Should Indian journalists cover up the truth? - A Romantic Realist

Should Indian journalists cover up the truth?

Raju Narisetti - Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:23 PM

Credit Hindustan Times with a fascinating Page 1 story on 27 August headlined "And a Gold for Press: How boxer Jitender's split chin was kept a secret." Reporter Saurabh Duggal reveals how the Indian media contingent at the just concluded 2008 Beijing Olympics was asked by Indian chief national coach Gurbux Singh Sandhu to not report the fact that Indian boxing medal hope Jitender Kumar had suffered a deep cut under his chin during his flyweight (51kg) pre-quarterfinal victory over Tulashboy Doniyorov of Uzbekistan and received 10 stitches. (Read full story here)

The story goes on to quote Sandhu as saying (parenthesis and bold emphasis are mine): "When the Indian reporters came to interview him, we requested them not to highlight his injury as it would have been difficult to get medical clearance (for the next bout) for him. Even his opponent in the quarterfinal culd have taken advantage of it. Nobody mentioned his injury till the quarterfinal bout was over and we are thankful to the media contingent present there for the great favour it did for us and for our country." ((Jitender went on to lose to European Champion Georgy Balakshin of Russia 11-15 in the quarterfinals and didn't medal.)

So how did India manage to get Jitender into the quarterfinal fight with such obvious injuries to his face? Here is what Sandhu has to say: "In the period between his two bouts, he was given internal stitches and plastic surgery was done, so that the injury would not be visible at the time of his medical check-up."

Reinforcing this, the story quotes Akhil, "Jitender's mentor," as saying: "I was worried as it was a deep wound and chances were he would not have passed the medical check-up. But we got his surgery done from the best medical expert in Beijing and it helped," said Akhil. He also thanked the media for not highlighting the injury.

Why was the Indian coach so paranoid about the truth coming out? I am not an expert at boxing by any means so, curious, I looked up the International Boxing Association's rules on the Medical Aspect of Qualification for Boxers (see full rules here) issued in May 2008 specifically to cover the period through the 2008 Olympics.

2.3.3. Prohibited Conditions--The boxers with the following prohibited conditions are not allowed to enter any of AIBA Sanctioned Events:

2.3.3.1 If a boxer wears a dressing on a cut, wound abrasion, laceration or blood swelling on their scalp or face...For the case of a boxer with abrasion or laceration, no dressing other than Collodion or Steri-Strip is allowed. The decision should be made by the Doctor examining the boxer on the day the boxer is competing.

So, it would seem then that Indian sports officials hid Jitender's "deep wound" that required "10 stitches" with secret "plastic surgery" that hid the "internal stitches" so that, as Sandhu told Hindustan Times, "the injury would not be visible at the time of his medical check-up."

I don't know the answer but it seems Jitender may not have been able to fight at all if plastic surgery didn't hide the deep wound. If so, does India's boxing federation now run the risk of being investigated by relevant Olympics authorities for violating any rules that govern the Olympics?

This question then brings me to apparent behavior of India's media contingent. I don't know how many of the 20,000 journalists who covered the 2008 Beijing Olympics were from India as an email sent to the Beijing Olympics Media Center didn't get an immediate response, and I don't know how many of these Indian journalists covering the Games were complicit in covering up the state of Jitender after his bout.

But, here are some interesting questions for the rest of us to mull over:

1. Was Jitender's injury not news?

2. By their silence, did Indian journalists--at least those who knew about the injury and didn't report on it prior to the bout--conspire with Indian sports officials to potentially violate rules that govern the Games?

3. Do these journalists owe allegiance to facts and their respective readers/viewers, or do they owe it to the India sporting establishment's push for a medal?

4. Did any of these journalists clear this request from Sandhu--to not report on the injury--with their senior editors either in Beijing or back in India? If they did, it would be interesting to see the justification of what compelling "national interest" was at play here in agreeing to the request.

And to think all the fuss prior to the Olympics was about how China would curb reporting and reporters and how journalists have rights that they should demand from the Chinese government?

