The Dhaka terrorist attack that claimed the lives of scores of innocents has, once again, focused attention on the role of the media, specially the electronic media, in situations like these. Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was withering in her criticism. She said: “When we are taking preparations, channels were telecasting these live. Do they not think the terrorists were watching and devising their strategies accordingly I request television channel owners to please not do this.” She went on to add: “In the United States, when people were killed, neither CNN nor BBC showed anything to jeopardise the operations. But in our country, there is competition between television channels. Some channels don’t want to listen.” In the same vein, she delivered a not-too-veiled threat: “I can issue the licence, and I can revoke it as well. This is not a childish game.” Sheikh Hasina urged TV owners to show the bad side of militancy: “It’s the responsibility of all.”
This isn’t the first time a person holding a responsible office has articulated the exasperation of the state with the electronic media’s role in such circumstances.
In November 2008, while the terrorist attack in Mumbai was still going on, a similar scenario had played itself out. TV channels competed relentlessly with each other to cover every second of the attack. Preparations and plans of the security forces were broadcast live, giving the attackers’ Pakistan-based handlers vital information that allowed them to give updates and instructions to their merchants of death on the ground. One channel even broadcast a live phone interview with one of the terrorists at Chabad House while he was engaged in the grisly task of butchering innocent people held hostage there.
In the aftermath of Mumbai’s 26/11, there was consternation with many strategic and counter-terrorism experts taking the media to task for endangering the lives of not only the security personnel involved but also the innocent people holed up inside hotels and other places under assault by the terrorists.
Guidelines in the form of an advisory on how to cover an evolving terrorist outage were repeatedly issued to the TV channels repeatedly by the information and broadcasting ministry, but they are observed more as an exception than a rule.
Even the Supreme Court severely criticised the media coverage of 26/11. In the judgment confirming the death sentence of Ajmal Kasab, it observed: “From the transcripts, specially those from Taj Hotel and Nariman House, it is evident the terrorists who were entrenched at those places and more than them, their collaborators across the border, were watching the full show on TV.”
The court further added that it was not possible to find out if the security forces actually suffered any casualty or injuries due to the way their operations were displayed on TV screens. But it was beyond doubt that the way their operations were freely shown made the task of the forces not only very difficult, but also dangerous and risky.
Any attempt to justify the TV channels’ conduct by citing the right to freedom of speech and expression would be totally wrong and unacceptable in such a situation. The visuals shown live on TV channels could also have been shown after the terrorists had been neutralised. But in that case the telecast wouldn’t have had the same shrill as well as chilling effect, and wouldn’t have shot up the channels’ TRP ratings. It must, therefore, be held that by covering live the attack on Mumbai in the way it was done, the TV channels weren’t serving any national interest or social cause, but simply acting in their own commercial interests, and putting national security in jeopardy. The coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks by the mainstream electronic media has done much harm to the argument that any regulatory mechanism for the media must only come from within, the Supreme Court held.
While this may be the view of the state as represented by the executive and judiciary, the fourth estate has another view, one that also needs to be taken on board. Media organisations argue that a terrorist attack is “news” and, therefore, it is their responsibility to cover it holistically in real time. The fact that viewership shoots up at such times is not due to their endeavour to monetise an unfortunate situation, but primarily because of the desire of people to remain updated about the situation.
Media industry bodies and self-regulatory mechanisms contend it is extremely unfair to put restrictions on such coverage given that freedom of speech and expression is a treasured national maxim, even though with some caveats. It should, therefore, be left to the media organisations to determine their individual red lines than be subject to the coercive regulations of the state. The other argument that is put forth is that while it may be easier to regulate and monitor the mainstream media, how would governments stop the dissemination of citizen-generated live feeds both visual and text on the Internet and social media platforms given the technological advances and the miniaturisation of the instruments of information dissemination.
When told that their counterparts in the West display far more sensitivity and restraint while covering such events, whether 9/11 or the recent Paris, Brussels or even Istanbul attacks, they just shrug it off saying the media habits in each country are different. Can this really be put down to a cultural thing, or is it the commercial thing at work
There is enough empirical evidence to suggest that media mores in South Asia are distinctive as revenue models in most countries that have a shrill dog-eat-dog ethos are non-existent. However, can that justify the competition for eyeballs during monumental national catastrophes It also brings to the fore another key issue: Should this restraint, whether by the state or self-enforced, be limited only to terrorist situations and other national security imperatives, or should it also extend to natural disasters
There is an urgent need to find a golden mean on this issue. It would be advisable that the media itself takes the lead before it is too late.
The writer is a lawyer and former Union minister. His views are personal. Tweets at @manishtewari
