“We have become Homo Documentis, man the recorder”

EXHIBIT A:

Lead story in today's Times of India that featured the photograph of a young, mentally unstable man cowering before a tiger moments before it mauled him to death. (On its website, the country's No. 1 English newspaper has helpfully provided a video link to the news item which played out on Times Now most of yesterday, proclaiming, apparently with glee: "Caught on camera: Youth mauled to death".)

The same photograph was also published on the front pages of other leading newspapers, such as The Hindu and The Indian Express.

Which brings me to EXHIBIT B, a perceptive piece in Time magazine about an unrelated event but related issue:

We Are a Camera: Life, Death and the Urge to Shoot
At tragic and mundane moments now, we reach for our cameras.

And EXHIBIT C, a thought-provoking question on the Poynter website:

Would you snap a picture or pull the man to safety?

Why won't Indian news outlets question the value of, and ethics involved in, publishing such photographs? Because life in India is cheap.

• ADDITIONAL READING: "Publishing grisly photos" and "How does an editor take the decision to publish pictures that can upset readers?"

• By the way, The Times of India is currently involved in an unsavoury tit-for-tat with Deepika Padukone. For the record, I am 100% in agreement with the views of senior journalist Prem Panicker and The Hindu's Radhika Santhanam, both of whom have launched a broadside against Bombay Times on their blogs. Why is The Times of India what it is today? This piece in the hallowed New Yorker magazine holds the clues: "Citizens Jain: Why India's newspaper industry is thriving".

UPDATE 1
This reaction came via e-mail from Commitscion Faye D'Souza (Class of 2004):

I couldn't unsee that video. It haunts me. 

I think by watching it, I felt like I was part of the group of people who just stood there and did nothing. I remember a discussion we had in class about the duty of press photographers in the Vietnam War, who had to choose between taking a photograph to highlight the issue for the world and thereby stop the war OR saving the child who was on fire.

I don't think the question is about ethics anymore. One, these are not journalists who are looking to highlight the issue. Two, because the all these videos were shot with the aim to entertain and stroke the human fancy for the morbid and the macabre.

UPDATE 2
After I uploaded a link to my post this morning, Commitscion Dipankar Paul (Class of 2009) and I had an interesting discussion on Facebook:

• Dipankar Paul What could the onlookers have done? Jumped in and saved the man? Also, the tiger didn't maul the man to death as you say in your post -- as I wrote on another FB post. https://www.facebook.com/kalya.../posts/10203428911936094...

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu Re: your post, Dipankar -- "This content is currently unavailable". Why is that?

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu In any case, the focus of my post is the fact that we seem to have become "Homo documentis", as the Time journalist put it.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Dipankar Paul As for the photo being "disturbing", I disagree. It's much like Kevin Carter's Vulture and the Child photo. There is no gore, but we all know how this is going to end. It's important to document human history.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Dipankar Paul Here it is: The tiger didn't maul the man to death. It displayed its protective instincts by dragging the man by the scruff of the neck and pulling him away from the commotion like it would do if its offspring were in danger. It just so happens humans don't have folds of skin along their neck, and the tiger inadvertently must have punctured a major artery.

  5 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu Ah.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu By the way, did you click on all the links I have provided in my post?

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Dipankar Paul I have.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Dipankar Paul Homo documentis is just another name for Journalist (or reporter or photographer), isn't it?

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu Yes, and I think the point Time and Poynter are making is that we have all become "man the recorder". I do think we are right to be concerned.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Dipankar Paul The last few paragraphs in the Poynter piece are important. If you see the video of the tiger and the man, you can see that the big cat is curious and confused -- definitely not malicious. The man was in the enclosure for 10 minutes. Where were the guards? Where were the tranquilizer darts? This death could have been averted. Unfortunately, the focus is going to be on #KillerTiger and not the zoo's incompetence/inefficiency.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu Here is a relevant paragraph from the Time article:
  
  "But most of the criticism over the photos has been directed, rightly, not at Abbasi but the Post editors who had plenty of time to decide
  whether the photo needed to be on their cover, and ran it anyway.
  
  "This wasn’t a gruesome war photo showing people a conflict they’d otherwise ignore; it didn’t shed light on any ongoing situation. Its only purpose was to say: this is what he looked like just before he died, and we have the picture."

