MUMBAI TERROR ATTACKS: ROLE OF MEDIA

It’s a Job Well Done!!!

Sixty hours of live television at the best of times is impossibly difficult. But when it involves an ongoing and precarious terrorist operation and a potential danger to the lives of hundreds of people, it throws up challenges of the kind
that none of us have ever dealt with before.
Even those who have reported for years, on conflict, war and counter insurgency weren't prepared for what they encountered in Mumbai: an audacious attack on a city that was more in the nature of an invasion of India, than
terrorism in any form.
Mumbai was seized for nearly 60 hours during the last week of November 2008 by ten Pakistan based terrorists, where more than 200 people were killed. Nine terrorists (one was captured alive) were gunned down by the security forces. The terror was evident through the live telecast by a number of news channels almost around the globe.
The incident sparked a massive outrage against the terrorists as well as the administration, which was reflected in all media outlets of the country.
Resilience was another word that annoyed the pundits of news channels and their patrons this time. What resilience, enough is enough, said Pranoy Roy's channel on the left side of the channel spectrum. Same sentiments were echoed by Arnab Goswami representing the right wing of the broadcast media whose time is now. They all attacked resilience this time. They wanted firm action from the government in tackling
terror.

All this was possible due to courageous work done by brave Indian journalists.
Working continuously for multiple hours is truly a laudable job. One needs to understand that all those smart citizens who were cynical about coverage of Mumbai attacks were actually able to comment due to these brave journalists.
Arundathi Roy, basically a novelist started her piece of journalism by bashing on Indian media and government functionary. Social networking sites started campaigning against media practioners who worked hard day and night without food and sleep. Blogs floated with arguments against the coverage of attacks on financial capital of India.
But none of us really thinks this way. It was due to media coverage that led Shivraj Patil to resign from his cabnit minister post. Massive silent protests across the country post terror attacks actually came into shape when every citizen was fully aware about the heinous crime of terrorists. Kasab, only survivor of the terrorists was first photographed by media. Vilas Rao Deshmukh had to see consequences for himself.


Some apprehend that the live footage shown by TV channels to the viewers could also have been used as free intelligence input by the perpetrators sitting far away from the place of incident who allegedly guided the attackers to take appropriate emergent measures against the positions of security forces through satellite/mobile phones. Such live feed of Commandoes being air dropped directly endangers the success of operations and safety of hostages as well as security forces.
But please do note that at all times, the media respected the security cordon- a cordon that was determined by the police and officials on site- and NOT by the media. In the 72 hours, those reporters stood on reporting duty. They often delayed
live telecasting of images that were sensitive so as to not
compromise the ongoing operation.

Few of coward writers penned that the right of media always comes with a duty - duty to report fairly, objectively and accurately. That duty attracts restrictions and limitations which protect the right of an individual. One should view that freedom of the press is essential for healthy functioning of democracy; however, democracy comes with responsibility. Freedom of the press cast responsibility on media as well.
However not once, reporters were asked by anyone in
authority, to switch off cameras, or withhold images. When they did so, it was entirely on their own assessment that perhaps it was safest to do so. There was no central point of contact or information for journalists who were often left to
their own devices to hunt down news that they felt had to be conveyed to their country. No do's and don'ts were provided by officials. While one needs to understand that
this situation was new for everyone involved, and so the government could not have been expected to have a full plan for media coverage. The NSG chief even thanked the media for
consistent co-operation. Later the NSG commandos personally thanked NDTV for showcasing their need for a dedicated aircraft- which they shockingly did not have - they have now been given there after NDTV's special report was aired.

Finally, question that arises here is, should there be an emergency code of dos and donts for the coverage of such
crises?
The media would welcome a framework for sensitive events and will be happy to contribute to its construction. But it is important to understand that in the absence of any instructions on site and in the absence of any such framework, reporters broke NO rules.

The world saw it, Citizens were aware and no doubt, it was “All due to media coverage.”