An Open Letter to Sikkim’s Media Houses: The Danger of “Few-Second” Journalism

People Should Be Well-Informed, Not Half-Informed

A few seconds of video can create outrage, anger, and public condemnation. But can a few seconds of video tell the whole story?

Recently, Sikkim has witnessed multiple incidents where short viral clips have dominated public discussion before the complete facts became available. The concern is not whether one side is right or wrong. The concern is whether the public is receiving the full picture.

A question we rarely ask is: What happened before the camera started recording?

In the North Sikkim incident involving Army personnel and a driver, media channels widely circulated the video showing the altercation. Public anger followed immediately. The driver’s version of events received extensive attention, and many people formed strong opinions based on what they saw. However, when the Army later filed a counter FIR and presented its version of events, many media outlets only briefly reported that a counter complaint had been lodged.

Where were the detailed reports explaining why the counter complaint was filed? Where was the effort to examine what allegedly happened before the video began? The public was shown one side repeatedly, while the other side received comparatively little attention.

Whether one agrees with the driver’s version or the Army’s version is not the point. The point is simple: a society cannot reach fair conclusions when it is given only half the story.

The same pattern appears to be emerging in the recent Rinchenpong PHC incident. A short video is circulating, emotions are running high, condemnations are being made, and social media has already begun passing judgment. Yet the complete facts are still not fully known.

This is dangerous because once public opinion is formed, facts often struggle to catch up. A misleading headline can travel across the state in minutes. A partial video can reach thousands of people in hours. But when additional facts emerge later, very few pay attention. By then, the damage may already have been done.

In this context, the statement made by HMLA Erung Lepcha deserves appreciation. He urged people to understand the entire sequence of events and requested media houses to report accurately and responsibly. He also pointed out that conflicting descriptions of the incident were creating confusion among the public.

This is not about defending any individual. It is about ensuring that facts, not emotions, guide public opinion. Seeking the full story is not taking sides. Asking questions is not defending wrongdoing. Waiting for facts is not supporting one party over another. It is simply being fair.

Lastly, I would like to make a humble request to our media houses and news platforms. The public greatly values the work you do in bringing important issues to light. At the same time, when new facts, responses, or developments emerge after an incident goes viral, I hope those updates can receive the same attention and visibility as the initial reports.

I also hope that, wherever possible, stories are followed through to their conclusion so that the public receives not only the first version of events but the most complete and accurate picture available. Giving space to all relevant facts and perspectives can help people understand an issue in its entirety rather than through a single moment captured on camera.

Many people form their opinions based on the information available to them. Therefore, the more complete the information, the better informed the public will be.

A viral video shows a moment. An investigation reveals a story. And the difference between the two can be enormous.

Because a half-informed society is easily misled. A well-informed society is empowered.

The choice is ours.

A Concerned Citizen
Rikzing Norbu Dorjee Bhutia