The Supreme Court’s blunt rebuke of television channels which went into a careless and competitive feeding frenzy while covering the Mumbai 26/11 terror attack is almost entirely justified. However, its concluding remark that “the mainstream electronic media has done much harm to the argument that any regulatory mechanism … must come only from within” is misplaced. First, the reprimand. There is no doubt that the live coverage of 26/11 set a low in TV journalism with the most basic of norms — objectivity, verification, dispassion — making way for a heated, overzealous and inconsiderate jumble of words and images as channels fought each other to ‘break news’ and gather eyeballs. Worse, there is evidence that at times the frenzied coverage risked the lives of people trapped in the two Mumbai hotels and endangered the security forces. Transcripts of phone conversations between the terrorists and their Pakistani handlers clearly establish that the latter were issuing instructions on the basis of what they were watching. For instance, the terrorists in Taj Mahal Palace were told the dome of the hotel had caught fire; those holed up at The Oberoi were informed that the security forces were strengthening their positions on the roof.
The Supreme Court is right that, insofar as it risked violating the right to life of others, such TV coverage cannot be justified under the right to free expression. However, it is one thing to criticise over-the-top coverage and quite another to say something that could be interpreted as tacit endorsement of an external regulatory framework. Despite the occasional excesses, self-regulation of the broadcast media is the best way of striking a balance between preserving freedom of expression from state interference and preventing the abuse of its immense power. News broadcasters are not unaware of their obligations and the reasonable restrictions on their freedom to report events. The setting up of the News Broadcasters Association, comprising 45 news and current affairs channels, with its Code of Ethics and its Redressal Authority to address complaints from those aggrieved, is a significant step in the right direction. Stung by the criticism of the coverage of 26/11, the NBA has issued guidelines for reporting in emergency situations, which mandate, among other things, that no information be “given of pending rescue operations or regarding the number of security personnel involved or methods employed by them.” As TV coverage of subsequent incidents has shown, self-regulation is working reasonably well and there is no reason for external control.
Keywords: News Broadcasters Association, TV coverage, print media industry, Press Council of India, media regulation, self-regulation, Indian media
Self-regulation has not worked in news media, banks, markets, etc. not
just in India but no where in the world. Why will a smart business
administrator want to stick to ethics when he can push them under the
carpet and make a lot of money. An (impartial) regulatory authority like
TRAI is a more appropriate solution.
The morale borne by Indian media is excessive.That's why they become the easy target of any pogrom or a molestation incident because of giving vast coverage to the incident piece by piece.If they work within the boundary of code of conduct that wouldn't harm the pressure or competition among the media houses .The supreme court rebuke media because of its careless reach to the public which could harm the hegemony of the country in the next move planned by 26/11 terrorist.Therefore ,it is required that they should have the rationality in common what could be required at the moment,and may be reached to the public at a later point of time which could help the analyst to slate down do and don'ts to avoid recurrence.
If self-regulation cannot be trusted to work for politicians,
bureaucrats and even the judiciary, then what makes the media so
different? There is proof from around the world that media doesn't
self-regulate. (News of the World comes to mind). It is not human
nature that big, profitable corporates will self-regulate. And media
is indeed the big Daddy of such corporates. Media cannot self-
regulate, there should be an independent watch-dog. The media is so
forthcoming in support of the Constitutional watch dog CAG, why are
you so very unwelcoming of one to watch over you????
In cases, which happened beyond the vision of court, it is
understandable that after a thorough inquiry and verification of
evidence the guilt is established and perpetrator of crime is
pronounced. But in cases, as in the 26/11 incident, the wrong of the
media was evident and conclusive even when it was happening. If the
censure is relevant now it was more relevant at that time and a timely
intervention could have stopped their live coverage. Prevention is
better than cure. This slogan is not for preaching but for actual
practical application.
Media is also behaving like politicians. Politicians irrespective of party get together to oppose any anti-corruption bills, similarly we saw the media blackout during Radia tapes. Asking media to self regulate is like asking our politicians to pass anti-corruption bills.
The Apex court has rightly slammed the Indian media for live coverage of the terrorists attack which provided valuable “intelligence” inputs for the mercenaries. For the media, the terrorist attack was of its first kind in India for a live coverage even as the state authorities ignored the vulnerable impacts of live TV coverage for the Security operation. The media must have learned a few hard lessons themselves from the incident. Similarly, the verdict also proved the claims of Pakistan wrong that its citizens are not involved in the terrorist attack. Now, Pakistan should show its commitment to try those involved in planning and execution of the terrorist attack. The international community should exert pressure on Pakistan.
Indeed a good editorial by The Hindu. The point that is raised " Right
to Live is more important than any other right in indian constitution"
is appreciable. NBA should work hard on these issues and various other
issues which are causing harm to our social life and mentality of the
new generation.
"Self regulation" of NBA is for protecting their business interests.
Such regulations are indeed not required for those having public spirit
and moral. Right to freedom of expression is misused by the TV channels.
In the name of freedom of expression they indulge in sensationalism,
unbaked comments, opinion building etc. thereby increasing their viewer
base and filling their bags. An external regulating body with statutory
status alone can try to discipline the electronic media.
Self-regulation by TV channels is a preferable method of ensuring that the TV channels follow the guidelines for good conduct. But unfortunately interests of revenue are so overriding that TV channels often broadcast programmes which sensationalize the events. My second observation is about advertisement breaks. Is it not true that almost all programmes which we watch on TV are more loaded in favour of advertisers and are having irritating breaks. They really test the viewers’ patience.Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has now come to the rescue of the viewers by proposing a that in an hour’s programme advertisement content should not be of more than 12 minutes. If TV channels had some self- regulatory mechanism, TRAI would not impose code of conduct. But how many of TV channels are ready for such self-disciplinary action?
