Coronavirus and the media: In times of crisis, a democracy needs a free press more than ever

Should the government have the power to curb the media in the face of a pandemic? As the casualty count from the coronavirus grows, this is a question India faces. The answer: preventing journalists from reporting inconvenient facts may comfort a government that fears criticism, but it makes the public less safe.

In an established democracy like the United States, this would be too banal to bear repeating. India, however, is passing through uncertain times. Earlier this week, the Modi government approached the Supreme Court in an attempt to “prevent fake and inaccurate reporting whether intended or not” which could “cause panic in the society”. This followed reports of migrant workers in the thousands streaming out of cities on foot amidst the country’s 21 day lockdown to slow the spread of the virus.

While urging the media to “maintain a strong sense of responsibility”, the Supreme Court wisely declined to interfere with a free discussion of the pandemic. Nonetheless, the government’s move raises an issue worth discussing. In a time of fear and foreboding, might it make sense to rein in journalists?

The crisis unfolding in the US informs this debate. News channels around the world flash deficiencies in America’s battle against the virus daily. If you are not hiding in a cave, you probably know that the US faces a shortage of N-95 masks and protective equipment for doctors and nurses. Experts debate whether the country’s testing effort is robust enough. Reporters uncover terrifying tales of trauma and despair in hospitals. Each day the toll mounts – more than a thousand people died just on Thursday.

To those with an authoritarian bent, the US comes across as chaotic and unprepared. Contrast this with China, which claims to have contained the spread of the virus with a combination of tough government measures and intrusive technology. Indeed, after setting off the wildfire raging across the world China is now busy playing global firefighter by sending doctors and medical equipment abroad. Their leaders do this without any worries about pesky reporters poking holes in their claims.

In the freedom of its media India, like many countries, falls somewhere in between the US and China. India is not an authoritarian country, but it is increasingly a democracy with quasi-authoritarian characteristics. The prime minister hands down pronouncements from up high. No reporter dares to interrogate him the way their American counterparts grill President Donald Trump almost every day. If you point out weaknesses in India’s fight against the virus – for instance, relatively sparse testing – a social media lynch mob immediately descends upon you.

For those who believe the current situation demands more of the policeman’s stick, the reporter’s pen is part of the problem. They expect journalists to act as cheerleaders for the government, taking each claimed success in the fight against the virus at face value, posing no awkward questions, keeping public morale high by downplaying gloomy prognoses. In this view, the media’s role is not to question the government, but to work shoulder to shoulder with it at a time of crisis.

That the idea of the media as a lapdog rather than a watchdog would appeal to those in power should come as no surprise. But in these uncertain times this appears to appeal to many ordinary Indians as well. In the public imagination, journalism as a profession seems to have lost much of its moral sheen. As politics becomes more tribal, the temptation to shut down critics rather than engage with them grows stronger.

This impulse may be explicable, but it’s also incredibly foolish. At the moment, Indians should not worry that journalists are too pesky, but that they aren’t pesky enough. In a democracy, the best way to solve a problem is to make noise about it. When you silence the media you silence the noise that leads to problems getting fixed.

If you take another look at the US, you see a country consumed not with burnishing its global image but with solving its people’s problems. The heroic efforts underway – to build ventilators, and procure masks and protective gear for healthcare workers – would not have kicked into gear without the efforts of an aggressive media tuned to pointing out problems. Trump may not like this, but he’s powerless to prevent it.

By contrast, we have no idea what is really going on in China. Have about 3,300 people died there as reported, or is the true number ten times larger? What if, hypothetically, the real number of deaths was 330,000? Perhaps this news would eventually become known to the world, like the horrors of Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution ultimately came to light. But would they be known to the average Chinese citizen? Not likely.

Imagine, for a moment, a raging pandemic in India without credible journalists to verify the facts. Rumours would become the only information available. Amidst the uncertainty, fears would grow. The panic in society that any government rightly fears, would be much worse without trusted facts to counter it.

Everyone should wish India well in its war against coronavirus. But if the media is doing its job properly expect a diet of gloom and doom, not of sunny optimism and good cheer. Leave that to party spokespersons, or their equivalents masquerading as journalists.