity or such, chose to record a crime rather than helping. Such acts might not have any written rules or laws but there are general ethics, morale, and etiquette that decides our personality.
"For we are Human and Humanity has only scratched the surface of its real potential."