The police and the press
Neither are they governed by immutable laws. One may devise a number of palliatives and theories being divorced from the salutary corrective of practical application. However, the more one appreciates the complex nature of the everyday dealings between the police and the press, the further into the realms of impracticability does the prospect of any grandiose plan recede.
Relationship and attitude
In Bangladesh, in the absence of official guidance from higher quarters, each police unit has been left on its own to evolve its policy towards the press. While this may be seen as a desirable flexibility, the lack of uniformity is disconcerting to journalists, who are apt to regard it as inconsistency. It is not surprising, therefore, that the relationship has often been an uneasy one, amounting to no more than a compromise.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. The attitude of police officers towards the press varies considerably. Some favour a wide exploitation of press publicity as an aid to police work. There are others who believe that efficiency is still compatible with functioning unobtrusively in the background. Not unnaturally, the dealings of these officers with the press are characterised by an underlying wariness. However, in deciding which is likely to be most beneficial to the public, we should not perhaps lightly dismiss the views of these officers who are not wholly enthusiastic with regard to press publicity, for many of them are ripe in police experience.
Some causes of antipathy
The antipathy to the press felt by some of the police has its roots in the past and even a cursory examination of the earliest dealings between the two parties makes this apparent. For a change if one ventures into English experience, one finds that the advent of the "New Police" in 1829 in London was greeted with derisive and scurrilous antagonism by the less reputable newspapers, while even the better-class journals manifested anti-police sentiments. Newspapers of the day reflected the enmity felt towards the police, and gave prominence to anti-police resolutions passed at meetings of London vestries and parishioners, and to the vituperations of London magistrates, who ridiculed policemen attending court and maligned the whole police establishment.
The press in London assailed the police for unnecessary interference, and, paradoxically, took them to task for not effecting arrests in cases of assault and not suppressing such nuisances as pavement-loiterers and singers of indecent ballads. Although errors are incidental to the first days of any big organisation, the greatest delight was taken in chronicling the mistakes of the police. To this may be added the quoting of malicious rumours, the exaggerating of defects, and a ridiculing of the police generally, and thus it will be appreciated that a newspaper campaign was in full swing, even then. The police probably suffered to a greater extent than any other institution from the alternating favour and disfavour of the population.
Watch over the watchers
There is no denying that it is a proper function of the press to keep a close watch on all public services and ventilate any legitimate complaints. When the fierce light of publicity is focused on some phase of police work, quite often the resultant criticism is largely destructive without appreciating an alternative curse that could have been pursued. One may have to agree that the press is not always qualified to pass judgement, for, in policing, the onlooker does not see most of the game. Some parts of police work have to be performed in secret and there are times when it would be unwise for the police to reveal their reasons for taking a particular line of action.
The press, in its self-appointed role of public watch-dog, accords chastening publicity to the defections of policemen, especially when one of them has committed a crime. However, individual faults often give rise to insinuations or innuendos concerning the police service in general. Resentment is felt when a conscientious policeman doing his duty incurs unjust and scathing criticism which is prominently reported. The need is then felt for some action to ensure that the true facts receive a publicity equal to that afforded to the original strictures.
The approach to news
With the ascendancy of proprietors, most newspapers are commercial undertakings. Profit often determines a newspaper's attitude towards events and the manner in which it selects, treats, and presents its news and views. This perspective perhaps largely explains why the press and police sometimes follow diverging paths.
The first requisite of a modern newspaper is that it should be interesting. At present dullness is seen as a sin. It is unfortunate from that point of view, therefore, that in real life truth is not often stranger than fiction. Even when there is no actual departure from truth, distortion is sometimes achieved by adroit use of headlines, the subtle juxtaposition of paragraphs, or tortuous seeking after some new "angle." At times, individuals, and organisations are discredited by means of "emotionally toned" words which arouse in the reader a biased emotional attitude.
It is a depressing reflection, that because vice is hot news and virtue is not, crime, immorality, scandal and sensationalism are sure aids to increased popularity. Whether rise in the level of education of readers will eventually result in a higher standard of journalism may be debated but meanwhile sensational -- is bound to have an adverse effect on the young people, and adults of low mental or moral standards. Since a big proportion of criminals are drawn from these ranks, the press bears an inescapable responsibility in the matter.
