Ethics of Journalism
Serving What Sells, Ignoring What Society Needs
Anil Kumar Sharma
Taste and liking have slowly begun to dominate our choices, often at the cost of originality and truth. What appeals to us instantly tends to overshadow what is genuinely good for us, and in that quiet shift lies a deeper concern for society. This thought came to me during a simple moment while sitting in a well known restaurant, where on asking the chef what he serves, he replied with disarming honesty that they serve what people like to taste. When asked about health, he added that they try to balance it with better ingredients. The reply was simple, yet it reflected a larger reality, not just about food, but about the way our preferences are shaping the world around us.
What we like is rarely aligned with what is right. A healthy life demands discipline and restraint, choices that may not suit our taste but serve our well being. There was a time when our homes carried this wisdom effortlessly, where food was simple, nourishing, and yet full of flavour and authenticity. Today, that balance is fading as preference overtakes prudence, and what sells begins to dominate what sustains.
This very shift is visible in the media landscape of our times, where increasingly what is served is not what society needs to know, but what it prefers to consume. Sensationalism becomes the flavour, perception becomes the product, and truth quietly recedes into the background. The race is no longer for accuracy, but for attention, not for credibility, but for visibility.
In our surroundings, we see another disturbing trend taking shape. Many of our public representatives today are accompanied by their own set of so called media persons who follow them closely, capturing every movement and gesture. Each act is carefully recorded and presented as a display of sincerity towards the people they represent. What should have been a natural extension of public service often appears as a staged performance, designed to create an impression rather than reflect reality. Every visit, every interaction, every announcement is framed with an eye on its impact, where perception quietly begins to overshadow truth.
This reminds us of what we have read in history about royal courts, where courtiers played a significant role in shaping the image of the ruler. The idea of navratans symbolised wisdom, yet it also reflected a system where narratives were crafted to glorify authority. What was recorded often suited the throne rather than presenting the lived reality of the people. The resemblance to our present times is striking, where perception is carefully constructed and presented as reality.
Today, individuals are increasingly singled out, not always in pursuit of truth, but often to settle personal or political rivalries. Muscle power and money begin to influence the script, while those holding microphones assume the role of performers rather than responsible journalists. Words are chosen not with care, but with intent to provoke, to influence, and at times to tarnish reputations. A perspective is repeatedly projected until it begins to appear as reality, and in this process individuals who may genuinely carry a vision to serve society find themselves targeted by narratives that are designed rather than discovered.
This is not journalism, it is construction. It is the crafting of perception in a manner that suits certain interests while ignoring the broader consequences on society. The rapid rise of self styled media voices has diluted the credibility of the profession. Without clear standards, ethical grounding, or accountability, visibility is often mistaken for authenticity. What trends is accepted as truth, and what is loud is assumed to be relevant. Yet what sells is not always what is right, and what appeals is not always what is true.
When narratives are driven purely by demand without regard for their impact, they gradually weaken the foundation of an informed society. Public opinion is shaped not by understanding but by repetition. Emotions begin to replace reason, and division finds space where dialogue should exist. In such an environment, the ability to distinguish between fact and perception becomes increasingly blurred. This is not just a challenge for journalism, but for society as a whole.
This calls for introspection at multiple levels. Freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of any democratic system, but it cannot exist without responsibility. There is a need to establish clear parameters that define who can claim the space of journalism. Proper registration, background verification, and adherence to ethical standards are essential, not to restrict voices, but to preserve the credibility of those who genuinely seek to inform. Journalism must remain a responsibility, not a platform for unchecked expression driven by personal or commercial interests.
At the same time, the responsibility also lies with us. Just as we must be careful about what we eat, we must be equally mindful of what we consume in thought. A society that feeds only on what it likes eventually loses the ability to recognise what it needs. An unhealthy diet may satisfy us in the moment, but it weakens us over time. In the same way, a constant exposure to sensationalism and half truths may engage us briefly, but it erodes our collective judgement and understanding.
The question before us is simple, yet deeply significant. Are we willing to move beyond what merely appeals to us and seek what truly strengthens us. Because in the end, both in food and in thought, it is not taste alone that sustains us, it is truth and originality that give us strength and direction.
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE. Columnist | Former Banker | Social Commentator. Email: anil.kumar.sharma9419@gmail.com)
