Webinar at Kandra RKK Mahavidyalaya
The Politics of
Gender Discrimination in Media: Critical Perspectives
September 20-21, 2020
REPORTING THE OTHER: MUTINY AND
MUTILATION
On June 7 this year amid the height of Covid-induced pandemic,
I got a distress call from one of our senior field reporters that someone had
been sending her lewd messages for the past few hours, and if I could intervene
to stop the abuse, as the sender was a Bengali – a language she does not
understand. In our field of work, such harassment by unknown people against
women is not uncommon these days – that will be discussed in details later − but
our reporter was stunned for two reasons – first, she helped the migrant
labourers, many of them women with children, arrange transport back to West
Bengal while writing about their ordeals for days, and secondly, while doing
so, she was putting her family at risk of being infected with coronavirus. Why the
mother of a six-year-old kid should be at the receiving end of such abuse while
doing her job?
The answer to the question lies in the system – a centuries-old
patriarchal society that puts up stumbling blocks in her pursuit to find
happiness while chasing her passion. Our reporter is the sole breadwinner of
her family, as her husband has lost his job during the start of this financial
year that coincided with the pandemic. The society could only possibly offer such
abuses to a woman who struggles to make ends meet. Historically, for women
aspiring to build a career, media has been the go-to sector where one can write
stories and report incidents highlighting the plight and pleasure of the Other,
the marginalised. But in the process to unshackle the bonds of patriarchy, the
reporter herself is many a time tormented out on the field. In a postfeminist
world when gender discrimination is sometimes called a thing of the past, the clamour
for equality is often heard but not quite practised.
A case in point is Mona Eltahawy, the Egyptian-American
journalist who faced police brutality while covering the Tahrir Square uprising
in November 2011. Later, she writes in The
Guardian, “I suffered a broken left arm and right hand. The Egyptian
security forces' brutality is always ugly, often random and occasionally
poetic. Initially, I assumed my experience was random, but a veteran human
rights activist told me they knew exactly who I was and what they were doing to
my writing arms when they sent riot police conscripts to that deserted shop…. The
viciousness of their attack took me aback. Yes, I confess, this feminist
thought they wouldn't beat a woman so hard. But I wasn't just a woman. My body
had become Tahrir Square, and it was time for revenge against the revolution
that had broken and humiliated Hosni Mubarak's police. And it continues. We've
all seen that painfully iconic photograph of the woman who was beaten and
stripped to her underwear by soldiers in Tahrir Square. Did you notice the
soldier who was about to stomp on her exposed midriff? How could you not?”

Over the course of last decade and with the advent of internet,
such mutilation of body and thought of women journalists have now transcended
from physical to digital. It would have been easier for them to stop going to
field reporting but it turned out otherwise.
In one of her early despatches from Kundli in Haryana off the
Delhi-Chandigarh highway, Barkha Dutt posts a 10-minute news story. Barkha, in
the April 8 video on her YouTube channel, Mojo
Story, says, “Nobody is focusing on how Covid-19 has been impacting women.
Of course men are suffering but women have the double burden of running homes
as well as taking care of children.... In this colony, there is an entire
settlement of widowed women who are the most vulnerable. They run single-income
homes in a deeply unequal society that still offers only limited opportunities
to women but discriminates against those who have been widowed.”
Five months down the line, i feel had there been no Barkha,
who hit the road in a car for about 90 days across several states, we would certainly
be devoid of a narrative that could have buried with the virus one day. She
says, “As a journalist, you can’t give in to the fear. We signed up to do this.
This is the biggest story of our lifetimes. How can we sit it out because we’re
scared? The most depressing part is talking to the children of the migrants.
When you ask a child, do you get food? He says: I get food when the NGO comes
and gives. The mother is domestic help, the memsahib has said don’t come to
work. There’s no money, so there’s no data on phones. There’s no data, so
there’s no online classes. It has wrenched open an existing class divide, and
it makes a certain class too uncomfortable. You have to tell a good story so
people will care about it despite themselves, despite their guilt, despite
their discomfort.”
Writing as a tool for women emancipation and empowerment started
long back in the 18th century. Today, we all know how Mary
Wollstonecraft’s ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ in 1792 set the foundation
stone of feminism in literature. But what about her contemporary women
journalists? Not many have read Anne Royall (1769-1854), or her life. Royall,
the first professional woman journalist who forced the US President (John
Quincy Adams, the 6th President) to give her an interview, turned a
rebel, as her in-laws had denied her property shortly after her husband’s
untimely death.
