http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Terror-and-Media-Coverage-Who-will-Bell-the-Cat/2015/12/15/article3177572.ece
By K Kunhikrishnan , Published: 15th December 2015
As soon as news ‘broke’ about the Paris terror attacks on November 13, 2015, I was watching international television coverage on BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, C SPAN (France 24 English TV channel available on C SPAN Web) and Russian TV, apart from Indian English news channels. Global TV news channels were doing wall to wall coverage. There was no single graphic image that was gruesome, terrifying and revolting. There was no repulsive visual of scattered dead bodies or bloodshed, but the brutality was clear and the message perceptible: the attack has shaken the world and the ‘shock value’ was achieved through television.
The broadcasts without a single advertisement fulfilled the responsibility of media for accuracy, balance, fairness and decency. Anchors did not lose their demeanour and poise and reporting was professional in tone, dignity, body language and delivery. They were not anguished and emotional and were professionally detached. International TV channels exhibited a rare and remarkable control over the images, text and voice and avoided sensationalising.
Of course, media coverage of events in the West is skewed compared to that of the developing countries. It was the city of Paris, epitome of liberal values, which was under attack! The carnage victims were from 29 countries. The story was tellingly told despite ‘newer’ news and news-making events unfolding minute by minute. Geographic favouritism for Paris, part of the developed world, was obvious as later, the Mali Hotel attack coverage was minimal.
US Media and 9/11
American media coverage during 11/9/2001 was markedly different from the Paris reporting. It was far from being balanced, objective, calm and fair. TV channels oozed hatred and hysteria, calling for action against mainly Arabs and Muslims crying for revenge (as the terrorists would have planned). Major TV channels whipped up patriotic discourse and policies resulting in dramatic change of public perceptions at government and public levels. “9/11 was used by the media and politicians to promote fear related agendas and ideologies,” says a study (Terrorism and Media: A Dangerous Symbiosis, Arda Bilgen 2012).
TV channels repeated traumatising images and audio, reinforcing again and again by extensive coverage, resulting in unprecedented sensationalism. America became paranoid about “security”. The “safety rhetoric” involved human and electronic surveillance, a common practice. America’s bloated ego was punctured in one stroke. Those who visited the US can differentiate the security checks at airports, prior to and post-9/11 attack. Coverage helped the architects of the terrorist attacks to accomplish their media objectives: Even the US was vulnerable and that terrorists could create havoc any time anywhere! Magnitude of that sensation is inexplicable.
For the terrorists, what they gained through media was unimaginable in terms of reaching global audiences. They achieved worldwide recognition and promoted fear psychosis. Terrorists have systematically used television for propaganda, selectively releasing fearsome videos of excessive cruelty to hostages being tormented and catering to the base elements of viewers.
Indian Channels in Paris
Indian English TV channels covered the Paris carnage. It took an attack on Paris for Indian channels to focus on an international event. More than images and sound of the story, screens were filled with supers, inlays and scrolls. All channels quoted officials of the Indian Embassy in Paris about the safety of Indians in France, interesting Indian viewers. On Saturday, November 14, they telecast discussions on Mumbai terror bloodbath!
26/11 Attacks Coverage
Television news channels have a great role as purveyors of information and as agents of change. News channels have a penchant for striking visuals and terrorist attacks provide ample fodder. Explicit images of horror do not serve public interest and undermine the core values of a democratic society and human dignity. It is for the channels to strike a balance between democratic values, human dignity and public right to know. And these are crucial during a crisis.
But what did Indian News TV channels do during the Mumbai terrorist attack on November 26, 2008? They were all reporting 24x7 ad nauseam for 60+ hours non-stop with abhorring visuals, without balance, fairness and objectivity. They gave out almost minute details of strategy and plans of the security forces, and the terrorists holed inside and their masters in Pakistan had access to vital information watching these channels. They were acting only in their own commercial interest, jeopardising national security, attracting the fury of the nation. They were trying to outdo each other BREAKING NEWS and compromising national security in the process. They had no qualms about inserting advertisements.
