|
They
say the media hold up a mirror to society. If so, then
this must be most true of the electronic media, which
(unlike the print media) are so instantaneous in their
responses and presentation that there is no time for
sober consideration and adjustment. But that also means
that many weaknesses of society may well be not just
reflected in, but even reinforced and sometimes worsened
by, the media. This thought came while watching television
coverage of the horrifying terrorist attacks in Mumbai
last week.
There is no point repeating all the clichés.
In any case, even the commonly used words - shock, fury,
anguish, anxiety - do not suffice to describe all the
emotions that most of us have been through while watching
the horrific events in Mumbai. But while people across
the country were glued to television sets to find out
what was happening as the grim and tragic drama unfolded,
the role of newscasters inevitably also came under scrutiny.
And sadly, the electronic media too have been found
wanting on this occasion.
The most shocking aspect may have been the fact that
so many news channels persisted in putting the urge
to be sensational and to come with scoops over other
channels, over the most elementary sense of responsibility
in coverage. It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence
that if the enemy – in this case the handful of highly
armed terrorists – is provided with any information
during an encounter, that is bound to give them an advantage
and make the task of the authorities much more difficult.
This is clearly even more the case in prolonged operations
in urban locations, when only the official side is hampered
by the need to prevent civilian casualties.
This means that those covering such actions must be
particularly careful not to provide any information
that could be relayed back to terrorists and provide
them with any advantage. Yet, during the extremely sensitive
and fraught military style operations in the three Mumbai
locations, competitive journalism obviously trumped
over such considerations, even though it was suspected
that the terrorists had satellite phones and could therefore
access and use information that was being relayed on
television.
At least one television channel openly bragged about
the special information it had obtained from members
of the forces brought in for the rescue operation. Some
provided detailed descriptions of the ongoing anti-terror
operations, down to details such as which rooms and
which floors of specific hotels the National Security
Guard commandos would enter. Most of the channels kept
their cameras directed at the areas identified as “trouble
spots” or areas where the militants were suspected to
be hiding. And every time there was some movement on
the part of the commandos, or even the police outside,
the newspersons would be rushing to train their cameras
on such movement and speculate on what it was for.
We can only guess how much help this provided to the
militants, but the prolonged nature of the operations
in all three locations suggests that such media hyperactivity
certainly could not have helped the brave men of the
official forces who were risking their lives in these
very complex and difficult operations against deadly
enemies.
On several occasions, jostling and confusion among the
crowd of assembled journalists created such commotion
that police had to step in to control them. At times,
when they were asked to step back behind cordons for
their own protection as the possibility of cross fire
grew, or to allow the military action to proceed, there
was resistance, and several tried to sneak back when
they thought they could get away with it.
And then, once again because of the continuous presence
of the cameras, we were treated to the sorry spectacle
of complete lack of sensitivity of the TV journalists
when they rushed to surround and interrogate the exhausted
and traumatised survivors as they were brought out from
the hotel buildings. Even when they begged for restraint
and respect, microphones kept getting shoved in front
of their faces and questions poured down on them, until
finally they could manage to push their way through
the melee of journalists into waiting vehicles. Those
who had suffered personal tragedy, losing family members
or close friends and themselves still in shock, were
not spared media scrutiny as the cameras panned in on
their tears and watched their agony.
Is this the sign of media gone crazy, an explosion of
competitive journalism that is so obsessed with sensationalism
and being the first or the most able to come out with
certain news that it has lost sight of essential humanity?
Or is it that we as a society are now so degraded that
even something as ghastly, tragic and horrifying as
these incidents of terror and their awful personal aftermath
for the victims can be treated like a TV reality show?
It is common in such situations to call for introspection.
But maybe introspection is no longer enough, especially
if there is no subsequent change in behaviour. Since
the prolonged encounters finally ended, we have had
to suffer the main presenters, especially on the English
language channels, hold forth pompously and at length
on the need to change many things in polity, society
and the nature of governance. “Enough is enough!” they
announced, and said that citizens would not tolerate
any more.
Unfortunately, none of them recognised any problems
with the media’s own behaviour, or acknowledged that
there was any need to change. Is it possible for society
to now hold up a mirror for the media?
|
