Parts Of Indian Media And National Security

What must be done to stop such an action by Media ?

  • Impose fines !

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • Licenses should be revoked !

    Votes: 19 65.5%
  • Tihar Jail !

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • Warning Shots !

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • Total voters
    29

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
Reckless media does a 26/11 again !




New Delhi: "The shots and visuals that were shown live by TV channels could have also been shown after all the terrorists were neutralized and the security operations were over. But in that case, the TV programmes would not have had the same shrill, scintillating and chilling effect and would not have shot up the TRP ratings of the channels."

"It must, therefore, be held that by covering live the terrorists attack on Mumbai in the way it was done, Indian TV channels were not serving any national interest or social cause. On the contrary, they were acting in their own commercial interest, putting national security in jeopardy."

This was the observation made by a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and C K Prasad of honourable Supreme Court of India in reference to the 'reckless' coverage of electronic media while covering the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008.


On Friday, television screens were brimming with 'live and exclusive' visuals of military operations from Jammu and Kashmir's Uri sector. As soldiers put their lives on stake to neutralise the militants, television camera were engaged in a battle of their own. To grab 'that exclusive shot', television reporters- sans any regards for the security of soldiers- went all guns blazing while covering the operation.

It seemed that the Supreme Court ruling was the last thing on their minds as they brazenly went about reporting positions and movement of the troops.

And what happens when one concerned Indian citizen reminds the television channel that their coverage could compromise the operation? His phone is disconnected!

"Are you naïve to the fact that by telecasting LIVE VISUALS of army movements, you COMPROMISE their positions !!! Any person in contact with the terrorists hiding inside, after watching these visuals can relay the information directly to the terrorists, who can then take advantage of it ! DON'T YOU REALISE YOU ARE AIDING THE TERRORIST INDIRECTLY? And when you are given calls from concerned citizens, requesting you to please remove LIVE VISUALS while reporting, you simply ignore and bang the phone down !!!" Rahul narrated his experience on his Facebook account.

It is time that media fraternity defines guidelines to be followed while covering live military operations. A strict ban on visuals during the operation, gagging 'over enthusiastic' reporters from divulging sensitive details on live television or perhaps delaying the coverage till the conclusion of the operation.

However, going by the frenzied and mindless TRP-chasing-mode of the news channels, a change looks unlikely.
Source : Media's coverage of Kashmir operation reveals details of troop movement - daily.bhaskar.com
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
yeah they are stupid, may be next time they would be put in front to fight terrorists.
 

rock127

Maulana Rockullah
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
10,569
Likes
25,230
Country flag
Revoke their License.

This is not the first time they are doing so something needs to be done covering live operations!
 

DingDong

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
3,082
Likes
7,768
Country flag
The fourth pillar of democracy is on verge of holding the democracy for ransom. The media has started thinking of itself as kingmaker (and breaker).

EDIT:
BTW, how hard is it for the administration to not allow these journalists to venture so close? How hard is it for the DOT to blank out all the transmissions? Media channels use civil frequencies and satellites for data link, how hard is it to disrupt the transmission?
 
Last edited:

Ankit Purohit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,082
Likes
667
Country flag
I have seen those idiots with camera dekhiye abhi waha dhmaka hua , I thought what the hell ,kya _________ giri kar rahe ye news wale
 

Ky Loung

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
147
Likes
82
If you revoke their license, you will cause an even bigger mess. In the USA anyway. They are doing their jobs. It's what they do.

USA the military have a division to handle the news media. If the operation is known to the media and/or the location of the operation is accessible to the media, the military media division will ask the media to delay coverage after the operation is completed. However a lot of time in an open war zone (Iraqi, Afghanistan, etc) where ongoing operations are happening and the news media coverage is everywhere. In these type of cases the US media decided to live with it instead of making a bigger mess.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
Imposing fines is the way to go about. Aaj Tak/HLT should be fined no less than 1,000 Cr for the damage they potentially did.
 

Ky Loung

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
147
Likes
82
After looking at all the photos posted here I said the military gave the media full access to the operation. It is a photo op operation with embedded journalists. However, the military should exert some controls over the photos through written agreements to protect the identity of special operators.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
"The shots and visuals that were shown live by TV channels could have also been shown after all the terrorists were neutralized and the security operations were over. But in that case, the TV programmes would not have had the same shrill, scintillating and chilling effect and would not have shot up the TRP ratings of the channels."

