Even as I study the role of citizen journalism in the 11/26 Mumabai terror attack (timeline, case study, screenshots, aftermath), I am being asked to comment on the online criticism of Indian news media’s coverage of the terror attack.
I’m sure that there is much anger in general against the Indian mainstream media both online and offline. Since mainstream media is unlikely to highlight such stories themselves, the anger is more visible online.
As I can see, there are three themes in the anger against Indian news media’s coverage of the 11/26 Mumbai terror attack –
1. Criticism for broadcasting sensitive information and sensationalizing the news coverage.
2. Criticism for giving more importance to the attacks on the Taj Mahal and Oberoi Trident hotels than the attack on the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST).
3. Criticism (by Pakistani media) for not questioning the government’s version of the story.
I can understand #1, but my personal view is that conventional media did a reasonable job in covering the crisis, in spite of its tendency to sensationalize the news and its inability to draw the line at showing sensitive news about the movement of the security forces. In general, more information is often better than less information during a crisis and a free but foolish media is preferable to a mature but muzzled media. #2 is so absurd that I wouldn’t even comment on it. #3 is to be expected given that Pakistan’s role in the Mumbai terror attack is under a serious international spotlight, but I’m sure that it is not helping Pakistan’s cause at all.
Here is a regularly updated list of blog posts and newspaper articles on the role of Indian news media in the 11/26 Mumbai attacks. I’m trying to include a diverse set of views here, but, as I have said before, I don’t necessarily agree with all of them and even find some of them naive, misleading, or even malicious.
Neha Vishwanathan at Global Voices takes the pulse of the sentiment in Indian blogosphere –
Anger at the media for their coverage of the terror attacks in Mumbai is apparent on the blogosphere (as)… the mainstream media appears to have taken the approach of “shock and shake”, as opposed to verifying rumors before reporting them.
Falstaff criticizes Indian news media for indiscriminately broadcasting information that might have been useful to the terrorists –
It seems to me that most media channels are too busy trying to sensationalize the news to bother thinking through the consequences of what they’re saying. It’s not just that much of the coverage seems to be designed to amplify the general hysteria and panic, it’s also that watching journalists describe what the police are doing or report on who is still trapped inside the hotels, I find myself wondering whether anyone’s considered that at least some of that information might be helping the attackers.
– then draws lessons from it in an update –
It’s not simply a question of whether live feeds have finally been disabled, or television input to the hotel eventually been cut. It’s not even really a question of how much the information given out by the media helped the attackers this time around. The real question – to me, at least – is: if the government needed to clamp down on the media and cut communication channels in an emergency, could it do so quickly, efficiently and comprehensively? The answer, based on what we’re currently seeing, is a frightening no. That’s a vulnerability that future terrorist groups – groups far more sophisticated in their manipulation of information than the ones currently attacking Mumbai – could exploit to devastating advantage.
Shefali Anand and Vibhuti Agarwal in The Wall Street Journal chronicle the highs and lows of the Indian media’s coverage of the Mumbai terror attack –
Most of the Indian television news channels have been around for less than five years. For some, the Mumbai siege, which began Wednesday night, was the first major event they had covered live, and they rushed to provide nonstop coverage to the riveted national audience.
Viewers’ feedback on coverage of the siege has been uneven. While millions of viewers remained glued to their screens for the latest information, some criticized the coverage in their blogs — irritated with the hyperbole and melodramatic rhetoric of some TV reporters.
The live coverage of the attack raised concerns about potential risks to India’s security operations. Some TV channels showed the positions of security forces stationed outside the buildings that were under siege, and some aired information about commandoes’ movements. That alarmed security officials: They worried that the information might reach the terrorists, who Indian authorities believe carried cellphones.
Security officials and a broadcasting-industry association eventually asked TV channels to exercise restraint in what they aired.
Faiz Dadarkar asks the Indian media what they were thinking during the Mumbai terror attack –
Tahmineh Khajotia at The Huffington Post critiques the oneupmanship in the Indian media’s coverage of the Mumbai terror attack –
It has been impossible to ignore the countless times news channels claim to be the first to report a certain incident. It is almost sickening. Before the incident is reported, they remind us that they are the first to be reporting it. Is that really the most important side of a developing crisis?
Faking News has a hilarious take on the Indian media’s mistakes during the coverage –
Journalist friends of our team inform us that Home Ministry had called up editorial heads of news channels to direct them to stop reporting about deployment and movement of security agencies as it could compromise their safety, but the channels had some ‘internal resistance’ as they thought compliance with Ministry’s advices would compromise their ‘LIVE AND EXCLUSIVE’ status and TRPs.
But we watch the ‘LIVE AND EXCLUSIVE’ things and give them the TRPs. Maybe there should be an option of negative TRPs, just like we want negative vote in our electoral process.
Mutiny says that the Indian news media’s coverage of the Mumbai terror attack was an eye-opener –
Their coverage of the attacks has been completely self-defeating and highly immoral, if nothing else. They are causing as much damage to us right now, just not in terms of lives. Shameful irreverence from such tardy mediapersons is shocking in such times. They definitely have an agenda of their own, and I can bet my entire fortune on it that the unity of the people or strict action on terrorism is not part of it. They are too happy in their petty world of pointless debates, disuniting and cynical rhetoric and brainless remarks on sensitive issues.
Chetan Kunte singles out NDTV anchor Barkha Dutt for criticism –
Appalling journalism. Absolute blasphemy! As I watch the news from home, I am dumbfounded to see Barkha Dutt of NDTV break every rule of ethical journalism in reporting the Mumbai mayhem.
You do not need to be a journalist to understand the basic premise of ethics, which starts with protecting victims first; and that is done by avoiding key information from being aired publicly—such as but not limited to revealing the number of possible people still in, the hideouts of hostages and people stuck in buildings.
