Charge of sensationalism unfounded

---

Nilratan Halder | Published: January 31, 2015 00:00:00 | Updated: January 30, 2015 18:20:30

---

Do the media sensationalise? A few of them certainly do but the majority belonging to the mainstream take a prudent approach even when there is a clear temptation for the same. What is happening in the name of political activism in Bangladesh hardly needs any sensationalism. When politics go berserk and directly victimise the common people like it is done here, there is no need for dramatisation or sensationalism. Each incident of arson, petrol bomb attack has produced an inferno-like sight and claimed lives -some of them children of tender age. Even the simplest of descriptions of what happened and how it happened can produce conflicting emotions.
The first reaction is, of course, sadness and a feel for the victims mixed with frustration and anger on account of not knowing how to do so and also how to prevent any recurrence. The big players who are moving the pawns in order to get the better of each other could not care less. When a fear psychosis is haunting the entire length and breadth of the country, people are prisoners in the sub-jail politicians have turned the land into. In a 'hush hush' condition, whatever happens on a proportion of so violent and terrifying needs no sensationalism or overdoing.
A mere picture of a burning bus or a charred body of a man or a child can produce an overpowering nauseating feeling in a sensitive human being. And these are people most unlikely to have anything to do with the brand of politics the country's most powerful parties are now pursuing. At the first indication of violence on the part of protesters, Mahatma Gandhi abandoned his non-cooperation movement at Chauri Chaura. In the incident three civilians and 23 policemen were killed. He was called Mahatma not for nothing. He knew where non-violence commanded more power than violence.
And what this country is now witnessing is not even violence. It is pure and simple act of terrorism. Political violence needs two parties to take place. Here there are clandestine bomb attacks on innocent people who do not have any link to the political rivalry. Given the choice, they would rather stay away from voting rather than embroil in nasty politics. Yet they are being targeted for the cruellest of attacks. What is their fault? That they came out on the street to travel by a bus or other vehicle cannot be a crime. If the blockade is for an indefinite period, is it humanly possible to stay indoor?
These are common people who have to get out for livelihoods or on different errands in order to keep their body and soul together. And nowhere in the world can anyone oppose anyone's free movement. If someone does it, it is deemed to be an infringement in human rights. The question of killing people the way it is done here now does not even arise. If a political party cannot master enough moral support for its movement, the fault squarely lies with it not with the common people who tend to avoid conflict and violence.
There is no use blaming the media for sensationalism. In fact the media are playing a responsible role. There is no attempt to exaggerate facts or fabrication of the occurrence. Sometimes journalists try to add some human touch only to appeal to the conscience of all who are involved in the heinous acts and all others who have grown apathy towards such tragic incidents. Sure enough there is a danger of things turning business as usual in regular eye contact with such terrifying sights.
Yes, people get used to things that are repeated but then the fault does not lie with the media. Such incidents do not happen anywhere in the world and with such frequencies. The disease is there and it has to be cured. There is no point asking the media not to report on the spread of the disease. The authorities know it well enough why the operation against the arsonists and bomb attackers is not being successful.
If the unusual situation serves both sides well, the complaint that politics has stooped too low to get on its feet again looks justified. The country could have done better if only politicians could differentiate between politics and violence, between individual rights and collective well-being and between partisan politics and national politics.