[Reader-list] Indian coverage of global conflict: 'Embedded in a foreign frame'

[Shivam]

  Embedded in a foreign frame

  By Saeed Naqvi
  The Indian Express | 15 October 2004
  http://iecolumnists.expressindia.com/full_column.php?content_id=56949


The photograph is blown up to the size of a cinemascope screen. A
blasted foreground, broken bricks, boulders stretch far into a
battered building, bombed and burning. Silhouetted against the fading
light is a soldier, like a sentry keeping watch on desolation. This is
Grozny, capital of Chechnya.

It is a strange photograph to dominate a well appointed restaurant off
Paddington tube station in London. But then, the restaurant is part of
an unusual institution — the Frontline Club whose members are
journalists from the frontline, like Grozny. Photographs like this one
— from Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq — are all gifts to the club by
cameramen, photographers, reporters "who have been there".
 
There are three other floors. On the third are rooms for journalists
(members) to stay. The second is for conferences, seminars,
discussions with "frontline" journalists and screenings of films like
Fahrenheit 9/11.

The first floor is the club-house, heart of the building. At the
entrance are photographs of eight journalists, all members of the
club, killed in recent wars. "At last count, 53 journalists including
interpreters have been killed in Iraq, making it the dealiest war in
history for our profession," says Vaughan Smith, founder of the club.
His friend, Pranvera Shema from Kosovo (she is also the club manager),
says the club aims to remember all journalists, worldwide, who have
been killed in the line of duty.

Members are veterans of many frontlines — John Pilger, Philip
Knightley — with as many stories.

In a sense, the club gives clues to the evolution of a new kind of
outdoors reporting following the conflicts that erupted at the time
the Soviet Union began to collapse. It all began as Frontline TV news
in 1989, when first pictures appeared of the Soviet departure from
Afghanistan. Technology helped. The professional handicam arrived in
the market, facilitating the one-man reporter-cameraman to reach the
frontlines, unencumbered with too much baggage. The independent,
freelance journalist was in the vanguard, providing footage networks
and news agencies otherwise had no access to. Many of these
"one-man-bands" as Vaughan Smith describes these freelancers, had an
army background with a smattering of local languages.

Frontline TV news flourished until 1996. Thereafter, networks began to
have their own "line" on events in Gaza, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
News was tailored to serve the national purpose. Freelancers would
"blow the whistle" if their footage was subjected to tendentious
editing. The day of the "embedded" journalist had arrived.

But as conflicts became more vicious, insurance companies hiked up
their rates. Under the watchful eyes of penny-pinching proprietors,
editors again fell back on under insured freelancers and local
stringers. The old dictum has been brought into play: staffers die in
wars, stringers in insurgencies.

Away from all this upheaval, secure in the Indian land-mass, is the
Indian journalist. He is covering a great story, of course, because I
truly believe the 21st century will in large part be India's story.
But the great Indian drama is taking place in a regional and a global
context. The Indian story will not make sense unless it is seen as
part of complex global linkages. If our journalism is focused
exclusively on India, who will inform us about Afghanistan, Iran,
Iraq, Palestine, Israel? Since we're now engaging the eastern flank,
where are our networks in Yangon, Bangkok, Jakarta, even Dhaka?

FICCI has brought a high powered business delegation to the UK.
Businessmen have been interacting with their British counterparts and
think tanks like Chatham House. British sources speak positively of
the discussions. But these days Americans, British, Europeans are all
riveted on Iraq — to a lesser extent Israel, Afghanistan, Sudan. To
hold their attention for any length of time we would do well to have
informed views on these subjects based on our exclusive sources of
information. But how can we make credible conversation on these issues
when all we can do is to echo what we have watched on BBC and CNN? We
have no other sources.

The depth of our democracy, satisfactory economic growth, well
equipped armed forces will have multipliers attached to them if we
have a global TV-radio network to inform us about the world and inform
the world about us. Vested interests pulverise us with the cant that
the task is too big.

Public spirited entrepreneurs could take up the project provided they
are willing to be guided not by the market for "tamasha" but the
requirements of serious journalism. They will make more money than
they imagine. Such a network should ideally be part of our public
service broadcasting, which requires Prasar Bharati to be truly
independent, not the half hatched egg it is today. Our frontline
journalists are waiting for such opportunities.