TV channels drew much flak for going overboard covering the Mumbai terror live for more than 60 hours. The likes of Barkha Dutt, Rajdeep Sardesai, Arnab Goswami etc. etc. overworked to bring ‘exclusive’ reportage to the anxious audience. Does’nt matter, if they asked some silly questions to the relatives of those who were taken ho
stages inside Taj (like, ‘Are you worried?’). They made sure that their TRP ratings shot up by over 30 points in those 60 hours.
In the bargain, as critiqued widely, two important events were almost forgotten: elections in 3 states and the death of V. P. Singh (Unfortunately, he died at the wrong time). But one thing was clear: the attacks did not dither the voter from coming out to vote. In fact, the average across the states was 66 per cent, much higher than what it used to be earlier. And as the results show us, the voter came out defying all odds just to make sure that only the performer got elected. The BJP’s cashing in strategy on terror boomeranged, as the voter did not perceive terror as something that concerned only the ruling party. All this shows that that the voter has become more intelligent and choosy. No party, thus, is a frontrunner in the coming Lok Sabha elections.
Coming back to the live media coverage of Mumbai terror: It was sheer loss of professionalism on the part of Indian TV channels. They threw all caution to the wind and reported as if they were the only heralds of hope for those trapped inside and waiting anxiously outside, not to mention millions of hungry viewers all over. All norms of broadcast journalism were forgotten, at least for sometime. Their main concern seemed to be only TRP ratings and nothing else.
Compare this with the reportage of BBC network. They too went live to a certain extent; but they never gave a feeling of a loss of balance anywhere. Granted, that they were a foreign channel and that they did not have as much stake in the Mumbai terror as Indian channels did. But such stakes need not overburden you to be melodramatic and, in s
ome cases, even to the extent of loss of voice. It is true that reporters too are human and, perhaps, most of them were covering such terror live for the first time. But, whatever happened to those long years spent in training, learning news values, social responsibility, sense proportion and so on? It is indeed unfortunate how journalists conveniently forget fundamental theories of journalism when it comes to competition.
Media sets agenda and manufactures consent. This was proved decades ago by Walt Lippman, Noam Chomsky and others. The coverage of the Mumbai attacks was a fascinating example corroborating these theories. The audience was made to believe that Taj and Trident were more important (national icons!) and CST was just another railway station. We were also told that it was an attack on Indian economy. But does our economy depend only on a miniscule filthy rich people who frequent such avoidable hotels?
A quick final comment: over the last five years or so, more than ten thousand farmers have committed suicide, owing to debt and other reasons, in Maharashtra alone. But that tragedy does not seem to be a worthwhile issue for the TV channels. However, lives lost in Taj and Trident are deeply mourned. Does it mean that some lives are more valuable than others? It is true that all terror attacks should be condemned and that we cannot condone the violence that takes its toll on hundreds of innocent civilians. But all lives are equally precious and hence must be given equal waitage, if not intensity. A farmer’s life is as important as the life of a wealthy man dying in the Taj or a police official dying while fighting terrorists at CST. We can only hope media will learn from their mistakes.
stages inside Taj (like, ‘Are you worried?’). They made sure that their TRP ratings shot up by over 30 points in those 60 hours.In the bargain, as critiqued widely, two important events were almost forgotten: elections in 3 states and the death of V. P. Singh (Unfortunately, he died at the wrong time). But one thing was clear: the attacks did not dither the voter from coming out to vote. In fact, the average across the states was 66 per cent, much higher than what it used to be earlier. And as the results show us, the voter came out defying all odds just to make sure that only the performer got elected. The BJP’s cashing in strategy on terror boomeranged, as the voter did not perceive terror as something that concerned only the ruling party. All this shows that that the voter has become more intelligent and choosy. No party, thus, is a frontrunner in the coming Lok Sabha elections.
Coming back to the live media coverage of Mumbai terror: It was sheer loss of professionalism on the part of Indian TV channels. They threw all caution to the wind and reported as if they were the only heralds of hope for those trapped inside and waiting anxiously outside, not to mention millions of hungry viewers all over. All norms of broadcast journalism were forgotten, at least for sometime. Their main concern seemed to be only TRP ratings and nothing else.
Compare this with the reportage of BBC network. They too went live to a certain extent; but they never gave a feeling of a loss of balance anywhere. Granted, that they were a foreign channel and that they did not have as much stake in the Mumbai terror as Indian channels did. But such stakes need not overburden you to be melodramatic and, in s
ome cases, even to the extent of loss of voice. It is true that reporters too are human and, perhaps, most of them were covering such terror live for the first time. But, whatever happened to those long years spent in training, learning news values, social responsibility, sense proportion and so on? It is indeed unfortunate how journalists conveniently forget fundamental theories of journalism when it comes to competition.Media sets agenda and manufactures consent. This was proved decades ago by Walt Lippman, Noam Chomsky and others. The coverage of the Mumbai attacks was a fascinating example corroborating these theories. The audience was made to believe that Taj and Trident were more important (national icons!) and CST was just another railway station. We were also told that it was an attack on Indian economy. But does our economy depend only on a miniscule filthy rich people who frequent such avoidable hotels?
A quick final comment: over the last five years or so, more than ten thousand farmers have committed suicide, owing to debt and other reasons, in Maharashtra alone. But that tragedy does not seem to be a worthwhile issue for the TV channels. However, lives lost in Taj and Trident are deeply mourned. Does it mean that some lives are more valuable than others? It is true that all terror attacks should be condemned and that we cannot condone the violence that takes its toll on hundreds of innocent civilians. But all lives are equally precious and hence must be given equal waitage, if not intensity. A farmer’s life is as important as the life of a wealthy man dying in the Taj or a police official dying while fighting terrorists at CST. We can only hope media will learn from their mistakes.