Drishtikone calls Barkha Dutt a dream come true for the terrorists –
Barkha Dutt and NDTV is a terrorist’s DREAM COME TRUE!! They must really love having Barkha Dutt cover every strike they do… hoping that she will help them by facilitating more KILLINGS and slayings. I am sure ONE of the special preparation by the terrorists have been subscription to NDTV’s live news coverage.. maybe they their masters have been running a live audio cast on the satellite phone for them from Pakistan.
Ankit Sharma joins in the Barkha-bashing –
Barkha Dutt – an icon of Indian broadcast media, a padma shri recipient and a ‘war reporter’ is a journalist I have grown to despise. She symbolizes the new breed of sensationalism that has become synonymous with much of the what passes off as ‘news’ in India.
Prakash Francis compiles a list of tweets bashing Barkha Dutt.
The Facebook Group that advocates taking Barkha Dutt off air has 1500+ members.
An online petition that asks Indian news channels to show maturity has more than 1300 signatures –
We, the ordinary citizens of India, are asking TV reporters to show some maturity.
We don’t want your “news updates” or “breaking news”. We don’t need to see everything live. We don’t want sensationalism, we want real journalism.
So please think before you turn your cameras on. And think about the society before you think about TRPs and ad revenues.
Govind Kansi criticized Western media along with the Indian news media –
Western media painted as if this was important since only westerners were targeted (across US/ UK/ Australia).They conveniently forgot there were lot of brown skinned commoners whose lives were abrupted.
I for one cannot forget why Guardian/ BBC/ CNN quickly term everything on themselves as terrorist attacks but in India as unidentified gunmen. I am sick and tired of their biased view and condesceding behavior.
Ashok Bhattacharya in Business Standard wonders why the attack at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) wasn’t covered as prominently as the attacks on the Taj Mahal and Oberoi Trident hotels –
Could it be because the media’s concern with the killing of some ordinary middle-class citizens in a railway station was far less than that with the attack on members of the elite India, who had gathered in those luxury hotels?
Clearly, the problem is not with the kind of coverage given to last week’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The problem arises when similar events affecting the common man do not get the same treatment. It is then that questions arise on whether the media’s coverage is influenced by its consideration of reaching a larger number of viewers or readers and in the process gaining more mileage for its advertisers.
Gnani Sankaran rails against the double standards of the Indian media –
Resilience was another word that annoyed the pundits of news channels and their patrons this time. What resilience, enough is enough, said Pranoy Roy’s channel on the left side of the channel spectrum. Same sentiments were echoed by Arnab Goswami representing the right wing of the broadcast media whose time is now. Can Rajdeep be far behind in this game of one upmanship over TRPs ? They all attacked resilience this time. They wanted firm action from the government in tackling terror.
The same channels celebrated resilience when bombs went off in trains and markets killing and maiming the Aam Aadmis. The resilience of the ordinary worker suited the rich business class of Mumbai since work or manufacture or film shooting did not stop. When it came to them, the rich shamelessly exhibited their lack of nerves and refused to be resilient themselves.
Sans Serif does a roundup of the war of words between Indian and Pakistani media –
India and Pakistan may only just have begun rattling their sabres in the aftermath of the terror attack on Bombay, but a fullblown war has already broken out between the media of the two countries over the Indian media’s “unquestioning acceptance” of the Indian government’s “unsubstantiated” claim of a Pakistani link.
Hindustan Times reports that Pakistani media is coming together to counter India’s accusations that the terrorists had links to Pakistan –
Three days after Mumbai siege ended, Pakistan media launched a counter offensive lampooning Indian security agencies and claiming that Pakistan is not behind these terror attacks.
Pak media made a strong pitch that it is India’s own fanatic groups who are behind those terror attacks. Quoting Samjhauta Express bomb blast, they are constantly conducting discussions on the news channels and slamming Indians for holding Paksitan responsible for the Mumbai attack.
Nirupama Subramanian at The Hindu also reports on the Pakistani media’s criticism of the Indian media –
The escalating tensions between India and Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks have led to the declaration of hostilities in unexpected quarters – Pakistani media has declared a virtual war on Indian media for its “knee-jerk” finger-pointing across the border, and its unquestioning acceptance of the Indian government’s “Pakistan-link” theory.
Leading the charge against the India media are the Pakistani television channels, with panel discussions shows devoted exclusively to the coverage of the Mumbai attacks by the Indian media.
Top Pakistani journalists are asking why the Indian media, more specifically the electronic media, have been so willing to accept the government theory that the attackers came from Pakistan.
They are dismissive of reports in the Indian press that the terrorists had links with Lashkar-e-Taiba, or that they landed in Mumbai in a boat from Karachi. Instead, they are asking why these reports are not demanding the government for evidence of these allegations.
On the whole, Pakistanis — as evident from public phone-ins to talk shows — are even questioning if the entire ghastly episode was not all engineered by Indian intelligence agencies working in connivance with the U.S. to “defame” Pakistan with the intention of dismembering it.
Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal argues that the media’s overzealous coverage of real and imaginary atrocities against Muslims fuels the anger that leads to terrorist attacks like 11/26 in Mumbai –
It’s worth wondering why a media that treats nearly every word uttered by the U.S., British or Israeli governments as inherently suspect has proved so consistently credulous when it comes to every dubious or defamatory claim made against those governments. Or, for that matter, why the media has been so intent on magnifying genuine scandals (like Abu Ghraib) to the point that they become the moral equivalent of 9/11. Some caution is in order: Terrorists, of all people, might actually believe what they read in the papers.
cellzapp, 
– Congrats, and continue to write with same vigour. 
Shrujal Vakharia, 
Saumitri, 
good post, gaurav.