Problem of furnishing information
When police adopt an attitude of extreme secretiveness, the pressmen undoubtedly secure information by devious methods. Having elicited facts by tactics, journalist may find themselves at liberty to publish them in a manner which, although not amounting to an infraction of the law, would be thoroughly unsatisfactory from a police point of view. Therefore, some police officers follow the practice of providing such facts as can be safely made public, lest misleading information be published.
Opinions vary considerably as to how much information should be revealed with regard to undetected crime. As such, interviews range from a battle of wits, with bluff and reticence to completely frank "off-the-record" disclosures. Obviously, in the adoption of former modus operandi, the situation bristles with problems. Experience in such situation is the mentor. If publicity is likely to jeopardise police action, details are withheld; if not, they may be furnished. Above all, it has to be borne in mind that reports received from civilian complainants must be treated as confidential.
The principal complaints of the press are that information is withheld until it has lost its "news value" and that when it is divulged it is usually too scanty. Both complaints arise largely from the fact that, because the functions of the police and the press do not coincide, the parties view crime from different standpoints. In the interest of justice, the police often find it imperative to impose a safety-margin of time or information or both. If it so turns out that police erred on the side of caution, no recriminations are justified because policemen are not endowed with previsions. This needs to be appreciated. The objective should be to create a situation where the police reveal to the accredited representatives of newspapers the maximum amount of information about all crimes, stipulate which should not be reported and explain why, and then leave the treatment of the facts entirely to the press, subject to there being no distortion.
The press and crime prevention
In addition to aiding in the pursuit of criminals, the press contributes to the prevention of crime. By publishing accounts of offences, newspapers underline the need to take precautions and newspaper accounts of court proceedings mentioning penalties inflicted acts as deterrent.
Enterprising police forces in the Western countries have utilised press publicity with the object of informing the public how they can protect their own interests and inviting them to co-operate with the police. Whether we like it or not, police work has now become inextricably bound up with the activities of the press, particularly newspapers. Indeed, social conditions have so changed that the police could not function efficiently without the support and co-operation of the press. The increased complexity of modern life has created far more opportunities for committing crime, while greater mobility has rendered the chances of escape correspondingly easier. The police are realizing that new conditions demand new methods and there is a pressing need of intelligent and judicious use of the press.
Co-operation between police and press
Frictions occur by the ultra-cautions attitude of policemen, who, uncertain of the rights of pressmen, have forbidden them access to a particular place or prevented them from taking a photograph of something. The policemen need to be enlightened of their powers by means of suitable instruction in the curriculum of training classes.
Securing authorisation of official access by pressmen to information of legitimate public interest has been a thorny issue in every society. The requirement can be diversely interpreted and it is unlikely that the police and the press will always interpret the phrase in the same way.
The power of the press to allay public uneasiness and promote confidence has been abundantly proved. The press exercises a choice of inflaming public opinion or calming it, of exacerbating differences between the police and the people or minimising them.
It can so mould public opinion that the police receive a great measure of help and co-operation from the public. To undermine the authority of the police is to imperil peace and therefore police should make a determined and sustained effort to induce all newspapers to translate into reality the claim of the press to be a partner with the law in safeguarding the orderly society.
The personal element
Perhaps the most effective way of ensuring a complementary relationship between the press and the police is to pay particular attention to the personal aspect of relationship. It becomes evident that the personal element obtrudes itself into every stage of the dealings between the two organisations. If maximum amount of information for the press is to reach the appropriate quarter in the minimum time, then the closest harmony must prevail internally. Persons eminently suitable for the duties may compensate for imperfect arrangements. Fault personnel can vitiate the most carefully planned schemes.
If the unit head treats journalists considerately, his subordinates will assuredly act in consonance. There may be occasion when a police officer, harassed by his manifold and emergent duties, is brusque towards the energetic reporter but the ideal should be to treat journalists as unofficial public servants.
The needs of an orderly society would be better served by a closer identity of interests between the police and the press. This is in line with the evolving role of the press as an independent and impartial public service. Meanwhile, the obvious needs are simultaneously to maximise the efficiency and public spiritedness of both the police and the press; to instill into the public a high sense of citizenship; and to weld the police, press and public into a powerful and cohesive trinity. In this way an effective bulwark against crime and disorder can be created and public peace fully maintained throughout the country.
In Bangladesh, the manifest reality is that the police needs the press more than the press needs them. In fact, for the police to salvage a battered image there could be no better guide and facilitator than the gentlemen and women of the press. This needs to dawn on all ranks of police hierarchy if they are to get from the society what is deservedly theirs.