We are not immoral

It's been a hectic task going through all these lecture-type comments since Friday last. While some made sense, given their honest style and content, most of them were not justified, at all. I would like to point, right from the start that I do not commend sensationalism, neither disrespect for privacy. As rightly pointed out by some of my respected colleagues, I am pleased to be part of this debate, thus claiming for the reinvention of the local media, keeping in mind the constraints we, journalists, face on a hourly basis. 

To those who are suddenly outraged by such a sensational cover, I have classified you into clusters.

1. Against my principles. Yes, it was against mine too. I was never taught to  cross such a line and to disrespect my 'subjects'. I had the same reaction when I saw the words. 

2. The 'golden' ones. I am fed up hearing the same thing over and over again: "The era we lived as reporters where we concentrated on 'real' issues, where there was no Internet, etc." With all due respect, this golden age is over. My generation of reporters has different challenges and shorter deadlines (not to be misunderstood as unprofessionalism).

3. The forbidden but delicious. There's a whole bunch of them who love sensational news. Can even read every single word of such a story. Won't ever complete a double-page spread on environmental issues. The first to deny having an interest in the sensational. 

4. The choosy and moody. I understand it's all about politics. The same newspapers which are the favorite of those in power today, will be criticized by those same people the day after. Critics of sensational in this category are those who, not so long ago, were the center of same.

What happened is incorrect. I take this opportunity to introspect.

Disclaimer: This is not an arrogant post.