  5 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Dipankar Paul But, Sir, in this case, there was no way onlookers could have pulled the man to safety short of climbing down themselves. But that's like getting onto the tracks to push the man onto the platform while the train rushes towards you.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu And from Poynter:
  
  "But in both of those cases, editors could argue the photos held significant journalistic purpose of informing the public of gross
  tragedies and holding the powerful accountable.
  
  "This photo doesn’t have any of those redeeming journalistic qualities. But it causes great harm, to the family of the man, to those of us who view it and to the community of New York. It is sensational and voyeuristic and nothing more.
  
  "When you publish or pass along photos of pending death without
  purpose, you might as well be posting a snuff film. There is no
  redeeming value."

  5 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Dipankar Paul Re: ToI editors publishing the photo. After the Deepika Padukone incident, I'm sure they didn't think of creating awareness about the mismanagement at Delhi Zoo. So, in that case, it wasn't the right call.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Dipankar Paul But this photo CAN be used to inform, much like Ut's and Carter's.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu I am concerned no one gave a thought to "But it causes great harm, to the family of the man..."

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Dipankar Paul Ah, then we should stop publishing all death photos -- impending or not. Isn't the 'how' an important part of reportage? Photographic/videographic evidence, if nothing else, provides closure and leaves no doubt.

  5 hrs · Edited · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu The concluding paragraph of my post, for what it is worth:
  
  Why won't Indian news outlets question the value of, and ethics involved in, publishing such photographs? Because life in India is cheap.

  5 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Dipankar Paul There is great POTENTIAL value in publishing such photographs. If the intention is to inform and highlight incompetence, I'm all for it. But if the aim is titillation, eyeball-mongering and plain voyeurism, it's a shame. And today's ToI falls somewhere in the middle.

  5 hrs · Edited · Like
• 

  Ramesh Prabhu I'm very glad we had this debate, Dipankar. Thank you.

  5 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Dipankar Paul Brings to mind an earlier post about euphemisms.

  5 hrs · Unlike · 1
• 

  Vidya Nayak I am reminded of the Readers' Digest reporter, who had taken the photo of a grandfather who had inadvertently caused his grandchild's death. Years later, he said in an interview that he regretted having caused the family more pain. But at the time, all he had thought of was clicking the photo first and rushing it to the centre for publication!

  4 hrs · Like
• 

  Ann Thomas What an interesting debate/discussion...Thank you Ramesh Prabhu and Dipankar Paul!

  4 hrs · Like

UPDATE 3

• CNN chose not to use the disturbing photo: "White tiger mauls visitor to death at zoo in India".
• The Guardian also chose not to run the photo: "White tiger kills man who climbed over fence at New Delhi zoo"

UPDATE 4
And here are the comments of senior journalist Bala Murali Krishna (via e-mail):

Seriously, Ramesh, do you really expect Indian media to actually think on all these sensitive issues? If you recall, even Frontline from the Hindu group was guilty of publishing gory photos of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. If I remember right, it was a sellout issue. 

"The key to all good writing is understanding your audience"

This is something I have been telling my students at Commits since I began teaching journalism in April 2003. Good writers understand this. And the best writing teachers, such as William Zinsser, have devoted whole chapters in their books to "writing for your audience".

Now, on this very important subject, here is Jack Lynch, the man I consider my grammar guru since I discovered his indispensable online guide to writing. Here is the relevant entry:

Audience.

The key to all good writing is understanding your audience. Every time you use language, you engage in a rhetorical activity, and your attention should always be on the effect it will have on your audience.

Think of grammar and style as analogous to, say, table manners. Grammatical “rules” have no absolute, independent existence; there is no Grammar Corps to track you down for using “whose” when “of which” is more proper, just as Miss Manners employs no shock troops to massacre people who eat their salads with fish forks. You can argue, of course, that the other fork works just as well (or even better), but both the fork and the usage are entirely arbitrary and conventional. Your job as a writer is to have certain effects on your readers, readers who are continuously judging you, consciously or unconsciously. If you want to have the greatest effect, you'll adjust your style to suit the audience, however arbitrary its expectations.

A better analogue might be clothing. A college English paper calls for the rough equivalent of the jacket and tie (ladies, you're on your own here). However useless or ridiculous the tie may be, however outdated its practical value as a garment, certain social situations demand it, and if you go into a job interview wearing a T-shirt and jeans, you only hurt yourself by arguing that the necktie has no sartorial validity. Your job is to figure out what your audience expects. Likewise, if your audience wants you to avoid ending your sentences with prepositions, no amount of argument over historical validity will help.