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment dated 29/8/2012 by Justice Aftab Alam and Justice C K Prasad, is a tell-tale commentary on the Mumbai coverage: “The reckless coverage… gave rise to a situation where, on the one hand the terrorists were completely hidden from the security forces who had no means to know their exact positions or even the kind of firearms and explosives they possessed and on the other, the positions of security forces, their weapons and all their operational movements were being watched by the collaborators across the border on TV screens and being communicated to the terrorists. Terrorists’ attacks at all the places, in goriest details were shown live on Indian TV from beginning to end and almost non-stop. It must, therefore, be held that by covering live the terrorists’ attack on Mumbai in the way it was done, Indian TV channels were not serving any national interest or social cause. On the contrary, they were acting in their own commercial interests, putting national security in jeopardy.”
Even after the Supreme Court’s scathing condemnation, our TV news channels have not learnt their lessons.
Regulations
It is not that there are no regulations or control mechanisms against such gory and explicit TV reportage. The Cable Television (Network Regulatory) Act, 1995 as amended up to August 31, 2007 provides for the necessary regulatory control framework. Recently, the Government of India issued an advisory to TV channels that they “will not carry content which contains live coverage of any anti-terrorist operation by security forces, wherein media coverage shall be restricted to periodic briefing by an officer… till such operation concludes.”
The Indian Broadcasting Foundation, a body of TV broadcasters, has formulated a content regulation code but it is ineffective; Regarding coverage, they admit that ‘with ever increasing number of round-the-clock channels and the intense competition among them for viewership as well as changing priorities as to what constitutes news, news and current affairs contents of TV call for some discipline with specific guidelines.”
The mandatory controls and proclaimed self-regulations are ineffective and the monitoring mechanism far from satisfactory. The moot point is: who will bell the cat?
The author is a writer and former Additional Director General of Doordarshan,
By K Kunhikrishnan , Published: 15th December 2015
As soon as news ‘broke’ about the Paris terror attacks on November 13, 2015, I was watching international television coverage on BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, C SPAN (France 24 English TV channel available on C SPAN Web) and Russian TV, apart from Indian English news channels. Global TV news channels were doing wall to wall coverage. There was no single graphic image that was gruesome, terrifying and revolting. There was no repulsive visual of scattered dead bodies or bloodshed, but the brutality was clear and the message perceptible: the attack has shaken the world and the ‘shock value’ was achieved through television.
The broadcasts without a single advertisement fulfilled the responsibility of media for accuracy, balance, fairness and decency. Anchors did not lose their demeanour and poise and reporting was professional in tone, dignity, body language and delivery. They were not anguished and emotional and were professionally detached. International TV channels exhibited a rare and remarkable control over the images, text and voice and avoided sensationalising.
Of course, media coverage of events in the West is skewed compared to that of the developing countries. It was the city of Paris, epitome of liberal values, which was under attack! The carnage victims were from 29 countries. The story was tellingly told despite ‘newer’ news and news-making events unfolding minute by minute. Geographic favouritism for Paris, part of the developed world, was obvious as later, the Mali Hotel attack coverage was minimal.
US Media and 9/11
American media coverage during 11/9/2001 was markedly different from the Paris reporting. It was far from being balanced, objective, calm and fair. TV channels oozed hatred and hysteria, calling for action against mainly Arabs and Muslims crying for revenge (as the terrorists would have planned). Major TV channels whipped up patriotic discourse and policies resulting in dramatic change of public perceptions at government and public levels. “9/11 was used by the media and politicians to promote fear related agendas and ideologies,” says a study (Terrorism and Media: A Dangerous Symbiosis, Arda Bilgen 2012).