In Washington DC with her petition for a federal pension as
widow of an American Revolution veteran to the Congress, she could convince the
President to support her plea in 1824. A new law for pension was passed in 1848
to her favour. But in between, she carried on writing books and started a
newspaper, Paul Pry in 1831, two
years after she had been termed a “public nuisance, a common brawler and a
common scold” by the court for writing against the Presbyterian church. She was
to be punished the medieval way of ducking stool but fined $10 instead.
Incidentally, the $10 penalty was paid by two reporters of Washington’s The National Intelligencer, as she had
been known among the press circles by then.
Till her death in 1854, she consistently faced financial
woes as her battle was not only with the state and hostile advertisers but also
with postmen who used to deny mailing of her newspaper to subscribers. Don’t we
see the similar pattern in our digital world? Have we changed much? Are not the
so-called social media heroes pleading others to attack women journalists? Ask Mumbai-based
independent journalist Rana Ayyub, who wrote the book, The Gujarat Files, based on her investigation into the 2002 riots. She
routinely calls out the current dispensation on policy and governance. She has
come often under violent trolling from right-wing handles determined to drown
her voice.
But what happened on April 22, 2018, with Ayyub, was
terrible. Someone attributed a false tweet to her on the Kathua gang-rape, and
opened the troll floodgates. Journalist Rituparna Chatterjee, quoting her,
writes that it almost broke her, and she had to go to the hospital for an
emergency health check-up. “I couldn’t sleep for three nights. I couldn’t talk,
I couldn’t believe what was happening. I was numb. My parents called me to see
if I was OK,” Ayyub says. “The trolls posted my phone number, the address of my
house online.” She feared for her safety. “If this is the depth of their
hatred, what will stop them from coming into my house as a mob and kill me?” She
decided enough was enough. Accompanied by lawyer Vrinda Grover, Ayyub filed a
criminal complaint at New Delhi’s Saket police station four days later on April
26. But her ordeal hadn’t ended. A policeman at the cybercrime cell asked Grover,
“Why she did not file the complaint at a police station in the area in which
she first saw the fake tweet?” After much persuasion by her lawyer, the police
accepted the complaint and promised to send it for further investigation to the
special cell.
“I’ve been trolled before, but I have never faced anything
like this. I don’t know what else I have to fear after this. There are marches
when people are killed. I’m repeatedly telling the state that I’m under attack
and I fear for my safety. Will they take action only after something happens?”
she asks Chatterjee.
From Anne Royall to Rana Ayyub – the mutiny goes on for 200
years. It’s a mutiny against patriarchal hegemony thrust upon a woman at every
step yet a journalist’s storytelling goes unabated withstanding such
mutilations and humiliations every day. In the process, sometimes we get stories
like Rukmini Callimachi’s historical take on Yazidi sex slaves of Islamic State
terrorists in March 2016. Sometimes, we lose a journalist like Kim Wall whose
mutilated body, practically just the torso, washed ashore 11 days after she had
gone missing while interviewing Danish inventor Peter Madsen in August 2017 on
board the scientist’s submarine. Madsen claimed that Wall had fallen down a set
of stairs, but an autopsy revealed that she had been stabbed numerous times,
including at least 14 wounds to her genitals. Footage of women being tortured
and mutilated was also found on Madsen’s hard drive.
In an essay for The
Guardian, Wall’s reporting partner, Italy-based Caterina Clerici argues that
her death should not be used to blame women or exclude them from this sort of
reporting.
But it does reanimate the fears many female journalists swallow or otherwise
suppress. US-based independent journalist Liana Aghajanian says, “When you read
about Kim Wall, your worst fears get confirmed. I think back to every situation
I’ve been in, even in the US: getting into a car with someone, visiting someone
in their home. Every instance is one where what happened to Kim could happen to
you. As journalists, we all want access. We want to go in that submarine. But
at what risk do we get that access?”
