Watching the Watchdog

The electronic media did not live up to its own self-imposed code, notes media analyst AMMU JOSEPH

Photo: Mallikarjun Katakol

Now that the action appears to be over, the media have predictably – perhaps necessarily – turned to postmortems on various aspects of the tragedy that overtook Mumbai last week. It will be interesting to see whether or not the exercise will include an inquest into the role of the media during the crisis.

If so, the recently unveiled self-regulatory Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards adopted by the News Broadcasters Association (see http://www.nbanewdelhi.com/) could conceivably serve as a useful guide to introspection. After all, it is supposed to represent the first effort by television journalists in India “to evolve institutional checks and safeguards…that can define the path that would conform to the highest standards of rectitude and journalistic ethics and guide the media in the discharge of its solemn constitutional duty.” (sic)

The introductory background section of the document states that the reach and penetration of the electronic media “has the promise to make democracy a living reality for those who do not have access to the print media for want of literacy or otherwise, and giving them a sense of involvement in the process of governance.” (sic)

I, for one, did not see a single person from the population category alluded to in that high-sounding statement on any of the six to seven channels I watched intermittently during the 24x3 coverage of the carnage in Mumbai. Some newspapers at least had early stories about the bloodbath in the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST), about the plight of hapless patients in the Cama and Albless Hospital, and about the victims of the taxi explosion in Wadi Bunder – all situations involving people who presumably fit under the ‘aam aadmi’ umbrella popularised by the media. But on television the focus throughout was almost entirely on the siege situations at the Taj Mahal Hotel, the Oberoi-Trident hotels and Nariman/Chabad House, even though there was an acute and prolonged scarcity of fresh information and visuals over those fateful three nights and two days.

The Background also notes that “the basic strength of a news channel lies in its credibility, from which flows its ability to influence public opinion.” The Fundamental Principles on which the Code is based suggest that “professional electronic journalists … as trustees of public (sic) … should make it their mission to seek the truth and to report it fairly with integrity and independence.” And that “professional journalists should stand fully accountable for their actions.”

Accordingly, the first of the “Principles of Self-Regulation” meant to serve as editorial guidelines makes it clear that “Accuracy is at the heart of the news television business.” “Viewers of 24-hour news channels expect speed,” it continues, “but it is the responsibility of TV news channels to keep accuracy and balance, as precedence over speed.” (sic) “If despite this there are errors, channels should be transparent about them. Errors must be corrected promptly and clearly…”

Early on Friday afternoon, a high-profile television journalist reported that while the operation at the Taj had entered the final stage, the stand-off at the Oberoi was still in the first stage and that the ordeal there was likely to be long drawn out. A short while later the Oberoi was “secured,” whereas the battle inside the Taj raged on till Saturday morning. Earlier, on Thursday, there were unfounded reports about negotiations with the militants. Then a rumour was circulated about fresh firing at CST. Reports on where the boats/rafts carrying the criminals landed moved from Sassoon Dock to Cuffe Parade to the Gateway of India. I have yet to see any corrections, let alone mea culpas, on TV.

This is despite the fact the last Principle of Self-Regulation enumerated in the Code focuses attention on the importance of the Corrigendum: “All news channels will, keeping with the principle of due accuracy and impartiality, ensure that significant mistakes made in the course of any broadcast is (sic) acknowledged and corrected on air immediately. Corrections should also be scheduled in such a way that they attract enough viewer attention and are not concealed. This, like the other principles, must be observed in spirit, and not just in letter, to avoid any compromise to the reputation of the news broadcasting industry in India.”

It is admittedly very difficult to report on what is actually breaking news (unlike much of what is passed off as that these days). But is it professionally acceptable to present unconfirmed conjecture as fact? In the old days newspapers used labels like advertorial, sponsored feature, etc., for commercial messages in the form of editorial content. Perhaps news television needs to find a term that will enable viewers to distinguish between speculation and information.