I am glad Hindustan Times put the story on its front page because it deserves to be debated. What I don't know is whether, as the story says, the silence of these journalists means "a medal for the Indian media corps too!"

I, for one, would like to believe that journalists everywhere should be, to borrow the words of Martin Luther King, "bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism."

Ps: For the next few days, I might be in one of the few places left in India where there is no Internet access. Apologies in advance if I don't weigh in on A Romantic Realist blog. Raju. 8/28/2008.

 

 

 

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!
Tagged in: , , , , , , , , ,
16 Comment

From Ganesh

August 27, 2008 9:23 PM
Mr Narisetti: Can I have your comments on the British media's decision to black out Prince Harry fighting in Afghanistan.

From Raju Narisetti

August 27, 2008 10:43 PM

Ganesh--it was self censorship of the highest order. At least in Britain there is, since 1912, the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee that has Ministry of Defence and media representatives which was set up to "monitor" the publication of sensitive material especially that involves national security. I think it was a mistake for the British media to agree to a blackout (they were then promised all sorts of exclusive footage etc as an inducement). There is an excellent analysis of this whole saga if you want to get multiple views on this. Here it is. Raju

www.walesonline.co.uk/.../prince-harry-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-91466-20914031

From MS

August 28, 2008 1:20 AM
Hi raju, i believe it was not complicity or the national pride/ security or wishful medal consideraton but in india and we indians ( am conciously using 'we Indian')believe in , you take care of me & i will take care of you. there is no exchange of in-kind or monies or special favours on transcations just on That time. it will be kept as "Remembered." thats why we dont see such inducements. and when it is all about gaining access to e.g. birth place, school admissions, high education , or the Free Club passes etc, there you go. Of course, with china, may be this prevades, but there is even strong reason not to fall on wrong side of government.

From Nikhil

August 28, 2008 12:33 PM
My first reaction on reading the story was one of disgust. Jitender Kumar and Gurbux Singh Sandhu cheated, and the reporters allowed them to get away with it. And to top it all, instead to criticizing this, the HT article congratulates the Indian media corps. The other thing is - had Jitender won the medal, would this collusion have ever been brought to light? He would run the risk of being stripped of his medal.

From Aishwarya

August 28, 2008 3:50 PM
If, as Nikhil says, Jitender could have been stripped of his medal, this is obviously cheating. I was baffled when I saw the HT headline yesterday.

From Sushobhan

August 28, 2008 9:53 PM
Raju: This is TRULY abominable. What is the difference between these noteworthy members of the indian media and the "embedded" journalists of the iraq war?

From Subhra Priyadarshini

September 1, 2008 7:41 PM
There are many such secrets that travelling journalist contignets keep buried in their hearts, with or without the national interest in mind. When journalists spotted a doctor in the entourage of one particular Indian Prime Minister's day-long tour to a non-metro city, the word got around that he was critically ill. It was election time and this meant bad publicity for the party. The story was kept under wraps by an enterprising publicity head who treated local journalists to a few patiala pegs later in the evening. There are many more legends like this in journo circles. Actually worth an immensely readable book. But nothing beats the India media corps' working towards a medal!

From Abinav

September 4, 2008 2:46 PM
I am no journalist - but I am sure this would be happening. Isn't this, after all, a moral dilemma that any professional may face one fine day? Let us just have a look at the boxer's point of view - this is probably the only realistic chance he was to get at an Olympic medal. So, all teary eyed if this dude comes to you asking you not to lie - but simply to not comment on the injury, what would you do? And I am not talking about the 'give-and-take' policy that MS talks about. Simply a human-to-human. A request. That is it. Yes, as per the rule book - this is cheating. Probably, that is what the boxer in question did. But, in case he had won he wouldn't have won 'because' of the cheating, he would have won in spite of it. PS: I am not making any comment on journalism or the right/ wrong surrounding the issue. Just exploring another side of the argument.

From Raju Narisetti

September 4, 2008 5:40 PM

Abhinav--there is a reason why rules (IOC/Boxing Federation), ethics/codes of conduct (media houses) exist. So they can be used in situations like this. If Mint were sending a reporter to Beijing (costs an arm and a leg) I would expect that journalist to do what is right (by our code) and what is expected (from our readers). Don't you think it is a slippery slope once we go human-to-human and let that decide what we write on and what we hide?

