Blogs

Thursday, December 4, 2008 14:36 IST

The relentless TV coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks is an indication of both its success and failure. Over the last three or four days, I have received lots of email criticising TV coverage of the event. Among other things, TV reporters have been accused of giving away critical information to the terrorists by indicating the size of the NSG forces, etc, etc. In particular, Barkha Dutt seems to have become a particular hate target, with bloggers harshly critical of her breathless and emotional coverage of the Taj and other operations.

I am no fan of TV coverage. In the pursuit of TRPs, TV anchors tend to look for ways to hook the viewer, and often this means catering to low tastes (especially in the regional media), and sensationalism. I am particularly aggrieved, since relentless TV coverage of a triviality forces newspapers to follow suit - since TV often sets the news agenda.

However, I would also like to say this in defence of TV mediapersons. One, if they are all that bad, why are we still watching them? During the Mumbai attacks, most people I know were glued to TV. We now know that even the cabinet secretary and the National Security Advisor were probably watching TV for a first-hand feel of what was happening in Mumbai on that day.

Two, it is easy to criticise TV reporters for giving details of operations as they see them. But who allowed them there in the first place? If you do not want TV to report on operational details, this should either be agreed in advance, or there should be an operational code on what TV can or cannot report.

Three, there is no point blaming Barkha Dutt for allegedly giving away important information to the enemy when the Kargil operations were on. She did not land up on the front line on her own. She did so with army permission. They were her hosts.

If you actually look closely, what is going wrong is clear. Neither the media nor the police or army or people in charge of anti-terror operations have evolved a basic protocol on what the media should report, and what areas are atrictly no-no. The people in charge of the operations in various Mumbai locations were giving impromptu news briefings, and there was nothing coordinated about them. This is one reason why DNA and TV channels (wrongly) reported that the Taj operations were over a day before they actually were.

There were multiple heads talking on behalf of the operations and there were multiple TV channels let loose on the situation - and it is no surprise the result was chaos.

The learning surely must be that our army, navy, NSG, police and other security agencies have to create a protocol for media coverage when such operations take place. They should also brief the media on what they can or cannot report, and, if required, keep them away from the core area of operation. If you let TV reporters come everywhere, TV is bound to report what it sees or hears.

That said, the really worrying aspect about TV coverage is that SMSs and rumours get flashed as "Breaking News," often without verification. If TV flashes one line saying "News of another attack on CST" the viewer assumes there must have been something to warrant that, whereas the intention of those writing such headlines is merely to say that there is such a rumour going around. Quite clearly, TV must seek to verify news flashes before they are dubbed as breaking news. Damaging ones should never be put on the air without verification; others have to indicate that they are totally unverified.

Both media and the authorities have much to learn from November 26.

10 comments

we want our media to be more mature. people will see whatever has been shown by you. they rely on you coz they believe you. but they certainly won't mind you not revealing inner facts of military operation. people wil believe you even if you say that those attacks were carried out by hindu terrorists. likewise pakistani media raised the issue regarding mumbai attacks. so be mature enough to sort out critical things, mr media person.

what does he mean by this? if they are that bad then why were people watching them? it's like crying foul after you show the people to watch and people were obviously curious to watch what damage they did, where they were heading, not to know info related to strength of the nsg, when they are heading to the terrace.

Media in India has become amongst the most irresponsible institutions in our so-called world's largest democrazy! Media lives in sensationalism, assumptions, bias, corruption, and what not. Most of the channels are the same. "Yadha Raja, Tadha Praja!"

Media is the most important part of news. Media always provides current news to the people and shows current incidents. It is very easy to criticise TV reporters for giving details of operations as they see them, but they work in risky places. The really worrying aspect of TV coverage is that SMSes and rumours get flashed as breaking news without verification. There should be a prohibition imposed upon breaking news.

Media coverage of the terror attacks in Mumbai has sparked a strong backlash from the public, according to Global Voice.

Rightly said. It is the duty of the Army, NSG, Police or whatever agency involved in such kind of operation to issue a protocol. Also they should restrict the entry of mediaperson in such sensitive areas. First and foremost our Administration has to learn from this.

The electronic media can never be ruled by any sort of guidelines (code of conduct) for dos & dont's on sensitive events. They (TV media) say it's public demand, but unfortunately this party menu was served by them & now it's an addiction.

The editorials in DNA are simply mindblowing. DNA has something for everybody, i.e. for people of all age groups. It's a perfect publication to come up in this blooming city.

For the cops, it should have been a matter of hygiene to have cordoned off the entire area. Unfortunately, this was not to be. What was shocking was that police lines saying 'do not cross' came only after the siege had ended. With such proximity to the action, it is no wonder that our media let emotion mar its coverage. It must be noted that foreign crews, while covering the siege, checked and double-checked news that was put out. So breaking news on CNN seemed a lot more trustworthy. In fact, it must be said that CNN seemed to verify the "news" on CNN-IBN before putting it out as 'breaking news' on its network. While this could be attributed to their experience in covering such events, there was absolutely nothing stopping Barkha Dutt, Rajdeep Sardesai, and others from sending one of their reporters to VT before spreading panic by claiming that there had been fresh firing.

Hopefully, the amount of criticism showered on the Indian media would result in everyone of us, including DNA, learning from it.

Well written. I also saw that you have been quoted in Barkha Dutt's blog post on NDTV.

On the present outcry against the media, especially electronic, I think the most despicable has been her coverage of 26/11. She went berserk trying to grab eyeballs. In the process she went truly overboard and now she has come up with an alibi in her article. She wants a comprehensive "Dos and Dont's". How kiddish can you be? First you go on the rampage and then ask for guidelines!!!

26/11 would mark the beginning of her downfall. Mark my words.

Prannoy Roy would do justice to the NDTV plant, which he has nurtured for so long and so painstakingly, by quickly getting rid of her.