To the extent the security forces and citizens were placed at a disadvantage and the terrorists were at an advantage, the live telecast of the 26/11 Mumbai tragedy by various channels was unfortunate, and the Apex Court’s rebuke of the same is not fully unfounded. It looks the Court by its own made the comments and not upon any arguments put forward by the Government authorities. I think the security forces and other governmental authorities could have an eye on the news transmission, and regulated the same then and there. Any vague intentions of curbing the freedom of the media following the judicial observations could be even more tragic. In India where corruption has become rampant in all spheres of public life, perhaps electronic media is comparatively the only hope of the people. The large numbers and the actual visuals make the reporting reliable and self-balancing to a great length. Surely, the NBA can issue appropriate guidelines as and when felt necessary.
When 9/11 happened, the whole world came to know about it within minutes of it. Even the local residents of New york would not have read or heard about it in those first few minutes.If we watch the major news channels like BBC or CNN and compare with our own, there is a mad rush amongst the younger generation of braodcasters like the one from TIMES NOW, CNNIBN etc to create a frenzy in covering the important news. Anyone watching the CBI court verdict against PC, would have suffered a heart attack, in the way the coverage took place. The news reporter was almost fainting while covering it from the court premises. The anchor was nagging her second by second and embarrassed her by telling her that petition was dismissed.this is total madness . The kind of restraint needed in beating one another for breaking news, is the main issue to be addressed by NBA.Other major reform needed is resorting to influencing the judiciary by running a hatred campaign against an accused.
The Supreme Court's comments and observations regarding tv coverage of 26/11/2008 is point for introspection for all media concerned.Under the braeking news the fourth pillar have no right to play with our nation's securty and lives of people.These 24 by 7 media must always have a thought on implications of such coverage.Also all responsible media must have cautious enough in coverage of riots and bomb blast incidents.We called it Mass Media,so it must be more careful,helpful to masses,people.what else?
Self regulation will succeed only if the ethical standards are high. Unfortunately in our country ethics have been pushed out by greed. We need urgent action to safegaurd the lives of our security personnel and innocent citizens. The law should be amended to consider such coverage punishable as `aiding and abetting terrorism`
The 'self regulating mechanism' with its code of conduct & ethics is formed of those news channels who were fighting for their share of pie during 26/11. Can they be expected to follow restraint should any emergency emerge in future? The objectivity is lost here. Breaking of rule by even a single channel will lead to rush for claims of 'breaking news' by most of these channels.
As an alternative of control by any other authority, laws could be notified with blanket controls on media penetration in case of an emergency, though the scope & duration will have to be clearly demarcated.
Media is the 4th pillar of democracy. There should not be any external
control. But almost all the media houses are politically biased.
Television channels are fighting among themselves for giving breaking
news. News channels mainly local ones (state) come up with breaking
news which do not have much importance. Say, stealing of a computer
from a school was a breaking news in one TV channel recently-
hereby lowering the importance of the term "breaking news". Media
should not be censored also. But, they should have the sense of the
situations before publishing the news. In recent violence in Assam the
media is not publishing the number of deaths of Hindus and Muslims
separately. If they did it, situation may be more violent and spread
to many parts of the country. As stated in the editorial all media
houses are aware of their obligations, but the main thing is that they
should follow it.
"However, its concluding remark that ... is misplaced. "
Very fortunate to meet someone who knows more than the Supreme Court. You, sir,
will from now on tell the entire nation what is right and what is wrong and correct
the SUpreme Court wherever it goes wrong.
Dear sir,
However much you may try to defend your electronic brethren, I am
afraid it will lower the credibility of the printed version. As long
as they do not bring about meaningful debates with informed parties
on matters such as "Paid News" or the deplorable coverage of 26/11 or
for that matter the siege of Ranganath Temple years ago, your defence
will not cut much ice.
It is time for introspection. There are several cases of obvious bias
in what is published and telecast. You have been given more than
enough chances to set your house in order. I believe an external
autonomous agency is the only way out.
Courts have to intervene because this country has incompetent executive
and legislature which is busy in getting re elected and protecting their
status.Courst no doubt should have practiced judicial restraint in an
ideal case but when you have a system full of autocrats and money making
machines courts have no option left but to intervene to remind these
babus that noone is above law in this country and constitution of india
rules
self regulation is no regulation. Why have laws also? let public have "self regulation". Media should not consider itself as above the law that they demand accountabilty from politicans and corporates but themselves are unwilling to be accountable.
Nothing should be completely free. Everything should be subject to reasonable restrictions. The channels and newspapers today are exceeding their brief and are known to present blatant falsehoods as truth.
While welcoming the the Supreme Court's rebuke of the country's television channels, which, in their over-enthusiasm to be the first in providing second-by-second information on the stunning happenings in the 26/11 terrorist attack launched on Mumbai to the millions of Indian viewers,competed with each other in giving live coverage of each and every development - not realising that the enemies who masterminded the attack could also watch and make use of them to change their tactics- the editorial "The medium as messenger", after candidly analysing every pertinent aspect, has most sensibly suggested that self-regulation is preferrable to external control over the channels, as the former would ensure requisite media freedom and curb excesses without any external interference.
Please Email the Editor