From Armchair Guy

September 4, 2008 8:13 PM
What's right or wrong in this particular case is not clear to me. But I think journalists in many of the most successful countries do cover up the truth or present it in a way that is beneficial to that country. A nice example is the way the Aussie press ganged up on the Indian team and especially Harbhajan during the recent controversies during the series there. There were initially some reports about the Aussie team's lack of sporting spirit, but then the entire Aussie press seemed to come to some sort of agreement and spent the rest of the series using the Indian team for target practice. Perhaps Indian journalists should simply report things in a way that is most beneficial to India -- but of course it's not usually clear what is most beneficial to India.

From Abinav

September 5, 2008 10:02 AM
Raju - Yes! I agree to what you say. There are many ways you can look at this argument. Speaking of code of ethics; what do you put first - the newspaper or another human being? Have you seen "Mumbai Meri Jaan"? They present a scenario not far from this; though there it concerns grief at the loss of someone dear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In case you haven't seen; the story talks about a reporter who does stories in and around Bombay. In the July 11 train blasts she loses her would be. The news channel she is working for turns the guns on her and sees a wonderful story to be told that can be aired prime time. And they go ahead and do this, the immense grief of the reporter notwithstanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am sure the code of ethics of the news channel was pretty much 'You have a story, you tell the audience!'. So, now what does one do? Does s/he go ahead with the story objectively as that would take the first hand information to the audience or does s/he show concern for a fellow human being? Code of ethics is a set of unsaid rules that is accepted by the industry. Under exceptional circumstances when one is tested, it is generally seen as a test of integrity. If being loyal to the CoE tests my integrity as a human being in the first place; that is where the dilemma begins. Don't you think?

From Raju Narisetti

September 5, 2008 7:45 PM

Abhinav--there is nothing "unsaid" about genuine codes of conduct. Mint's code of ethics, for instance, is available at the top of our website (www.livemint.com). And it isn't just a piece of paper. It governs what we stand for. If a journalist would rather root for an Indian boxer--who is flouting the rules/codes of conduct he swore to uphold in participating in the Olympics--in the guise of humanity or patriotism or some other such allegedly noble higher calling, suggest that person find another job. Perhaps in a PR firm.

From Raju Narisetti

September 6, 2008 8:16 PM

Just to make sure I wasn't drinking Koolaid here, I asked Prof David Boeyink who teaches ethics to journalism students at Indiana University (and taught me as well) to look at the issue and related comments that have been posted. Here is his interesting take via email:

I agree with you that this is a black/white case. What makes this interesting is not the ethical issue but the apparent unanimity among the Indian journalists who covered this.

Although it is true that this cover-up takes place in other contexts (the British press silence, for example, on Prince Harry), I tend to believe that sports reporters are often more tied to the narrow interests of their beat (sports teams) than other reporters. Lots of sports reporting is biased toward home teams and even, I suspect, national interests. In more subtle ways, the NBC coverage of the Olympics is clearly ethnocentric favoring U.S. athletes.

That said, this kind of cover-up is clearly an aberration even for sports. As you say, clearly black and white. Violation of Olympic rules and all.

Cheers.

Dave

From komala

September 7, 2008 7:30 PM
Hi Naanna I saw you blog.Interesting

From Bryce

September 11, 2008 11:52 AM
This is pathetic. Who cares since the guy did not win a medal.

From Raju Narisetti

September 16, 2008 12:25 PM

From Barney Calame, former Deputy Managing Editor of The Wall Street Journal and former Public Editor of The New York Times

Your post was most admirable.  I think it was right on the money.  I agree with your observation that it was a black and white case.  And I was genuinely surprised by the commenters who didn’t see that.  I especially liked your noting that much concern before the Games had focused on whether China would curb reporters and reporting. Best, Barney

POST YOUR COMMENT

:
(required)
 
Email Address
(required)
   
(optional)
(HTML not allowed)