Media Ethics and Long-Term Consequences

 Media Ethics and Long-Term Consequences

Aju varikkad 

The Dileep case is not just the story of a criminal case. It became an important incident that forced the media in Kerala to seriously examine its ethics and sense of responsibility. In the strong urge to uncover the truth, this case made both journalists and the public question whether the basic principles of justice were being followed properly. One major issue highlighted by this case is the fall in journalistic standards due to intense competition among media organisations. In the race for exclusive news and higher viewership—especially while competing with online portals—even established media houses at times presented assumptions and unverified information as facts. This badly affected the credibility of news reporting.

The manner in which Dileep’s arrest and investigation were reported also challenged a fundamental principle of the justice system: “innocent until proven guilty.” Much of the media coverage treated him as guilty even before the trial had begun. At the same time, while mainstream media created largely one-sided narratives, newer platforms such as YouTube gave space to alternative versions of the story. The YouTube interview of the second accused, Martin Antony, is a clear example. It presented a detailed counter-narrative that traditional media either ignored or could not access. While this questioned the traditional media’s role as information “gatekeepers,” it also exposed the serious risk of spreading unverified information.

Overall, this case raises many serious questions about media ethics. Did the media fail to maintain a balance between protecting the survivor’s privacy and dignity, respecting the human rights of the accused, and fulfilling the public’s right to information? Is it ethically correct to publish unconfirmed information received from the police during the investigation stage, or to turn personal lives into public spectacle for the sake of ratings? In short, this case clearly shows how easily the media can portray a person as a villain or a hero, and how deeply such portrayals can influence public opinion. While supporting justice, the media must ensure that emotion does not override reason, and that future reporting in similar cases is carried out with greater restraint, fairness, and objectivity.