Posted on The Hoot
The media are guilty of blindly reporting the motivated leaks by the police about Pinki Pramanik’s sex.
Reporters and editors failed to acquaint themselves with the law, says
KALPANA SHARMA.
Posted/Updated
Wednesday, Jul 11 19:56:52, 2012
SECOND TAKE
Kalpana Sharma
The
medal-winning track athlete Pinki Pramanik was granted bail on July 10
after 25 tortuous days in police custody. The charge for which Pramanik
was held was rape – bizarre in itself as it consisted of her live-in
partner, another woman, accusing her of being a man. Yet Pramanik has
been tried over this month by the media and the police for a crime she
did not commit – her supposed androgyny.
Since
June 14, when the athlete was arrested, until her release on bail, one
saw a range of reports and editorials. Given the general lack of
sensitivity in the media on many issues, much of the reporting, and the
editorials in particular, were surprisingly sensitive and mature. For
instance, despite the Kolkata police treating Pinki as if she were a man
just because she had been accused of being one, the majority of reports
continued to refer to the athlete as “her” and not the ambivalent
“he/she” which would mean they accepted the questions raised about her
gender.
The
editorials raised questions about the absence of understanding and
compassion in Indian society that fails to accommodate people who are
different, who do not fit into dominant norms, as well as the gross
violation of Pinki’s human rights.
Television,
which usually reduces such issues to a generalised discussion that
yields no information, also did surprisingly well. On Face the Nation
(CNN/IBN), Sagarika Ghose raised relevant questions, such as why Pinki
was arrested – and molested – by male policemen, why she was detained in
the male lockup, why she was denied bail and why was she sent for
gender verification tests.
Yet,
every now and then the absence of knowledge on the issue – that people
are often not clearly male or female – came through in the kind of
headlines and copy of news stories. For instance, on July 10, the day
Pinki was granted bail, the India Today website had this
headline: “Pinki Pramanik’s gender test report to be submitted to
Barasat Court today: athlete has male chromosomes, say sources.” The
story goes on to say: “Sources indicated that the report shows Pramanik
having X-Y chromosomes, which pertain to her male status”.
There
are two obvious problems with this story. First, given the on-going
confusion about the gender verification tests, what is the point in
quoting “sources” about Pinki having “male chromosomes”.
Secondly,
it is evident that neither the reporter, nor the editor that dealt with
this copy, is aware that many individuals have XY chromosomes but are
not necessarily male. They could have a condition called Androgen
Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) where despite the chromosomal composition,
their bodies do not clearly exhibit physical attributes of a male and
they grow up as females. In other instances, despite XX chromosomes that
would identify them as females, they appear masculine and could grow up
as males. This is an inter-sex condition. Such people should not be
penalised for the physiological confusion in their bodies. So, if
journalists are fed information emanating from a so-called “gender
verification test”, they should know that this in itself does not settle
the issue.
In
fact, women athletes who do exceptionally well in track events, or in
events like weight lifting for instance, where their levels of endurance
are considered “unnatural” for women, are often suspected either of
taking performance-enhancing drugs or being “male”. There is a long
history of the battles fought by women athletes, including India. In
Pinki’s case, no one raised these questions during her medal-winning
period. She has been in virtual retirement for the last five years. And
suddenly, her sex has come into question and is being “discovered” in
full view of the media by an insensitive police force.
The Pramanik issue will not disappear just yet. But there are several important lessons that the media can draw from it.
Reporters
keen to get a story, especially one as sensational as this, did not
bother to acquaint themselves with the law. Until proven otherwise,
Pinki is a woman. Hence male police cannot arrest her. Nor should she
have been kept in a male lockup. And she certainly cannot be groped in
the manner Pinki was in full view of cameras and the press. Those
covering this story could have questioned the police about this right at
the outset. Even if one argues that it is not a reporter's job to raise
these questions, surely they should have occurred to the seniors at the
news desk and a follow-up story could have been done.
The
media woke up to these aspects only after human rights and LGBT
(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) groups as well as some senior
women athletes began to ask questions. In fact, even the discussion on
the way the police treated Pinki only came up on television channels
once these groups had drawn attention to it. Otherwise, the footage
showing a policeman groping her might have gone unnoticed.
Where
the media went wrong is in reporting the motivated leaks by the police
about Pinki’s sex. The first so-called gender test, taken without her
permission, was clearly the work of an unqualified practitioner. If
reporters had been aware of the difficulties or the unreliability of
such tests, it is possible they would have questioned the policemen who
leaked the information, or not treated it as credible information. In
any case, the media should have been wary of such a police leak and
questioned why the police was doing this. Instead, as it happens with so
much of such inaccurate information that emerges from the police room,
the information is reported as “fact” without any qualifier. By the time
it is contradicted, the damage has already been done.
Finally,
I think this case provides media seniors opportunity to consider
training reporters in what Laxmi Murthy terms the “emerging other” in
her excellent chapter on this subject in the book “Missing: Half the Story, Journalism as if Gender Matters”
(Zubaan, 2010) which I edited. The chapter provides an essential
working knowledge for journalists on issues related to sex and gender,
something that all journalists need to know. After all, the reporters
assigned the Pinki case were your run-of-the-mill crime reporters. They
would probably assume that they need not know about AIS, or inter-sex,
or the difference between transgender and transsexual. But it is this
kind of basic information that has now become essential for all
journalists. This is the single-most important lesson to take away from
the Pinki Pramanik issue for the media.
I give below some useful articles and links that have emerged in the last month:
No way to treat a human, Economic and Political Weekly, July 14, 2012, http://www.epw.in/editorials/no-way-treat-human.html
Restore Pinki’s dignity, The Hindu, July 5, 2012, http://www.epw.in/editorials/no-way-treat-human.html
Gender Controversy: Run, Pinki run, Times of India, June 20, 2012, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-20/off-the-field/32334540_1_santhi-soundarajan-gender-afi/2
The right to our bodies by Gautam Bhan, Times of India, July 9, 2012, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-20/off-the-field/32334540_1_santhi-soundarajan-gender-afi/2
(To read the original, click here)
No comments:
Post a Comment