|
Media Watch
No two reporters are alike
Almost six weeks after the terrorism let loose on Mumbai by Pakistani jehadists also known as "non-state" terrorists (the BBC merely calls them 'gunmen' as if they are hunting after foxes), Mumbai has been slowly limping towards normalcy. The Mumbai manoos is showing his strength. Instead of focussing on the jehadists, some of our commentators are at the throats of TV reporters for their alleged misdeeds. Writing in DNA, for instance (December 3, 2008), Harini Calamur, a broadcast professional, commenting on the performance of the reporters during those three fateful days said: "The coverage progressively got worse. Every other mediaperson with an OB van parked themselves outside the Taj and the Trident and began not only broadcasting live from the scene, compromising the lives of the security forces and the hostages. The channels put out the identity of those inside, risking their lives." Calamur was further angry with specific individuals. As Calamur put it: "Rajdeep Sardesai screeched on Friday that the CST was under attack again. Half an hour later, he bleated out an apology." Barkha Dutt, it was claimed, was asking a person waiting outside the Taj if he considered the possibility of his dear one being dead.
Writing in the same paper Sashi Kumar, chairman, Media Development Foundation, noted that "television news is now increasingly becoming part of the problem and not the solution". According to him "there was a lot of dangerous intolerance on display and was beyond the brief of rational news journalism because it lacked objectivity and rationale". In his view "the media should not be expected to anticipate what might compromise security measures". His objection was the "angularity" of the coverage?whatever that means. And he did not like the "breathless style of reporting". The trouble with critics is that they have never functioned as reporters. In the first place the jehadi attack on the Taj, the Trident, the CST and Nariman House is not?thank God?an everyday affair. Even for senior and professional journalists, it is a new experience. And one has to think on one's legs.
Commentary has to be continuous and non-stop. There is hardly any time to think. What information should be provided but, more importantly, what should be specifically avoided? One blogger reported in The Indian Express (December 3) has this to say: "You do not need to be a journalist to understand the basic promise of ethics, which starts with protecting victims first; and that is done by avoiding key information being aired publicly?such as but not limited to revealing the number of possible people still in, the hideouts of hostages and people stuck in buildings." Another charge against TV reporters was that they were getting too emotional, and hysterical when they should have controlled their feelings and just reported as if they were covering a boring parliamentary session. TV reporters, no doubt, by now would have learnt their lessons, only, one hopes, there won't be another "next time", for their learning to be tested. One sympathises with the TV journalists. They have an unprecedented task to report. They are under tremendous pressure. They have to report and they have to compete and one shouldn't be surprised that all the time they are at their job. They are wondering whether they are doing the right thing. This long-time reporter can understand and appreciate their dilemma.
According to DNA again (December 4) journalists who covered the Mumbai attacks are "beginning to seek counselling to come to terms with the gruesome scenes they witnessed" and are reaching out to the city's psychiatrists and psychologists for help. One psychiatrist has been quoted as saying: "Journalists while working have to switch off their emotional side and keep going. It is only when reality sinks in, after one or two days, that one starts getting all the images. This usually happens when the person is sitting alone or asleep. And it can happen to anyone.? A reporter for an English daily newspaper is quoted as saying: "I sought psychological help... with my personal life in turmoil, a lack of concentration at work was making me depressed and cranky." His best friend had died in the terrorist attacks. It hit him hard. "I wasn't able to focus; I saw charred bodies... it was scary." Incidentally, in the United States, media houses regularly send their war correspondents and those who have covered disasters for counselling sessions. The trouble with television media is that reporters have no time to relax. In that sense the print media reporters are luckier. They don't have to talk while watching a tragedy; they have only to watch what's going on and they have time to ruminate. True, if a newspaper wants to bring out a special edition they may feel compelled to communicate through their mobile but that would be rare. By and large they remain mere watchers in full control of their feelings.
This writer who has seen riots and watched people being killed right in front of him extends his sympathies to the TV reporters. Take it easy, chaps. But pray there won't be another jehadi attack on hotels. Even print media reporters make mistakes. Writing in The Hindu (November 26) its correspondent Praveen Swami quoted an influential Marathi newspaper Tarun Bharat as reporting that the late ATS chief Hemant Karkare was laundering a million rupees through a business run by his US-based son. As Swami put it: "Mr Karkare's 17-year-old son in fact lives in Mumbai and his only known business is preparing for his upcoming high school examinations." About the media itself writes Swami: "It's clear that the media's frenzied pursuit of the story of Hindutva terrorism?a story with a direct bearing on the electoral fortunes of both the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party?appears to have led some newsrooms to give the go-by to commonsense checks intended to weed out politically motivated disinformation."
One can give several examples of this kind of reporting. Yes, media laws can be laid down on how a particular event?especially a disaster whether man-made or natural?should be covered. But no two disasters are alike and no two reporters are alike. And with the best of instructions errors can be committed. Even for the police who reportedly had prior information on the likelihood of a jehadi attack it was an entirely novel experience. They must have been as tongue-tied as reporters were vocal. But it has been a lesson for all concerned which, hopefully, nobody would forget in the years to come, And future textbooks on journalism surely will use the media's method of coverage of a gross tragedy to explain what is admissible and what is not.
|
