You are here: IE »   Story

Reality, not television

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Discount UK Shopping

    Last Saturday, I invited a former army chief to address the entire staff of India TV. I wanted my colleagues to understand, from a decorated war hero, whether news channels went overboard in their coverage of Mumbai terror. I wanted him to tell our producers, reporters and camerapersons what precautions they should have taken while showing “live” action. My most important objective was to understand if news channels, in any way, endangered the lives of our commandos.

    To my surprise, the former army chief was emphatic: “News channels did nothing wrong. Your coverage didn’t do any harm whatsoever to the commandos! I’ve handled action as a major, then as a full colonel, and finally as an army commander in anti-terrorist operations, and there’s nothing I could make out from the news channel about the strategy of our commandos.” 

    Frankly, I expected him to echo what some have been saying—how terrorists got valuable clues on the commando plan by watching our channels. But sample what he said: “Do you think that terrorists holed up in a hotel facing commando fire had time to watch TV?” A young reporter persisted. He reminded the general of the “widespread belief” that the terrorists were being briefed on their Blackberries by their bosses, watching our news channels. Promptly came the angry reply. “Anyone suggesting this must be mad. (Even) I could not get an idea about the action plan. Who has the time to look at TV and Blackberries when you are in the midst of gunfire?”

    Ads by Google

    ... contd.

    Next1234
    Reality, not televisionBy: Raamesh | 10-Dec-2008 Reply | Forward Mr. Sharma's comments are ridiculous. If the media voluntarily agreed to curbs at times when free and fair reporting is needed most, what is there to stop the government forcing it when uncomfortable? During emergency, all news was controlled by the government, and we heard only good things.The questions raised by the media, and especially its role in showing the people's anger to the government was what galvanised it into action and made heads roll. Had these reactions been publicised after the Jaipur or Delhi blasts, the Mumbai attacks might never have happened.Under any circumstances, the media must never accept a curb on it, voluntary or otherwise. What it needs to do is introspect, and refrain from rumour-mongering in the name of "we reported it first".
    Reality, Not TelevisionBy: Dr. Karan Thakur | 10-Dec-2008 Reply | Forward It is all very well for Mr. Sharma to espouse the virtues of working together and the role the media can play in the fight against terror, and one must commend him for his vision. However, is it not true that any talk of "guidelines" or "rules of engagement" for the media are met with violent protestations as attacks on free speech. Every country has guidelines to follow, but media houses and Editor's Guild are particlularly senstitive to this idea. How will Mr. Sharma get around that fact?Second, one wishes that the op-ed written reflected the on Mr. Sharma's channel. His channel has been routinly accused of snsationalism and mis-reporting. One hopes the events of 26/11 brings change to his channel.But a brave call for unity nonetheless
    Improve your behaviorBy: Pradeep | 10-Dec-2008 Reply | Forward Nobody is blaming media for what happened in Mumbai but media should have acted more responsibly. The so called "journalists" do not have basic civic sense on how to conduct a media briefing they push each other to grab a better shot or a clearer sound byte. Sometimes they literally thrust the microphone down the throat of the speaker.The moment people question their behavior they take shield behind some gibberish. The solution to a problem begins by accepting that there is a problem if respected and experienced journalists like Sharma and Bharka act defensively any suggestions made then there is no hope. Tackling terrorism and introspection within media community can be done in parallel, you don't have to wait till we eliminate all terrorists in the world to improve your behavior.
    TV Live reportingBy: J.Ganapathy | 10-Dec-2008 Reply | Forward I is always better not to publicise the steps taken by the security forces during their operations. Alhough the ex-military official says there is no time to watch TV he should not forget that the communications have technologically so much advanced that one can keep in touch with others through latest gadgets which can be easily carried in person. After all the terrorists have an undisclosed plan so why disclose our plan through TV so that they get all clues. There should be definitely restraints on live coverage of such terrorists incidents. Media sosmetimes give even unconfirmed reports adding fuel to fire.
    Why not Cut the CableBy: Hariharan | 10-Dec-2008 Reply | Forward This is speculation that the terrorist would not know anything from seeing the TV, if they were well planned they would exactly know where the commandos are moving, isnt it the first law of any major operation like this to break communication channel of the terrorist. I am suprised that no one is talking about not telecasting the TV into the hotel, how difficult could that be !!!.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.