Hindustan Times
What lessons have we learnt from 26\11?
In the aftermath of 26/11, politicians emerged as the biggest villains. But close on their heels were the media. Whether it was people you ran into on the streets or the hate groups on Facebook, the middle class seemed united in its disapproval of the way in which the media had covered the crisis. Now that we have had a year to reflect on the events that led to this outpouring of public anger against the media, it may be time to come to some conclusions.
First of all, did television channels behave in a manner that endangered the lives of hostages and commandos?
The answer has to be yes. I can quote three instances. Terrorists found out that guests were hiding out in the Chambers at the Taj on the night of the 26th when their Pakistani controllers told them that TV had carried the news. The TV channels appear to have discovered this when a politician who was at the Chambers gave a phone interview to the media. Many of us discovered that the Chambers was being used as a hideout while watching a correspondent do a piece to camera on NDTV that night. But other channels also carried the news.
Two, an excellent Discovery channel documentary on the survivors of 26/11 contains an interview with a woman who was trapped at the Trident. She texted her daughter in Canada to say that she was hiding on the 19th floor and was safe because the terrorists were down below. Within minutes, her daughter texted back. Canadian TV was carrying a live feed from an Indian channel. The reporter was revealing that guests had taken refuge on the 19th floor and the cameraman was zooming in on a lit window on that floor. Three, the NSG believes that it lost the advantage of any kind of surprise because all TV channels (except, to its credit, NDTV) ran live coverage of commandos being lowered on to the roof of Nariman House. An NSG havaldar lost his life. And the mission was less successful than it might have been otherwise.
All three instances are solid, concrete and hard to refute.
But from then on, it is more difficult to be definitive about the role of TV. For instance, were the channels insensitive in talking to relatives of those trapped inside the hotels and in interviewing those who had escaped from the siege?
Well, yes and no. You and I may cringe slightly when the camera focuses on a distraught relative or on a man who has just lost his wife. But here’s the thing: Hardly anybody who was interviewed was unwilling to talk. The relatives outside the Trident actually asked to be put on camera so that they could be heard.
There were some unpleasant scenes when reporters thrust microphones into the faces of people as they escaped from the Taj or the Oberoi. And this was clearly insensitive. But this occurred maybe three or four times over three days. The rest of the time, all those who were interviewed were willing participants in the media coverage.
Did the channels waste too much time interviewing page three people and rent-a-quote buffoons and asking them their opinion? Was some of the coverage over-emotional and needlessly overwrought?
In my view: Guilty on both counts.
I’ve written about the morons who made it to TV elsewhere (Mint) so I won’t repeat myself. I also believe that individual anchors were unable to distance themselves from the events that were unfolding around them and that there was too much pointless anger and far too much needless drama in the coverage.
In all fairness, I don’t think these amount to criticisms of media as a whole. If I don’t like a reporter who is getting over-emotional on camera, I can change channels. I can also go to another channel if I feel that an anchor is spending too much time giving us his own simplistic let’s-bomb-Pakistan-now views when he should be focusing on the news.
So it is with the bimbos who made it to TV. Who you call to your panel discussion or who you interview outside the Taj are subjective decisions. I may think Simi Garewal is a fool who lowered the tone of the coverage: others may feel that she’s a valid representative of a certain South Bombay mindset.
Besides, let’s be honest, the long-haired midgets, the pompous flacks and the admen in ill-fitting toupes are staples of TV coverage of Bombay at all times. Their presence may have seemed jarring in the context of 26/11 but it was hardly a new development. They were there before. And no doubt they will all reappear on the night of the first anniversary to repeat much of the nonsense they spouted a year ago.
As a viewer, I thought that the tone of much of the TV coverage and the choice of guests were all wrong. But this is a criticism of style. In terms of substance, the only things that matter are: was TV insensitive and did it endanger the lives of innocent people?
The answers are that I think we’ve made too much of the insensitivity but yes, the coverage was reckless and did put people at risk – perhaps it led to some deaths.
One of the problems with the way in which we have reacted to media coverage of 26/11 is that in our indignation, we have blurred the lines between the criticisms of style and the more serious criticisms of substance. I may not like a reporter or anchor. But that’s quite different from saying that he or she caused lives to be lost.
The big question therefore is: whose fault was it that TV served as an impediment in fighting the terrorists?
The blame can be divided into two, between the TV channels and the government. We know now that the authorities were listening in to conversations between the terrorists and their Pakistani handlers. I am staggered by the vast quantity of information that appears to have been available to our security services – in real time and as the crisis unfolded.
This means that somebody in a position of authority knew on the first night itself that terrorists had been alerted that guests were hiding in the Chambers by the TV coverage.
How much of a genius do you have to be to recognize that somebody needs to talk to TV channels and prevent them from revealing such details or warning them that they were contributing to the deaths of innocent people?
