|
Policing the media…..Shobha John
There are plans to curb channel’s live coverage of emergencies. Is that fair? How would foreign broadcasters have done in a Mumbai-like situation
The government is reportedly planning to tighten its hold over broadcasters by proposing certain restrictions following the Mumbai attacks. This would include preventing live telecasts when there is an emergency problem to do with law and order. Is this justified? How does the media of other countries report terrorist attacks as they unfold? In fact, who reports a live terrorist attack? Hardly anyone credible, it seems. Chris Morris, BBC’s South Asia correspondent in Delhi, says the organisation’s 200-page book of editorial guidelines covers a vast area — from fairness to privacy, how to report on children, how to report a war, terrorism and emergencies. Morris says some of the guidelines include ensuring ‘‘we install a delay when broadcasting live material of sensitive stories, for example, a school siege or a plane hijack. We must listen to advice from the police and other authorities about anything which, if reported, could exacerbate the situation.’’ There are also Defence Advisory Notices in the UK (D-Notices) by which authorities give guidance about information, which, if published or broadcast, might damage national security, says Morris. ‘‘The system is voluntary and has no legal power, so the final decision about whether to broadcast still rests with us.’’ Censorship in the UK was more obvious during the IRA’s violent campaign in the 1980s. On October 19, 1988, Britain announced that organisations in Northern Ireland, believed to support terrorism, would be banned from the airwaves. This mainly affected Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political wing. Its president Gerry Adams’ voice was not allowed to be broadcasted directly; whatever he said was read out by an actor instead. The restrictions were lifted only in 1994 when a ceasefire was announced. Gethin Chamberlain, India correspondent, The Observer, says the British media is pretty ferocious in its pursuit of stories, but generally won’t publish information that would compromise an anti-terrorism operation. ‘‘They’re more likely to go to the police, tell them what they know and ask to be in on the raid, so that they can have their exclusive once it’s safe to run the story. The police, too, may invite reporters for an off-the-record briefing, provided it isn’t published till the operation is over.’’ No news organisation would break this trust unless it wants to be barred from future briefings, he says. The UK media sticks to a number of rules for reporting crime. Once a suspect is charged, journalists are technically restricted to reporting only their name, age, address and the charges they face, without going into the evidence. Chamberlain says that in some cases, publishing the pictures of suspects may also be restricted. He says this rule was breached when there was a request not to report on the use of equipment used by British forces in Iraq to jam roadside bombs. In rare cases, editors reach an agreement with the government to withhold information, notably Prince Harry’s presence in Afghanistan. But the trust can wither sometimes. After the July 7, 2005, London bombings, the police shot dead a man they initially claimed was a suspected suicide bomber. He turned out to be an innocent man, a Brazilian, but the police tried to cover this up on security grounds. The media backlash was vicious as it felt betrayed. But Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun has no guidelines for covering terror attacks. Japan has almost never had one of such magnitude, says Tetsuo Kogure, the paper’s New Delhi bureau chief. Also, ‘‘we generally don’t publish photos of dead bodies either.’’ In Germany, says Kai Kuestner, South Asia head, ARD (German Radio Network), the media is completely free of government interference but it is equally essential for the media to retain its objectivity. He says coverage by some Indian TV channels of the Mumbai carnage showed the need for ‘‘them to step back from the incident. Some considered the whole nation under attack. Journalists shouldn’t be actors pushing politicians to do certain things.’’ Chamberlain says at least some of the Indian coverage showed that ill-informed reporters had become emotionally involved with the story and lost all objectivity. But he adds that it’s equally important that security services involve journalists just enough. In the Nariman House incident, broadcasters gave a blow-by-blow account of what was happening. ‘‘Compare this with the SAS operation to free hostages in the Iranian embassy siege in London in 1980, where the security forces moved quickly through the building, killing five terrorists and rescuing the hostages. The military had spoken to broadcasters before and agreed that what would be shown as live footage would actually go out with a delay to prevent the terrorists gaining any advantage. Had security forces in Nariman House reached a similar pact with broadcasters, there might have been more of an element of surprise.’’ But Kogure says it can be hard for TV journalists to judge what should and shouldn’t be covered live. So they must act keeping in mind public interest. ‘‘This comes with experience and the judgment of senior editors.’’ As Chamberlain says, ‘‘It’s not always about patriotism or helping the state: it’s plain common sense.’’ Almost everyone agrees the Indian media should resist attempts to curb it, but that it would have a much stronger case if it were able to police itself. sunday.times@timesgroup.com |