Aashish Mishra

The famous Indian author Arundhati Roy once said that no one was truly voiceless. People are either silenced or unheard but not voiceless. Acknowledging that she might have said in a different context to mean a different thing, this statement, or “quote” to put it romantically, is particularly poignant to journalists around the world.
From the very first day, reporters are taught that they are the voice of the voiceless. We believe it, internalise it and take it as a matter of pride that we speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. But doesn’t it seem arrogant, pretentious almost to consider that our sources are mute and we are the only ones capable enough to give them a speech? By saying that we speak on behalf of someone, we put ourselves in a higher position than our sources. We empower ourselves instead of the people whose stories we are presenting. The thought is that there is a helpless section of the population that needs benevolent reporters to communicate for them.
And, to be absolutely honest, how many times are journalists being the voice of the voiceless anyway? In fact, one could argue that reporters give more voice to the voiceful. News stories routinely give space to the same powerful people – ministers, lawmakers, bureaucrats, experts.
But coming back to the focus of the article of giving voice to the voiceless, we must realise and respect that everyone has something to say and the ability to say it, especially in today’s internet age. We are not giving voice to anyone. What we are doing, or rather should be doing, is becoming microphones for the ones who have a softer voice. We are not enabling people to speak; we are enabling them to be heard.
Let us consider the women’s rights movement of recent days. The people leading the front are not silent, were never silent. By covering them, the media did not give them a voice, but called attention to the powerful and eloquent words that had previously not been heard or preferably ignored.
To reiterate, journalists are not tongues to the mute, they are amplifiers to the ignored. And to be effective amplifiers, journalists must cover a story completely and effectively. We must not report issues on an ad hoc basis – a protest here, an incident there. No! We must follow it relentlessly and continuously as long as the issue lasts and as long as the soft-spoken need a microphone to amp up their volume.
Also, to be able to amplify voices, a reporter must first listen. They must sit down with their sources and really listen to the story, not question, not probe, just listen. After listening and understanding where the person is coming from, then only can the reporter develop proper questions, frame the proper angle and verify and balance the story appropriately. Of course, this requires multiple days and multiple sittings. Listening is not interviewing. We cannot go in, ask questions, get answers and start writing. Listening is hard and time-consuming. But if we truly wish to live up to our journalistic ideals of giving voice to the voiceless, or as we must now say, amplifying the voices of those unheard, we must do this.
To sum up, to call people ‘voiceless’ instead of ‘overlooked’ or ‘unheard’ ignores nuance. It gives the impression that some people are inherently unable to speak up rather than faulting society and/or the authorities for not hearing their yells. It disregards suppressed communities’ agency by saying that they need someone to hold their hand, that someone being media. The notion of “voiceless” does nothing to advance the media profession or the news stories media personnel cover.