And yet, nobody in a position of authority said a word.
So it is with the Nariman House operation. The NSG had decided to use a helicopter to lower commandos into the building at least 12 hours (if not more) before the operation got under way. They knew then that the building was ringed by TV cameras and that real time coverage was on the air.
Would any TV channel have objected if the authorities had asked it to focus on other locations while the operation was in progress? And if anyone had objected, the government had the power to yank the channel off the air.
But not one word was said to the channels. So who has the blood of the NSG havaldar on their hands? The TV channels or the authorities?
Another of the problems faced by anyone trying to conduct the operation was that false stories were regularly being fed to the media. While the operation was in progress and while NSG commandos were risking their lives, the Navy’s commandos (who had been briefly involved in the operation before the NSG arrived but do not seem to have engaged the terrorists significantly) actually held a press conference on live television offering details (most of them wrong) of what was going on inside the Taj.
Was this the fault of the media? Or of the Navy? Or of the government for not stopping the Navy from going on a publicity hunt?
One of the enduring mysteries of 26/11 is: what did the Army do?
Most of us remember how soldiers ringed the Oberoi and the Taj and how assorted generals kept appearing before the TV cameras to tell us how the operation was progressing.
And yet, in every account that now appears of 26/11, the role of the Army finds no place at all. But at the time the generals acted like they were running the show. It was a general who first told the TV cameras – without any authorization at all – that Kasab was alive, was talking and had been discovered to be a Pakistani. It was another general who told us on the second day that the siege of the Taj was nearly over, that there had been only two terrorists, that one was dead and that the other was badly wounded. In fact, there were four terrorists and they fought on for a full day after the general had misled the media. A third senior officer told TV channels that they were listening to the communications between the terrorists and their handlers and that the attackers spoke a Pakistani Punjabi. Surely this kind of operational information should not have been disclosed?
Say this for the Army and the Navy: at least they went on TV and said what they had to on the record. The Bombay police, on the other hand, kept leaking false stories to journalists on an off-the-record basis, perhaps because they were annoyed at being excluded from the operation.
Any fool can see what was lacking: a single authority that took charge of information dissemination and stopped the publicity hounds and those with axes to grind from talking nonsense to the media.
In fact, there was no such authority. After the event, the I&B Ministry and the Home Ministry expressed concern about the coverage. But when they could actually have done something, they remained silent. Nobody informed or guided the media. Nobody even bothered to put up barricades to prevent journalists from getting too close to released hostages. While the media launched a free for all, the government slept.
What happens now? There has been some attempt at self-regulation by journalists. Broadcasters have now agreed to do what should always have been done: no future crisis will be covered in real time. There will be a half-hour delay. Not only will this deny terrorists the advantage of knowing what is happening as it occurs, it will also allow the authorities to step in and stop the channels from telecasting operations that are best left secret.
Other measures have been taken. During 26/11, the terrorists phoned a TV channel from Nariman House and delivered a diatribe – live – on how India murders Kashmiris. That won’t happen again. There will be no more live interviews with terrorists.
It’s too early to be sure but my hope is that the next time a crisis like this occurs, the media will avoid the mistakes of 26/11. At least there has been some introspection and some guidelines have been formulated.
But has the government introspected? Has there been any post-mortem into why the information set-up functioned so disastrously on 26/11? Has any action been taken against those who spoke so irresponsibly to the media? Has a crisis information authority been set up?
I doubt it. The media learn from their mistakes. Governments, on the other hand, never learn.
(15 votes, average: 4.4 out of 5)
Loading ...Posted by Vir Sanghvi on Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Filed under Media · Tagged 26/11, hindustan times. media, Kasab, Media, mumbai terror attack, NSG
Hello Sir,
I am honoured to be the first person to be commenting on your blog. You have hit the nail on the head and I could not agree with you more on this.. Ive been watching the TV lately and seeing the ads like - exclusive coverage of anniversary!!, relive the 60 hrs of horror!!, never before seen footage!!, unheard phone calls!!, unsung heroes!!, 5 days to go!!, 4 days, 3 days, 2, 1.. Got confused if the media was actually covering a tragedy.. I
ncidentally A G was asked the same question on OUR channel which you raise in this blog and he sheepishly avoided it by putting the ball in the politicians court and closing his program.
In the world of TRP hunting scavengers you are the only MAN in the media right now. who has the guts to point a finger in the right direction.. My respect for you as a journalist has increased manifold.
[Reply]
Ravi Reply:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
One more thing.. There was a channel called India TV.. Not sure if its still there.. On 2611 last year, they were showing that a terrorist from Trident was talking to them live into the news room claiming to be a victim of Gujarat..
I Want to know if there was any investigation into this..