According to the NBA’s Code, “The fundamental purpose of dissemination of news in a democracy is to educate and inform the people of the happenings in the country, so that the people of the country understand significant events and form their own conclusions.”
The rampant, blatant editorialising (not to mention haranguing and filibustering) indulged in by several television journalists, especially some well-known senior anchors, leaves little room for their interviewees to say what they want to, let alone for citizens to figure out what to make of what is going on.

For example, even as the terrible events of the past few days were unfolding, some TV anchors were talking about ‘revenge’, and the theme of ‘War on Mumbai’ soon gave way to ‘India hits back’. Less than 24 hours into the crisis, interviewees were being asked for their opinions on Pakistani involvement (it is another matter that at least one or two senior officials refused to be drawn into such premature assumptions). Is this the best way to enable the public to understand significant events and form informed opinion?

The Code also states that “TV news channels must provide for neutrality by offering equality for all affected parties, players and actors in any dispute or conflict to present their point of view.” It suggests that broadcasters have a fundamental duty to ensure a full and fair presentation of news and views, and that controversial subjects must be fairly presented, with time being allotted fairly to each point of view.

News channels seem all too keen to ensure that spokespersons of prominent political parties are provided with more or less permanent platforms to air their organisations’ views (the more provocative the better). And, of course, they make sure that the celebrity/glamour quotient is well represented, whether or not it enriches the debate in any way. However, people with subject expertise are invariably either missing and/or given too little time and space to inject worthwhile information and opinion into the discussion. And not only are those with “alternative” views (however well-informed and articulated) hardly ever heard on TV, but some anchors think nothing of belittling and dismissing “the politically correct brigade.”

According to the Code, “the selection of items of news shall … be governed by public interest and importance based on the significance of these items of news in a democracy.” On Sunday evening TV channels were loudly, no doubt justifiably, accusing the Chief Minister of Maharashtra of promoting ‘disaster tourism’ by taking his actor son and a well-known film director along while inspecting the ravaged interiors of the Taj, but on Saturday evening their own reporters were taking viewers on an equally voyeuristic tour of the embattled and scarred hotel, blurring the distinction between ‘public interest’ and what may or may not interest the public.

The code states that “news channels must strive to ensure that allegations are not portrayed as fact and charges are not conveyed as an act of guilt.” This principle is, of course, observed mainly in the breach – whether in individual cases (such as the Aarushi murder) or collective ones, such as the attacks on Mumbai.

The Code suggests that in reporting violence (collective or individual) news channels must ensure that any reconstruction of events “will not cross boundaries of good taste and sensibility.” Good taste is, of course, a subjective matter. However, the ongoing reconstruction by some channels of the events of the past few days – complete with music suitable for a Hollywood or Bollywood thriller – does come across as rather insensitive.

According to the Code, news channels must not only refrain from encouraging secessionist groups and interests through their broadcasts but also from revealing information that could endanger lives as well as national security. Yet, even as they acknowledged that they had been requested not to show security forces in action, several channels aired footage of commandos being air-dropped onto the roof of Nariman House. Such non-compliance could be the reason why there were reports of disruption in newscasts in the Colaba area on Friday. If the authorities jammed the airwaves to prevent sensitive information from jeopardising difficult operations and endangering lives, who can fault them?

The NBA has set up a News Broadcasting Standards Disputes Redressal Authority to not only entertain and decide upon complaints about television content, but also to maintain and improve broadcast standards, ensure compliance with the self-regulatory Code of Conduct, and to foster the growth of a sense of responsibility and public service among those engaged in the profession of television journalism and the business of broadcasting. The seven-member Authority is supposed to meet at least once in two months. It will be interesting to see whether and how this new mechanism for self-regulation by broadcasters reviews the performance of television channels in covering the recent ‘audacious’ attacks against the city and people of Mumbai.

If it does, perhaps members of the Authority could do us a favour and figure out a way to avoid the insensitive airing of cheery advertisements that are totally inappropriate in the midst of media coverage of such traumatic events. The sober and sympathetic message quickly put out by Tata Indicom could perhaps serve as an example of corporate social responsibility in these dark times.