But just as you shouldn't go under-dressed to a job interview, you shouldn't over-dress either. A white tie and tails will make you look ridiculous at a barbecue, and a pedantic insistence on grammatical bugbears will only lessen your audience's respect for you. There are occasions when ain't is more suitable than is not, and the careful writer will take the time to discover which is the more appropriate.

See Diction, Formal Writing, Prescriptive versus Descriptive Grammars, Rules, and Taste.

Not only is this guide indispensable; it is also comprehensive. I became so enamoured of Jack Lynch's witty and clever writing style and his easy-to-grasp examples that, last week, I bought a copy of his book for the college library. At Rs.850 on Amazon, it's a steal.

The boldest articulation I have read of what it means to be a woman in India

Read this powerful lead story in the college newspaper by Commitscion Devika Premlal (Class of 2015) here.

• This comment, from John Thomas of the Public Relations Council of India (PRCI), was sent by e-mail to Tia Raina (Class of 2015), editor of The Chronicle:

I read the cover story in your magazine's latest issue. As a man, every time I read about incidents [such as the ones described by Devika Premlal], I squirm. I think what Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on I-Day is so true and so important. Parents (especially mothers, but sisters as well) must raise their sons (and brothers) to respect women and send out the message that complaints from girls about misbehaviour will be taken very seriously.

MORE COMMENTS:

• From Commitscion Nishal Lama (Class of 2009), Bangalore: Brilliant article. I can't agree more with Devika and what it really means to be a woman in India today. And the problem, I think, is deep-rooted within our society. I am hopeful that the coming generation will see things in a different perspective. 

• From Commitscion Monish Debnath (Class of 2008), Mumbai: Such a powerful article. Shaken up at the sheer audacity these men have; shame is the only word I can think of. Brilliant writing.

• From senior journalist Kokila Jacob, Dubai: Well-written and, yes, powerful. She has articulated the experience of EVERY Indian woman. Sadly her starting sentence is so true. Nothing will change. Not as long as parents still yearn for sons and then, when they get them, they go on to spoil them rotten.

• From senior journalist and editor of Khaleej Times, Dubai, Patrick Michael: Just three words come to mind after reading this powerful piece: Bold, frank, and fearless. Words come easy but only Devika will know the hurt, the pain and the frustration she went through when she decided to write this story. Shocking? No. A revelation? No. Will it trigger a change in the way men treat women as mere commodities? No. But it had to be said. And we need more Devikas. Women hold up half the sky and yet men won't admit it. Ever. Our egos will not allow it. Carry on, Devika. Don't let men influence who you want to be. More power to your pen.

• From Commitscion Nilofer D'Souza (Class of 2009), Bangalore: Okay, I must admit, when I saw this link, I thought to myself, "Here goes Ramesh Sir, encouraging another new kid on the block..." But, then, I read the piece, and I agree wholeheartedly with what Ramesh Sir says. A raw first-person account, which is appreciated.

• From Commitscion Arathi Krishnan (Class of 2007), Dubai: Brilliant!

• From Commitscion Ria Dutta (Class of 2016), Bangalore: This article is indeed very bold and very true... I can relate to it as I have encountered similar situations growing up. Hats off to Devika Premlal for being able to write this. Truly very impressive.

• From homemaker and mother of two young girls Vidya Nayak, Bangalore: Hats off to Devika for putting into words what, I feel, all women in India go through at different times in life. Except for our mother or, in extreme cases, our father, no one talked about it. We were asked to avoid the road, so what if it was the shortest way home....  I am proud to know a girl today is able to talk about it. I fully empathise with Devika. The only way ahead, I feel, is to teach girls, like I have taught mine, that they are not responsible for the weirdo's behaviour. He is wrong. Period. Evasive tactics need to be taught. Also to scream. At the end of all this is a mother who worries every time her child goes out with friends. Till she sees her child again. Where is the age of innocence? Are only boys entitled to it?

• From Commitscion Ankita Sengupta (Class of 2013), Mumbai: Wow! Even though I am not acquainted with Devika, I feel so proud of her. She may be right in stating that irrespective of what we say, nothing will change, but to stand up and narrate such personal incidents deserves applause. Things may never change but thanks to bravehearts like her, more women will learn to speak up for themselves. Kudos to her!

ALSO READ: Gutsy Commits student Ankita Sengupta's story in Bangalore Mirror — an inspiration to women everywhere.