[Reply]
Ifif I compare this coverage to the coverage at the eve of plane hijack IC 814 then you people have improved. Still miles to go.
I vividly remember how chest beating of family was beamed live and shameless relatives of passengers stuck on the plane even mouthed words like.. “India bhand mein jaaye sab kuchh dedo mere relatives ko wapas lao.” All this nonsense was actually beamed by NDTv then.
Today same NDTV when starts talking about why terrorists were exchanged forgets this part.. their frenzied reporting also aided in govt. capitualtion..
By that apalling standard you guys have improved for sure.
[Reply]
“we have blurred the lines between the criticisms of style and the more serious criticisms of substance. I may not like a reporter or anchor. But that’s quite different from saying that he or she caused lives to be lost.”
Is the above statement is a subtle defence of Barkha Dutt, who was widely criticized over her over-melodramatic and insensitive coverage of the attacks?
[Reply]
Kato Reply:
November 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Barkha’s coverage was/is an example of what was wrong about the coverage of this incident. Shame on her.
I cannot forget the way she ran towards the Taj hotel - along with several others - like beggars running towards something ‘interesting’.
And she is suppossed to be a ‘respected senior journalist’ !! If these ’senior’ journalists behave this way - what is the hope for others !
[Reply]
As long as any politician or their kin are not threatened by the terrorists the netalog are not going to care much about ordinary people. they just dont have the time, poor people, from their 24/7 job of making money by any means. the Maha politicians were squablling over the distribution of the ‘lucrative’ ministeries with the entire politics of the country in fray for such a long time in delhi, will they have time for such small things like security of the common man. even the public will waste lot of hot air and time in expressing their disgust with the system and politicians on the web but will not spend a couple of hours once every 4/5 years to go out and vote. (for the record i always do) . so we got the leaders we deserve and there will be no change in the circumstances, it will just keep on deteriorating over a period of time.
[Reply]
Mr Sanghvi,
Excellent Piece.
But this national humiliation will probably lead to better security in the future. We are by nature a reactive society that always botches things up the first time and need to be humiliated every now and then to act.
The media did act irresponsibly but that probably has a lot to do with apeing the american journalistic practices. Of couse since we are new to this we lack class, gravitas,capability and intellectual breadth ( Depth is there Prannoy Roy , a screaming Rajdeep sardesai, Vikram Chandra and even barkha Dutt) as yet. In keeping with the reacitvity principle, the media too will do a better job next time.
[Reply]
Anil Kumar Reply:
November 27th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Bingo , I just compare the nonsense these gusy used to spew ten years back and see a stark improvement.
Fact is india and indians deserve their
(1) politician
(2) mediamen( most of them either under fear or on payroll of some party or intellectually coward as Arun Shourie puts it.. I guess it was on some Tv show with veer himself he mentioned how indian intellgentia acts like sheep . if government is following socialism then all of them become socialist if they change their tune to capitalism all of them become capitalists.. Kind of like manmohans Singh who overnight becasme a capitalist stalwart from socialist thinker. I should not be using the word thinker because congressi suually barter their thinking capability at the time of joining the party.. but anyway
(3)Businessmen ( thugs most of them barring few exceptions lke tata)
(4) bureaucracy ( this stock comes from your usual every day indian and they are as corrupt to the core as anyone and yet here I am complaining.. I am pretty sure if I would have been in bureacracy I would have been no different
(5) Judiciary , now this class of thugs cover themselves with vacuuous aura of being impartial. But one cursory glance at finaicial status of even a lowly disctrict court judge would tell you these thugs are just thugs. Not just thuggish they are timid too when indira gandhi brought emregency all but two judges fell in line..
[Reply]
Yashwant Raj had written an excellent piece on ‘Going Big’…I think it applies only too well to this situation as well..It may just be me, but the ‘over-extensive’ coverage for 26/11 seems like too much of an overkill..I could not tolerate TV going overboard with a re-hash of everything that went wrong that fateful night.
[Reply]
Vir Vir Vir! whatever the media does, India TV still exists, that itself is a no win.
[Reply]
Mr.Sanghvi
Your above article in Ht was really an eye opener. In fact I have seen you several times during your recreation tours and had always an urge to appreciate your commendable and an unbiased articles in most of the cases, but due to professional ethics could not dare to do. Except for Barkha Dutt (as mention by most of the commentators) I would not blame the media but the government & politicians who inevitably, been responsible & has always attempted to pour oil on troubled water.
Since the guidelines have been formulated for media, It’s time we turn the spotlight on the government and politicians and ask, ‘What about ethical governance? Hope someone is listening.
[Reply]
Mr Sanghvi,
You ask: One of the enduring mysteries of 26/11 is: what did the Army do? Let me inform you as to what did the Army do?
