[Reader-list] FW: Ten problems with the 24 hour TV news reporting

[S. Jabbar]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta at gmail.com>
Reply-To: Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:57:02 +0530

Subject: Ten problems with the 24 hour TV news reporting

of the recent attacks on Mumbai:
>  
>  
> 1)Speculative, not fact-based.  The numbers of gunmen entering Bombay dropped
> from 20-25 to  10 across three days and from 5-7 at Taj to 4; 7-10 at
> Oberoi/Trident to  2. This causes needless panic; many of us still think there
> are gunmen out  there. Ditto vis-a-vis boat routes to enter Bombay (one day
> Badhwar  Park, next day Gateway of India). Don't report what is just said
> can't be  verified - or atleast question statements from politicians!
> Otherwise, it's  like reporting rumour: which is what happened Fri aft when
> channels reported  non-existent gunfire at several places.
>  
>  
>  
> 2)Unquestioning. How many gunmen were there  actually? How many people
> actually died? How many boats came into Mumbai? How  did the Wadi Bandar and
> Vile Parle blasts take place? How could 2 gunmen hold  up a 350-plus room twin
> hotel like the Trident/Oberoi? These are just the  first five - most basic -
> questions off the top of my head. Never heard any of  them asked. I'm not even
> going into the lack of qs around 'Pak'  involvement.
>  
>  
>  
> 3)Class-biased. Where was VT on our TV  screens, even though that was attacked
> at the same time as the two  hotels/Chabad House - and which 40 lakh
> Bombayites use? After  the first night, VT station and all the hospitals where
> the injured were taken  - Cama, JJ, St George, Bombay - were taken off our
> radar (even though they are  all in south Bombay, minutes from where the media
> was gathered in full  force).
>  
>  
>  
> 4)Opinionated, not fact-based.  What does 'Pakistani involvement' mean? No
> distinction between Pakistani  elements and the Pakistani state: particularly
> given the complex political  situ in Pakistan; I have yet to hear one anchor
> or reporter ask the question:  what's the proof? (In a hypothetical case, if a
> cell phone with calls to India  were found somewhere else in the world, does
> it indicate that 'India was  involved'?)
>  
>  
>  
> 5)Simplistic. The coverage became a  parable of good vs evil; 'bravehearts vs
> cowards' 'unsung heroes vs villains',  which has now swung to 'Pakistan vs
> India'.
>  
>  
>  
> 6)Stupid. What exactly are victims of  gunmen supposed to say when asked how
> they feel? 'Did you feel scared'? (No, I  felt elated after spending 10 hours
> hearing bombs explode around me!!!) Many  such stupid questions incl those
> asked to Ratan Tata on Thu eve.
>  
>  
>  
> 7)Invasive. The NDTV interview with  Sabina Sehgal Saikia's husband when all
> the facts pointed to her  probable death is a case in point.
>  
>  
>  
> 8)Dangerous. Giving away the locations of  those stuck or hidden in
> rooms/halls at the two hotels. Ditto with jingoism  masquerading as
> patriotism/nationalism in the 'Pakistan' vs 'India' tenor of  reporting.
>  
>  
>  
> 9)Loaded. Constant use of  emotionally-loaded terms: 'terrorists' not
> 'gunmen', 'dastardly', 'heinous',  'cowardly deeds' et al.
>  
>  
>  
> 10)Theatrical. There was  enough drama there; we didn't need faux drama on top
> of that. Barkha  Dutt's coverage of the ground floor of the Taj is a case in
> point.  "Shattered glass!! shattered glass!!" she hyper-ventilated in a broken
> voice.  What did she expect to find? A rare orchid?
>  
>  
>  
> Bishakha

www.sohailaink.com <http://www.sohailaink.com>



------ End of Forwarded Message