Risk is something that has made a news reporter’s job, over
the past few years, one among the five most stressful jobs worldwide according
to several studies. However, journalists every day risk their lives to get to
the bottom of a story. I think the Yazidi sex slave story
of 2016 by Callimachi, a Romanian-American, is a seminal one in gender studies in
journalism as a woman from an ultra-modern city travels at least thrice to war-ravaged
Iraq and Syria to gather details of tormented ones and interview them for a
story in world’s one of the most respected and widely read newspapers, New York Times. It not only lets a woman
journalist to explore the intricacies of sex slave trade of a different
religion in a different region and culture but also depicts deep-rooted
discrimination against children and women – marginalised to the horizon in a
troubled time terrorised by fanatics of Islamic State.
More than a year after the story was published, Callimachi
writes, “Being a woman was helpful. I say that with caution, because some of
the most revealing and sensitive stories on rape have been done by my male
colleagues: Jeffrey Gettleman on male rape in eastern Congo and Adam Nossiter
on the rapes inside of a soccer stadium in Guinea, for example. Both stories
put important issues on the map. But I could get these girls to open up by
telling them, Somebody very close to me, in my own family, was gang-raped as a
teenager. I was raised with her story. I’d tell them they should not suffer any
shame for what happened to them. It was not their fault. I tried to make it
clear to them that what they’re about to describe is something quite personal
to me, given my family’s history, and I do not come at this with some morose
curiosity.”
On one hand, women journalists across continents are coming
up with such narratives that have usually, and to some extent deliberately, been
untouched for ages while on the other, they are waging an everyday battle
against various levels of the system to leave an indelible mark in the society.
It’s no longer only a struggle for women to get the desired space that is long
overdue but also to work successfully within that space. Some battles are
easily won but several others are not. And, here comes the role of editors in
the newsroom. In Callimachi’s words, “My editor has been Doug Schorzman. He was
really instrumental because when I pitched the story there was significant
pushback from other elements in the newsroom. This is a story that has already
been done. We know about the Yazidi rape victims; what are you going to say
that’s new? Doug is the father of two young girls. I’m not sure he would
describe himself this way, but I see him as a feminist. He really had my back
and rallied for me to do this piece.”
For any news organisation, it helps to highlight several
issues if the editor understands the reality of marginalised Other – from women
to gays, from transgender to queer. If a newspaper is run by women in the top,
as in my case at present, it’s great to have different voices both in print and
newsroom. In July 2009, I was working with Kolkata’s largest English daily that
came up with a graphic portraying the chief minister and senior bureaucrats wearing
sari, as they apparently could not do much for West Bengal.

One of the first
critics was my university professor who wrote on my Facebook wall: “What’s the
big deal about that sexist graphic? Is that all you have to say? It doesn’t
make me proud that I was once your teacher and that you did my gender classes.
Maybe (I) am a total failure or is this what being a savvy cool journalist
means?” Why i am quoting her verbatim is not to defend myself, which I could
never do before I was unfriended, but the real reason is that there was no
woman involved while the graphic was ideated. It’s needless to say sane and
sensible male voices like me were also not heard.
Today, 11 years down the line, a graphic with such gender
discrimination will hardly be conceptualised in a mainstream media, as the
space has not shrunk for women rather myriad avenues on social media have been
created for her to talk and raise the voice for a mutiny. And, even if
something of this sort happens, journalists within the organisation will
protest, as has recently happened with Shantashree Sarkar, who quit an English
news channel on September 8 over ethical questions, as being asked to suit the
patriarchal propaganda of its misogynist owner-editor. She writes, “I am
finally putting out on social media. I have quit (I’m not naming the channel)
for ethical reasons. I am still under notice period but I just can't resist
today to throw light upon the aggressive agenda being run by (the channel) to
vilify #RheaChakraborty. High time I speak out! I was taught #journalism to
unearth truth. In #shushant case, I was asked to take out details of everything
but not truth... Of course it didn’t suit (their) agenda... Then I witnessed
how my colleagues started harassing any random people who visited Rhea’s
apartment... They thought shouting & pulling a woman’s cloth will make them
relevant in the channel! As I was dealing with trauma of how wrong this story
is getting reported and how a woman is shamed publicly, I was punished for not
bringing out biased stories by making me work round the clock as a punishment.
I worked for 72 hours straight without rest. Whatever stories I have done so
far, I can proudly say, there was never any bias. When time came for me to sell
my morals to vilify a woman, I took a stand finally.”
This mutiny will continue even as women are mutilated in
news or newsrooms. Out of such conflicts, a new perspective in journalism will emerge.