(a) It was the first responder in a situation where someone else ought to have been the first responder!
(b) Through quick and professional response it encircled the buidlings where the terrorists had entered and thereby stopped them from running amuck in the city!
(c) Apparently someone the government had taken a decision that NSG would be the one to enter the buildings to eliminate the terrorists, so the Army quitely withdrew when NSG arrived.
(d) In so far as your criticism of `assorted generals’ is concerned, your choice of words is indicative of your grace or lack of it and I shall ignore it. More substantive point is wether the Generals who spoke to the media did in any way give away anything of operational importance? Answer is NO. They spoke to media with a view to
(i) reduce the public apprehensions by saying that `operations were going on well’. What would you have perfered - that operations were faltering.
(ii) By informing the media that Kasab was alive and a Pakistani, what harm have they casued? May be Mr Sangvi would like to explain!
(iii) By telling that Indians were listening in to the conversation pressure was built up on the terrirists and thier handlers.
Apparently Mr Sangvi has no idea of what he is talking about. Except that like many of his ilk he feels that the Armed Forces, because of thier sense of discipline, are an easy target. Well times are a-changing.
[Reply]
Sharat Reply:
December 16th, 2009 at 2:13 am
I couldn’t agree more with Yogi. Instead of accepting their fault , Mr. Sanghvi seems more interested in blaming others. This country is saved because of the Armed forces and any fingure pointed on them should not be tolerated at all. Mr. Sanghvi- You asked so many questions to others, why don’t you ask yourself, what did u do that time apart from puking the bullshit on TV?
[Reply]
Hello Mr. Singhvi
The faults of media you pointed out in covering 26/11 are nothing new. The general public holds both the media and the UPA govt. responsible for mishandling the situation during this carnage. The 26/11 anniversary has been marked by jingoism and symbolism. The same Home Minister during the times 26/11 has come back to occupy the same chair . He was rather forced to quit after he had made irresponsible comments. The media was glorifying the terorists by live covering their statements that one of them was a victim of Gujarat riots. Did any one enquire about this? But why the media was covering this statement of the terrorist? The media thus provided a ready made fodder to Pakistan to accuse us for the Mumbai carnage as this being one of the reason of this carnage. The media , especially the NDTV did not cover itself with glory because of its political biased mindset.
By the way, the politicians announced compensation to the victims families. It did not behove of Pranab Mukherjee to react the way he did to the leader of oppsition in Parliament when Mr. Advani pointed out the gap between the promised compensation and the implemeted part of this compensation. When Mr. Advani suggested forming a cell to monitor the compensation issues, instead of accepting the proposal on the floor of the house, Mr. Mukherjee reacted strongly and termed it as a political rhetoric on the part of leader of opposition. After all , what was wrong with this suggestion?
It was a pity to see Mrs. Karkare knocking at the doors of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Deora to claim the promised compensation of promised petrol pump. The same was the case with the families of the victims of Parliament attack.
The way 26/11 was handled by the political class of the country was indeed very sickening. Is there no alternate to this class?
[Reply]
Every body has learnt the lesson and every body will keep learning new lesson as the terrorists will keep teaching every body new lessons. The whole ruling political class ( UPA especially congressis ) and the whole media is intellectually coward or retarded. Every thing they write or speak seems chamchagiri of congress. Now i dont belong to any party. lakhs of me just hate these congressis , and their side kicks journalists like vir sangvis, barkha dutts, sujata anandans , rajdeep sirdesai and list can go on and on. Every thing they speak and write seems antinational to nationalists hindus like us. Its embarassing to write on the blog of intellectually retarded journalist like vir sanghvi, but what to do, where people like us will go and speak, as every body around seems vir sandhvi’s.
[Reply]
I think the citizen should also now emerge as a major player.
Only 48% Mumbaiites voted in the Vidhan Sabha Polls.
Shocking!
The polls were an opportunity to change our leadership and have a say in how things go around.
[Reply]
You are right - the media clearly was at fault of endangering lives but the Govt. was equally, if not more at fault for not regulating media and issuing proper guidelines on coverage. However, while the media might have learnt some lessons, the bigger lesson it still needs to learn is how to take up the right causes for improving governance. Despite a year having passed since the incident, ther is hardly any article on government casualness in distributing aid to deserving families or the continuing failures of intelligence and lack of preparedness against helicopter and other aerial strikes which have been highlighted in a report gathering dust in ministry corridors. We forget and the media lets us forget us in keeping with the Chalta Hai attitude…I can’t think of any other country where the media allows the Home Minister in charge of this horrible systemic failure to return to his cushy and comfortable chair without a protracted agitation. Definitely shame on politicians, but shame on media as well, because while this is expected of poiliticians, we expect our media to behave a lot better to help us reform our archaic intelligence systems and political society.
[Reply]