TV news channels: DISGUSTING AND DISGRACEFUL

Desaraju Surya
I am herewith reproducing views and feelings of my dear friend, an Indian Administrative Service officer, on the media coverage of the Mumbai terror strikes. Being a journalist, I have no hestitation in endorsing what all he said in his blog post. The conduct of the electronic (visual) medium journalists was utterly disgusting and disgraceful, to put it mildly. Shame on their part.
I have many examples to illustrate how the visual medium is proving to be a bane to the society. The Telugu television news channels have become obnoxious. I shall putforth my views on the subject sometime later. But now, read my IAS friend's anguish.

"I am on a holiday. Without access to reliable internet connection, blogging was naturally intermittent. However, the rivetting events of the past few days kept me tuned on to the television channels. A few observations from the coverage. Even as the NSG commando were fighting the terrorists holed up inside the Taj, Trident and Nariman House, another battle was being fought outside by the television news media channels to capture the media space. While the commandos acquitted themseleves with distinction, the same cannot be said of the ultra-competitive media channels. To put it bluntly, the actions of large sections of television channels were disgraceful, insensitive and indecent. Many of them came out as undignified and greedy vultures swooping down on hapless victims of the tragedy. I had been under the impression that a reporter was meant to report events and even illustrate possibilities, which were then to be analyzed by editors and external analysts. But the events in Mumbai saw reporters throwing all such distinctions to the wind, elevating themselves as self-appointed analysts and media pundits, spraying "wisdom" in all directions. Some of them had even become self-appointed flag-bearers of nationalism and patriotism. Ironically enough, the anchors and editors who were vituperative in criticising (rightly so) the politicians for using the tragedy to score brownie points, were culpable of falling prey to the same disease. Many of them, with a few honourable exceptions, saw this as an one-time opportunity to make and enhance reputations, and flagellate as popular opinion makers. What spouted out as informed analysis was the routine denuciations of the usual suspects - Politicians and Pakistan - and simplified band-aid solutions to a complex challenge. Traumatized victims (especially foreigners) released from the clutches of terrorists were hounded for soundbites (despite polite refusals), and politicians (like spokespersons of political parties) were accused (even abused) of being responsible for the tragedy in a manner bereft of any dignity. The middle class sentiments were sought to be aroused by playing to the galleries through a brazenly artificial exposition of the courage and bravery of the soldiers and commandos and public catharsis of the released victims and their relatives. If there was poignancy, it certainly was not evoked by most of these journalists, including the superstar ones (who even professed to conveying poignancy), reporting on it. The ruthless and insensitive nosing for news was disgraceful, to say the least. If this was an attempt to whip up national pride and stand up for our armed forces, please, don't ask us to be subtle about it!I vividly recollect a bewildered Chinese looking chef of the Taj, who was hardly able to scramble through the fusillade of questions hurled at him by one of our superstar television journalists, apart from sticking to the safe, if monotonous, "no" to whether he had seen or heard anything. Questions on issues as weighty as who was responsible for the terrorist attacks and how many were killed and injured (something which even the intelligence agencies of the government were yet to figure out!) were thrust on the poor man who had just escaped the hotel. The poor lad was relegated to the backstage, even without as much as a sympathetic remark for the difficult ordeal he had been through, and obvious obscurity for even "not having heard a bomb explosion". This particular "superstar" also "distinguished" himself in his other reports by constantly bombarding his "victims" with his non-stop barrage of questions which appeared to have the objective of eliciting a particular answer than the correct answer. Some of the antics of our popular television news anchors were clearly cheap attempts at imitating western media personalities like John Simpson and Christian Amanpour.The most garish omission obviously was the near total lack of sympathy or coverage of hapless victims, who being lesser mortals" lost their lives in the oblivion of the not so "iconic" CST. So skewed was the coverage that a viewer could be excused for not knowing that the largest number of casualties and biggest "human tragedy" took place at the crowded railway station. The last straw that broke the camel's back was undoubtedly the injured claim on the last day on how "the shocked victims would hardly speak to the journalists who had been patiently waiting for them outside.""