"It must, therefore, be held that by covering live the terrorists attack on Mumbai in the way it was done, Indian TV channels were not serving any national interest or social cause. On the contrary, they were acting in their own commercial interest, putting national security in jeopardy."

This was the observation made by a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and C K Prasad of honourable Supreme Court of India in reference to the 'reckless' coverage of electronic media while covering the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008.

It is correct that while ongoing operations should not be so 'exposed' as to hamper the operations or expose the SF's live manoeuvres as they close in, lest it assists the terrorists in countervailing the SF action.

The 'live coverage' could focus on movement without giving out the the background. For instance, troops moving and footage only focussed on the middle of the wall without giving out which building it is ie. the roof and a full shot would give out the location since the building would be known by its singular characteristics.

For instance


This aerial shot gives out the location since there is the unique structure with a 'machan ' like construction towards the river.

If it were shot that did not show the bunkers and the 'machan ' and instead just the walls without the top, then it would appear to be anywhere where there are bunkers and bunkers are by the dozens in these areas and they all look similar.

Yet, one cannot deny that a 'live coverage' of dastardly acts, gets the citizens involved to their realising the magnitude of the problems the SF undergoes in counter terrorist actions. It also jiggles the citizens to understand with horror and contempt the disgusting enormity of the dastardliness and inhuman grossness of the terrorists actions.

The live coverage 'involves' the Nation and not leave it to be just another routine action that the SF, to put it cynically, has to do to earn their pay.

The live coverage activates the Nation and having observed the inadequacies they demand better equipment and procedures to make the task more seamless and with less casualties in such operations.

The recent outrage that was raised when it was found that the Mumbai Police were still not equipped with modern weaponry, the scam that went with it, the boats not even having been used and rusting as there was no funds allocated for the fuel, is all because there was a live coverage of the Mumbai carnage that galvanised the Nation behind the SF, to include the Police.

Therefore, live coverage has its value.

If it were restricted to some reports, photos and video clips, duly edited, after the action was over, then it may not ignite the Nation's outrage in such a manner as the 'live coverage' of the Mumbai carnage did. One still remembers the horror of Mumbai carnage, but think it over, how many of us remember the other equally horrendous and revolting terrorist actions that have been perpetuated by these horrors sponsored by Pakistan?

That said, there is no doubt that these 'live coverages' should be done with maturity wherein the operations are not compromised.

Ground rules have to be laid down and no compromise should be made.

There has been many attempts by the Army to 'educate' the journalists through workshops, but they are very chary about the same thinking that it is 'managing the media'. it is a different matter that they found the tea, lunch and beer and prelunch drinks hosted by the Army just to their liking.

It is unfortunate that the journalists find everything that is done by the Govt to ensure that things are orderly is taken as a violation of their freedom of speech etc.The air has to be cleared by the Govt with the journalists and TV journalists through the Press Council and iron clad rules laid down with heavy penalties for misdemeanours.

Having said that, it is still very essential that the Nation sees the horrors of the terrorists 'live' so that they are involved and they realise the repulsive and nauseating aspects unleashed on innocent civilians and the magnitude of the problem of the SF. It will also help clipping the wings of the Pollyannas and Goody Two Shoes, who at the drop of a hat, wanting to bask in the limelight, whip out ridiculous claims of human right abuses. The 'live coverage' will emasculate them and so they will be the first ones to howl against the concept of 'live coverage'.

The Judges maybe experts in law, but they should hone up on societal psychology, photography and the art and science governance before making observations. The observation in question is a generalised and sweeping and more like a blanket ban without applying the mind.

The Judges have a greater responsibility since they are the last word in anything and everything and the Nation takes them to be the moral, social and legal compass of the citizens.

Thus, the pronouncement of Judges must be well thought out and then delivered and the same should have the gravitas that inspires and guides the Nation.
 
Last edited:

thethinker

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
2,808
Likes
6,489
Country flag
Hit them where it hurts the most - TRPs.

Completely boycott those channels and stop viewing them which do this and watch their TRPs drop. That means no watching of their prime shows or anything. Soon business sense will prevail among them.
 

