Something I wrote a few years ago
When I started out as a journalist with Times Now, I remember an air hostess had been killed by her boyfriend and he later committed suicide. My office wanted me to get her parents' reaction, and I said no.
But soon, work compulsions made me another kind of journalist. I would compulsively dig out details of crimes. Though my intention was always to get the culprit booked, the means to achieve that goal were questionable.
After around 6 years in Times Now, I covered a big case in Bangalore. A man with considerable influence was accused of raping his daughter. Though the police knew where he was, they could not arrest him. Many of us were following the story like crazy. As we dug out detail after detail about the case, there was also an element of competition amongst reporters on who will nail the guy with 'hard facts'.
Two prominent newspapers then got the child's medical record, I too did. It became the big headline.
I called the man's wife (the complainant) and told her that she can be relieved now as the medical report was out and there was no way her husband could escape.
Her reply is still etched in my brain.
She asked me."What use is it of, Dhanya? Why should the world know what exactly happened to her? And there is Google. Google will never allow my child to forget that her vagina and anus were injured."
And then it struck me. In our pursuit to make sure culprits are caught, we forget the victim, the survivor or their family.
Why should we know the sordid details of a crime? Why should we know who did exactly what?
Does the fact that a 7 year old was sexually assaulted and killed by a neighbour not outrage you? Why should you or I know HOW he assaulted her?
Yes, some cases get more highlighted than others. It depends on the place, time and the news cycle, unfortunately.
But let's not be vultures for details. All of us.