Media Misadventures

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers30/paper2953.html


The media tirade continues while politicians engage in mud-slinging. They (politicians) pull out ‘conscience’ to justify resignations, like rabbit out of the hat (R R Patil who earlier refused to resign, suddenly found his ‘conscience’ today!). They show utter contempt for us, common people, supposedly in ‘powder and lipstick’ and in ‘ties and suits’, who dare to question them (Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi thinks those protesting against politicians are anti-nationals!). And some others write blogs about their bravery (Milind Deora is probably miffed that his and his party men’s bravery in saving people near Nariman House was not recognised!). These politicians have competition from our media which has become the judge, jury and executioner especially after the Mumbai terror tragedy. It is important to illustrate the media misadventures. They are all speaking ‘for’ us, ‘with’ us and ‘of’ us while we remain speechless. They are supposedly giving us a ‘voice’, rather giving themselves and some of their chosen ones the voice.
Most of the television anchors sound more like street hawkers shouting ‘breaking news’, ‘exclusive to our channel’, ‘the very first time on television’ etc. This kind of language offensive from the media, which had turned the Mumbai terror tragedy into a live reality show, makes the language problem of politicians like R R Patil and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi seem less disturbing. Times Now anchor, Arnab Goswami, displays the Mumbai Mirror newspaper and reads out details of the arrested terrorist from the paper without ever once mentioning that it was their sister publication. Novel way of marketing! Former and serving officers of the security forces offer almost live commentaries of the counter terrorist operations. Surely, these media channels would add to the mirth of the planners and patrons of these gruesome attacks? The question is, why is the media so attention seeking at the expense of security and dignity of precious human lives?
Is there a Government in place or do we only have agents of these various media outlets at every nook and corner of our state establishment and institutions? Why has the media taken up the role of a spy agency? Media is dutifully informed by their ‘reliable sources’ about every syllable uttered in the interrogation of the captured terrorist, the action plan during the NSG operation and investigative and preventive measures in the aftermath of the attacks. Even before any charges could be laid in the Malegaon blasts, for instance, the ATS investigations were ‘accessible’ to the media, too ready to pounce on half-truths, speculations and may be innuendos. Why should media have access to such sensitive and confidential details in any ongoing investigation? ‘ATS officer said’, ‘investigating sources suggested’, ‘reliable sources revealed’ are some of the common phrases used by the media. We have to send out a strong message: we do not want the media to jeopardise such important investigations. We believe that there are investigative agencies and judicial institutions in this country that are capable of doing their job.
The pertinent questions are; how much should the media know? How much should they reveal? The lack of media ethics has come out very strongly in the Mumbai case. During the commando operations at Nariman House and at the Taj Hotel, the running commentary by the media was a sad commentary on the irresponsible media itself. Crass self obsession, self-promotion and sensationalism at its worst! There are reasons to believe that the lives of hostages and security personnel were compromised by the media who continued to give out unsolicited details of people trapped in the Taj and Oberoi hotels and in Nariman House. Apparently, the terrorists had set up control rooms in the two hotels and were equipped with sophisticated satellite phones and communication devices. If such was the case, then our own media was providing intelligence to the terrorists through their detailed reporting of the commando operation and by giving details of hostages in these places. One of the objectives of these kinds of modern day terrorist operations is to generate publicity. Therefore, the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attacks owe a lot to the Indian media!
What kind of media ‘ethics’ or humane concerns for the lives of people, made the journalists ask outrageous questions to the freed hostages or to their relatives outside? The amateurs followed their veterans like Barkha Dutt who wanted to know how an anxious wife ‘felt’ about her husband trapped inside or what she would do if she didn’t hear from her husband. But the prize for the best question should have gone to the anchor who asked a freed hostage, how it felt to be one! I have to confess that I was dreading the worst; microphones thrust into faces of dead bodies being asked how they felt to be dead! The victims did not receive any privacy in their death too. Media cameras followed dead bodies in ambulances from Nariman House and the channels competed with each other to repeat these visuals.
Despite the hyper activity of the media, to make sure nothing escapes our notice, there was no mention of some of the valiant police men who were responsible for capturing the lone surviving terrorist. I salute those police men, not only for their courage and acumen but also for shying away from the media glare. Or may be ‘regular’ police men are too much low down in the glamour list of the media. The same media giving such detailed descriptions of the operations in the Taj and Oberoi Hotels and in Nariman House had no time to visit the CST railway station to cover the victims there. As Gnani Sankaran, a Chennai based writer aptly argues, the elitist media had no time for “the thirty odd dead bodies strewn all over the platform of CST. No Barkha Dutt went there to tell us who they were. But she was at the Taj to show us the damaged furniture and reception lobby braving the guards. And the TV cameras did not go to the government run JJ hospital to find out who those 26 unidentified bodies were.” No self reflection for the media here!
Those who deride and denounce the politicians on our behalf are playing politics at our expense. Rajdeep Sardesai on CNN-IBN invited Sharad Pawar, of all the people, to talk about the fallout of Mumbai attacks. May be, either Sharad Pawar does not have a serious language problem or that he is the best security expert from the government side. Kerala Chief Minister, Mr. Achuthanandan, known for his short temper, was outraged by Major Unnikrishnan’s father’s refusal to accept his condolence visit. The Kerala CM used the most offensive and insulting language to criticise the martyr’s father which was duly reported across the media. His statement has outraged the Indian public. Rajdeep Sardesai, however, managed to find a Malayalam language expert among his reporters to explain that a senior and respected CPM leader like Mr. Achuthanandan would never use such foul language. Rajdeep, we understand the need to cultivate political connections, as also to undermine rival TV channels but your defence of the Kerala CM’s choice of words is simply appalling.
There is a glut of news items, analyses, panel discussions and cross continental feeds 24X7 but the question remains: why is the media so publicity hungry? In one of the TV debates, Pakistani journalist, Hamid Mir argued that the people of Pakistan refuse to believe that the Mumbai terror attack has any Pakistani connection, simply because the “Indian media” has been reporting about Col. Purohit and ‘Hindutva’ forces’ involvement in the Samjhauta Express and the Malegaon blasts. There has been neither conclusive investigation nor evidence to indict Col Purohit or the Saffron brigade, at least not as yet. However, the Indian media’s relentless campaign to establish their own ‘secular credentials, has provided a very convenient ruse to Pakistan to deny any role in the Mumbai carnage. Our Indian media, therefore, has not just helped terrorists during their operations but it has also provided excuses for the denials across the border.
The media is always keen to turn the spotlight on people, but it is about time we turn the spotlight on them. They have let us down as much as our politicians.
‘Don’t shoot the messenger’ but what about the messenger who is “shooting”?

Swati Parashar is a PhD candidate at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University, UK. She can be contacted at swatiparashar@hotmail.com)