Freedom of Expression and role of media during Mumbai attack.
( Published in 2012 )
When the dust settled down on the 26/11 terror attacks on the dastardly Mumbai attack, the security agencies were horrified to discover that the ‘Control Room’ of the terror campaign located in Pakistan had immensely benefited from the ‘real-time’ reporting of the events by the TV channels in India. The Control Room could guide their operatives to take evasive action or go in the offensive depending upon the way the Indian security forces were being deployed in and around the Taj Mahal Hotel and the Jewish enclave. Thus, the effectiveness of the anti-terror operation was compromised, and some more civilian lives were lost.
One needs to recall the intensely competitive TV coverage of the events during those fateful days. The graphic details aside, there were bizarre captions, innuendos, incendiary comments and everything else that took away objectivity from the reporting the gullible viewers saw day in and day out in their TV screens.
In the race to capture eyeballs, the TV reporters and the back end editorial staff in the studios threw all the three cardinal principles of media reporting to the air. Objectivity, verification and dispassion, the three principles which form the bedrock of balanced reporting were given the go by. Instead what came through was jingoistic commentaries, untrue accounts and exaggerated claims. Thus, what the TV viewers got to watch was not factual balanced account of the unfolding events, but some frenzied cocktail of footages, grotesque inferences and fully untrue accounts. A few intrepid reporters of some channels broke the security cordons to reach the spot where the military operations were taking place.
The Supreme Court has come down rather heavily on such ‘over-the-board’ reporting by TV channels. It has noted with concern that such saturated reporting of the events did provide crucial inputs to the terror control centre operating from Pakistan. By such unbridled reporting, the TV media undermined the argument that the editorial control of the outputs of the TV channels must come from within their organizations, and not through an externally- imposed Regulatory body.
The Supreme Court has pointed out that the Constitution-mandated principle of freedom of expression of the TV channels must not be extended to ludicrous limits where they begin to imperil the state’s security interests and the right of the citizens to live in a threat-free environment. However, a line has to be drawn here. The past irresponsible behaviour of the electronic media can not justify strangulation of their editorial freedom by an externally appointed regulator. Despite, all their failings, it is a safe to conclude that the TV channels are aware of their responsibilities to the society with regard to dissemination of factual news. So, the regulation of their conduct is best done by themselves. If this achieved, it will be a healthy and mature step.
In this regard, one must welcome the coming into being of the National Broadcasting Association (NBA) with all the 45 TV channels under its supervisory umbrella. NBA has adopted its Code of Ethics and has a Redressal Authority to delve into and decide upon complaints relating to transgression by any Channel. This is a very desirable outcome.
The aberrations in the conduct of the TV channels during 26/11 attacks have spurred NBA to tighten the norms for reporting in crisis situations where the security forces battle an external enemy inside our territory. This seems to have salutary effects on the TV channels who appear to have brought their reporting in line with the newly-enforced ethics. TV reporting in the past few months bears this out.
We, therefore, can conclude that ‘self regulation’ is finally yielding results.
...................................................................................................................................