Media should reflect public sentiments. However, if it
plays along every expression of public sentiment, public
interest will not be served. In the long run, such acts
may destroy credibility of the media.
The tiger scare in Wayanad is a case in point. The scare
about tiger killing cattle was preceded by reports about
increase in population of tigers in Wayanad sanctuary.
There was also talk about the Sanctuary being declared a
tiger reserve, resulting in stricter enforcement of the
rules. Then, a tiger killed some cattle.
Some vested interests made use
of the situation and spread rumors. The media reports
only gave currency to some of the rumors. One report (in
Malayalam) gave a graphic description of an ambush of
tigers hunting cattle taken out for grazing in the
fringes of forests. Another talked of local scare about
a tiger killing a deer in the forests.
What the reporters should have done is some fact
checking and assessment of the stories. First of all,
tigers don’t hunt in streaks. So, the story is either
concocted or exaggerated. It is also notable that
the cattle were admittedly on the fringes of forests. In
the second case, it was all about tiger killing a deer
within the forests. Though it is a usual and natural
occurrence, the reporter presented the story as if a
tiger killing the deer inside the forests was a matter
of great concern.
By
filing such reports, journalists were playing into the
hands of vested interests— who included encroachers and
resort owners and people grazing cattle inside the
forests besides politicians who wanted to take advantage
of the situation. Many chose to report the complex issue
in a superficial manner causing much damage to the cause
of conservation. The unprofessional handling of the
situation by the Forest Department added to the problem.
It
appears that a single tiger had caused the whole
problem. It might have moved on to the fringes of the
forests because of ill health, possibly compounded by
increased population of tigers. The Forest Department
captured the tiger and released it into the forest.
According to media reports that looked into the matter
in depth, it was the same tiger which was later shot
dead by the Department officials.
The Department conducted postmortem on the dead tiger
and the tiger reportedly had lost canine teeth and had
difficulty in breathing, affecting its capability to
hunt. Such a tiger should never have been released into
the forest after the first capture. A misjudgment in
this regard from the part of the forest officials and
public pressure eventually led to the killing of the
tiger.
The killing of the tiger caused a backlash, with
environmental activists protesting. A section of the
media played this also up. The net effect was the
neutralising of some of the mileage gained by vested
interests. However, the fact ignored by all was
that the tiger could not have survived in the forests in
any case, if devoid of opportunity to hunt domesticated
animals. So, its death need not have been treated as
important beyond a point justified by its immediate new
value.
|