TV channels repeated traumatising images and audio, reinforcing again and again by extensive coverage, resulting in unprecedented sensationalism. America became paranoid about “security”. The “safety rhetoric” involved human and electronic surveillance, a common practice. America’s bloated ego was punctured in one stroke. Those who visited the US can differentiate the security checks at airports, prior to and post-9/11 attack. Coverage helped the architects of the terrorist attacks to accomplish their media objectives: Even the US was vulnerable and that terrorists could create havoc any time anywhere! Magnitude of that sensation is inexplicable.
For the terrorists, what they gained through media was unimaginable in terms of reaching global audiences. They achieved worldwide recognition and promoted fear psychosis. Terrorists have systematically used television for propaganda, selectively releasing fearsome videos of excessive cruelty to hostages being tormented and catering to the base elements of viewers.
Indian Channels in Paris
Indian English TV channels covered the Paris carnage. It took an attack on Paris for Indian channels to focus on an international event. More than images and sound of the story, screens were filled with supers, inlays and scrolls. All channels quoted officials of the Indian Embassy in Paris about the safety of Indians in France, interesting Indian viewers. On Saturday, November 14, they telecast discussions on Mumbai terror bloodbath!
26/11 Attacks Coverage
Television news channels have a great role as purveyors of information and as agents of change. News channels have a penchant for striking visuals and terrorist attacks provide ample fodder. Explicit images of horror do not serve public interest and undermine the core values of a democratic society and human dignity. It is for the channels to strike a balance between democratic values, human dignity and public right to know. And these are crucial during a crisis.
But what did Indian News TV channels do during the Mumbai terrorist attack on November 26, 2008? They were all reporting 24x7 ad nauseam for 60+ hours non-stop with abhorring visuals, without balance, fairness and objectivity. They gave out almost minute details of strategy and plans of the security forces, and the terrorists holed inside and their masters in Pakistan had access to vital information watching these channels. They were acting only in their own commercial interest, jeopardising national security, attracting the fury of the nation. They were trying to outdo each other BREAKING NEWS and compromising national security in the process. They had no qualms about inserting advertisements.
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment dated 29/8/2012 by Justice Aftab Alam and Justice C K Prasad, is a tell-tale commentary on the Mumbai coverage: “The reckless coverage… gave rise to a situation where, on the one hand the terrorists were completely hidden from the security forces who had no means to know their exact positions or even the kind of firearms and explosives they possessed and on the other, the positions of security forces, their weapons and all their operational movements were being watched by the collaborators across the border on TV screens and being communicated to the terrorists. Terrorists’ attacks at all the places, in goriest details were shown live on Indian TV from beginning to end and almost non-stop. It must, therefore, be held that by covering live the terrorists’ attack on Mumbai in the way it was done, Indian TV channels were not serving any national interest or social cause. On the contrary, they were acting in their own commercial interests, putting national security in jeopardy.”
Even after the Supreme Court’s scathing condemnation, our TV news channels have not learnt their lessons.
Regulations
It is not that there are no regulations or control mechanisms against such gory and explicit TV reportage. The Cable Television (Network Regulatory) Act, 1995 as amended up to August 31, 2007 provides for the necessary regulatory control framework. Recently, the Government of India issued an advisory to TV channels that they “will not carry content which contains live coverage of any anti-terrorist operation by security forces, wherein media coverage shall be restricted to periodic briefing by an officer… till such operation concludes.”
The Indian Broadcasting Foundation, a body of TV broadcasters, has formulated a content regulation code but it is ineffective; Regarding coverage, they admit that ‘with ever increasing number of round-the-clock channels and the intense competition among them for viewership as well as changing priorities as to what constitutes news, news and current affairs contents of TV call for some discipline with specific guidelines.”
The mandatory controls and proclaimed self-regulations are ineffective and the monitoring mechanism far from satisfactory. The moot point is: who will bell the cat?
The author is a writer and former Additional Director General of Doordarshan,
No comments:
Post a Comment