Hari Sud

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,701
Likes
8,328
Country flag
Army allowed them so close to the action. Once the media is there, then so many news channels fall over each other to cover some hidden angle which nobody knows. If they cannot find a new angle for coverage, then they will manufacture one.

It is disorderly conduct on the part of the media. There is no need of a blanket ban but there is a need to limit their access. When lives are being lost then there is no public's right to know. That is the party all the media channels advance. It is a flimsy argument.

Hence army has to come up with a policy on media access.
 

Spindrift

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
2,628
Likes
8,542
Slap charges of aiding and abetting terrorists\terrorism against the reporters and crew covering the incident live and broadcasting.
 

abingdonboy

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
8,038
Likes
33,570
Country flag
The media got both NSG operator and civilians killed during 26/11-FACT. Did anyone blink twice? Did anyone try to take action against the media then? They have blood on their hands.




Coming to this situation, they played the same role and put the lives of soldiers at risk again it is only through luck and the skill of the SF operators that the terrorists were killed and none of the SF guys hurt. A precedent needs to be set. The media can't keep pulling this $hit.
 

abingdonboy

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
8,038
Likes
33,570
Country flag
"Now I'm going to tell you, one of these days, if you keep publishing how you do this, the other guy's going to be there ready for you, and you're going to fly in and he's going to shoot down every damn helicopter and kill every one of your SEALs. Now, watch it happen. Mark my words. Get the hell out of the media.."

-LT GEN James Vaught former SEAL commander.


Sadly this general's words came true (Chinooks loaded with SEALs have been shot out of the sky by the Taliban) and this practice of covering these sort of events in the Indian media is going to (and has) get Indian soldiers killed.

The actions of those in the media is getting Indians killed and compromising Indian national security if this isn't the definition of treason I don't know what is.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
If you revoke their license, you will cause an even bigger mess. In the USA anyway. They are doing their jobs. It's what they do.

USA the military have a division to handle the news media. If the operation is known to the media and/or the location of the operation is accessible to the media, the military media division will ask the media to delay coverage after the operation is completed. However a lot of time in an open war zone (Iraqi, Afghanistan, etc) where ongoing operations are happening and the news media coverage is everywhere. In these type of cases the US media decided to live with it instead of making a bigger mess.
The way to regulate them is through their own media organization. They should enact limits on live coverage of ongoing police or military operations. If the media organization is unwilling or cannot get their acts together to enact these limits then maybe the government can threaten to legislate special restrictions on live coverage of military and police operations (watch how media companies will scramble to put up their own restrictions). If media companies prove too stubborn for legislative threats then the government can simply move ahead with legislation on media coverage limits.
 

Free Karma

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
2,372
Likes
2,600
Home Ministry asks I&B to stop live coverage of anti-terror operations - The Economic Times
he home ministry has asked the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to tighten rules to ensure there is no live television coverage of anti-terror operations. To do so, it has sought to amend the Programme Code under the Cable Television Network Rules.

In a letter to the I&B ministry earlier this month, the home ministry noted that such live coverage in places like Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere not only affects the secrecy and effectiveness of the operation but also puts the safety of journalists in jeopardy, government officials said. The I&B ministry is still to respond to the suggestion, one of them said.

After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks that were broadcast live on television, the National Broadcaster Association put out a set of rules including restriction on live reporting of terror situations, as part of a self-regulation exercise on the part of private broadcasters. were brought within the ambit of the Cable Television Networks Rules.

During the Mumbai terror strike, news channels had broadcast live images, including the moves by security forces, before the authorities intervened and stopped it. Live coverage of an NSG chopper operation at Nariman House was seen to be of particular concern to the government as it was revealed that the controllers of the terrorists sitting in Karachi were monitoring TV channels to guide the attackers.

At the time, the I&B ministry had issued directives to TV channels, asking them to exercise caution while covering terror incidents. In 2011, another advisory was issued pointing out that some TV channels telecast interviews with terrorists or terrorist groups, which the government said could help them to advance their political agenda.

It was also pointed out that such coverage would amount to violation of the provisions of the Programme Code. The Code so far mentions a broad category — that programmes that contain anything affecting the integrity of the nation shouldn't be carried in a cable service.

Finally! I hope it will be enforced very strictly!
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top