|
The scars of the terrorist attacks of 26 November will remain in the minds of the people of Mumbai, and of all Indians, for a long time to come. Mumbai has been a target of a number of attacks in the past few years, exposing the city’s vulnerability to antisocial elements.
Putting aside a discussion of security failures, administrative red tape and the outcry of citizens against politicians for another day, I will stick to analyzing the media coverage that was viewed by millions of people across the globe.
There are more than 30 national TV channels in India (in multiple languages) that handle news 24/7, with about five to seven channels leading the pack. The moment the terror attack began, every channel was flashing “Breaking News,” which is the norm here.
In the coverage from news teams stationed throughout the city for the next 72 hours, viewers saw journalists sticking their microphones into the faces of anxious relatives, asking how they felt about their kin who were held hostage by terrorists inside the Taj Majal or Oberoi hotels. Journalists screamed hysterically about each grenade blast and gunshot; they broadcast disturbing close-up shots of dead bodies being brought out of the hotel. They interviewed the Army guys handling the operations to figure out the exact plan of action. They even showed the air drops and the exact locations of the commandos for some time. Military intelligence and the other groups heading the operations had to tell the media to stop revealing the positions of the armed forces, as they were being relayed to the terrorists on television.
This was reality TV at its very worst. And obviously, everybody was glued to the television.
Time for introspection
Sure, there were positives. Citizens were kept updated minute-by-minute about the latest goings-on at the locations of each terror attack. But the negatives far outweighed the positives.
Media has grown to such an extent that information is no longer exclusive and shrouded in a veil of secrecy. It’s available freely to everyone. And while some may believe that there is no such thing as too much information, in times like these too much information is harmful.
After seeing the media blitzkrieg in India, a friend from London wrote to me, “The way the media handled the London blasts a few years ago was awesome. We got only the information we needed—no details of the operations, etc.—only travel-related and safety information.”
In Mumbai, a small ticker or announcement by a television channel reported gun shots at several locations in the city, spreading terror among the already frightened citizens. This led to even more panic across the city—offices were shut, and people were running helter-skelter. It was revealed later that there had actually been no gun shots. The channel explained that the reports were just rumors, and apologized, but this news caused more harm than the channel could have expected.
When asked about irresponsible journalism, a senior editor of one television channel claimed that their reporters were given three rules to follow when reporting about the terrorist attacks:
- Do not speculate on the casualties.
- Do not make yourself (the reporter) the news.
- Do not get into hysterical reporting.
Incidentally, this very editor was seen engaging in hysterical reporting from the studio.
Reactions galore
The blogosphere and journalists from the print media jumped in with their own reactions to the television news media’s coverage of events: “Appalling journalism. Absolute blasphemy!” one wrote. “I am dumbfounded to see journalists break every rule of ethical journalism in reporting the Mumbai mayhem.”
Another wrote, “Watching at least four English news channels surfing from one another, during the last 60 hours of the terror strike made me feel a terror of another kind. The terror of assaulting one’s mind and sensitivity with cameras, sound bites and non-stop blabbers.”
To report from ground zero for more than 60 hours is no easy task, and I truly appreciate and respect this hazardous occupation. But just as in any job, and any other occupation, sometimes we get carried away by the situation or moment. I believe that’s what happened in this particular instance.
Taking stock
Journalism at its very essence must be ethical, informative and factual, but sadly that is not the situation today with the Indian media. There has been a huge media boom in the last few years—the number of media channels has ballooned and journalists have been given large pay packages. Journalists also move regularly from one channel to another. In the process, the focus turned to ratings, and we the viewers began to lose out on quality. TRPs and GRPs became the name of the game, and journalists, reporters and camera people would walk over each other to get the latest breaking news (whether it was speculative or not, true or not, newsworthy or not), because they had to receive high ratings and run a channel with 24/7 content.
Can the media please become more responsible?
When emotions run high, reporters and journalists have a responsibility to provide unbiased factual news to the public and let them judge for themselves. Their job is not to give their opinions to the audience.
Democracy and freedom allow us to express our opinions, but if this freedom is not exercised responsibly we end up creating a very dangerous scenario for ourselves as a society. When competition increases, the game is played on a level where the line between good journalism and TRP journalism gets blurred.
The way ahead
The media defends their reporting by saying, “Don’t shoot the messenger” or “Hey, this is what the audience wants.” But as a viewer, all I am asking is that, as messengers, can they be less dramatic and sensational, please? Dramatic reporting feeds high emotions in an already emotional society. And this emotion, if not channeled, can work against civic society.
In the Indian media there is always a boom followed by a consolidation phase. The Indian media experienced a boom after 2002–03, when the Indian economy was on a roll. With the recessionary scenario unwinding and low sentiments across the globe, the next consolidation phase will probably begin sooner rather than later. This will also help separate the wheat from the chaff. And it’s about time that happens.
Rajiv Arvind is a communication professional with almost six years of experience in corporate communication. He currently holds the post of senior manager of corporate communications at Percept Limited, a leading entertainment, media and communications group in India. He is a member of the IABC/India chapter and can be contacted at
. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not represent the viewpoint of any corporation or organization. |
