CAN JOURNALISTS BE GENEROUS AFTER INTERVIEWS?

It is a common question that bothers me every time I read some touching stories on the media. Whether it is on the tv, on the newspaper or even on the research papers, seldom have I heard of anyone who, despite his profession as a journalist, has been generous enough to improve the interviewee's lifestyle after the heart touching interview is over. Seldom have I heard about these journalists sparing at least some amount of their salary or their travelling expenses to mollify the victim's pain. The same pain that they desperately try to mold into a concrete story. The same pain that they may have shared at some point in their lives. And if they have not, then they can at least feel the burden of going through that pain and as an empathetic animal, in due course of time, develop the attitude of offering invaluable services to the interviewee. 

Let me make my point clear. Most of you understand the acute shortage of staple food like rice in the Karnali zone of Nepal. The story, despite making to the headlines, gets nothing as a reward. On top of that, news  about the scarcity worsening circulates on the national media. The viewers completely blame the government for not paying attention to the crisis. In the aftermath, the government responds by dispatching few tonnes of rice to the target area. In such scenario, most of us realize the problem has been alleviated to a fair amount. But my question is that couldn't the journalists who played a pivotal role in accumulating the details for the general people carry few kilos of rice to distribute after the interview is over? How can a person involved in a selfless service be selfish when it is not a genuine time to be? 

What after the interview?

While oppositions may argue that the service is not possible owing to the profession they are bound to, they forget that there is no harm in carrying simple souvenirs for the interviewee as they will consider even the simplest gifts as an answer to their prayers. They fail to realize that such kinds of actions can become a habit and inspire others to follow the similar path. There is no reason to question the credibility of the required services. 

Imagine few hundred journalists integrating these bonus services to benefit the interviewee. Within a few days, those few hundreds will increase to thousands and then a million. By the time everyone in this planet realizes about this life-changing phenomenon, it will already have turned into a revolution. 

The bottom line about this argument is that as a human, why can we not make it a habit to donate some amount of our money in turning those poor people's dreams to a coveted reality. In another way, it is granting them a little bit of assistance for sharing their untold stories to the world which propel the global community to take immediate action. Such actions are possible because the media company allocates some money for their travel to the difficult rugged plains of the affected area. As it is a duty which cannot be sacrificed, why not bother to put a slight smile on the faces of these people who have been shrouded in a mist of despair. Why should we not bother to show them a possibility of a solution immediately after they have poured all the sufferings to the interviewer? 

I just wish that this chain of offering services will see the light of day and those meager people will appreciate this process of direct assistance and will be adopted by all the interviewers in the world, and not only by the journalists. I just wish...