Attack in Mumbai -2

[Husky]

^ Important.





http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/01/w...-2611.html

Why did Indian channels not air the 26/11 documentary?

dec 4th, 2009



---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Radha Rajan <





Yes, why? My turn to thump the pulpit. RR



Why did Indian channels not air the 26/11 documentary?

Vivek Balaraman

TheHoot.org

November 18, 2009

http://www.thehoot. org/web/home/ story.php? storyid=4207& pg=1&mod= 1&sectionId= 1&valid=true



For TV channels the Dan Reed documentary is the worst of news. It is

embarrassing and damaging as it shows all too clearly the link between

the media coverage and the actions of the terrorists and their handlers,

says VIVEK BALARAMAN



India's TV channels have a reputation for overstatement and hyperbole.

The ecstatic coverage recently of Sachin Tendulkar reaching the 17000

run milestone (though India lost the match) further underlines this

reputation. And this tendency was given full rein to a little over a

year ago, when channels pumping testosterone and high on adrenaline went

into overdrive providing non-stop 60 hours live orgasmic coverage of the

26th November Mumbai terror attack. I suspect no other event over the

past decade and a half has had as much coverage by Indian media as

26/11.



That is why the media silence that has greeted Dan Reed's explosive

documentary on 26/11 is curious. The 48 minute documentary titled

"Terror in Mumbai - Dispatches" co-produced by Channel 4 and HBO,

consists of interviews with victims, actual CCTV videos of the

terrorists at various sites, video testimony of the captured terrorist

Ajmal Kasab soon after he was nabbed and most chillingly, actual audio

intercepts between the terrorists and their handlers in Pakistan.



It is dynamite. As Irfan Husain, the eminent columnist who saw the

documentary said about it in a column in Dawn, the most chilling part

was the constant voice contact between the terrorists and their

handlers. Talking on cell phones, the controllers urged on their pawns

in Punjabi and Urdu, interspersed with the odd English words and

phrases.



All through the atrocity, the handlers - obviously watching the drama on

TV - keep urging their foot soldiers on, encouraging them by

descriptions of what they are seeing on TV



And when the terrorists are clearly exhausted, the controllers urge them

on: 'Throw some grenades, my brother, there's no harm in throwing a few

grenades. How hard can it be to throw a grenade' Just pull the pin and

throw it. For your mission to end successfully, you must be killed. God

is waiting for you in heaven.'



Given such content, we would have expected that Indian news channels

would be vying with each other to 'exclusively' air this video



We would be wrong.



While the documentary was broadcast in the UK in June 2009, in the

intervening four months no news channel in India has chosen to do so.

Equally curiously, there has not been, to my knowledge, any discussion

about this documentary in the news channels.



Why'



One possibility is that as the matter is sub-judice in India, the

documentary cannot be shown in India. But this stands negated as HBO

have just announced that they will be broadcasting the documentary on

November 19th.



So why this silence'



Perhaps it is because the audio intercepts in the documentary inexorably

lead us to one inference. That the terrorists and their handlers greatly

profited from the live video coverage of the attack by the Indian TV

channels. The handlers, possibly in Pakistan were largely able to follow

minute by minute, site by site, how their operation was going on in

Mumbai, thousands of kilometers away, by merely surfing Indian channels

and could direct their charges holed up inside various sites based on

what they saw on their TV screen. The media acted as the on site eyes

and ears of the handlers and unwittingly helped them attain their goals.



Here for example is a handler directing a terrorist at the Taj Mahal :



Handler: Pile up the carpets and mattresses from the room you have

opened, douse them in alcohol and set it alight. Get a couple of floors

burning.



Terrorist: Ok



After some time the handlers become impatient



Handler: Start the fire now, nothing is going to happen until you start

the fire. When people see the flames they will begin to be afraid.



Terrorist: We are about to. You'll be able to watch the fire in a second



Handler: We can't watch if there aren't any flames. Where are they'



Some time later when some of the sea-facing rooms at the Taj are on

fire, the handler, watching the blaze through live coverage, is

exultant.



Handler: This is the most important target. The media is covering the

target Taj Mahal more than any other



At Chabad House, the Jewish Centre, the handlers watching the still live

coverage warn the terrorists when a helicopter arrives.



Handler: Heli aa gayi hai kya (Has a helicopter arrived')



Terrorist: Yes



Handler: Shoot, shoot



The inference these intercept excerpts suggest is not new. Soon after

26/11 a chorus of voices rose against the media coverage of the

massacre. A market survey of opinion about the coverage by Newswatch

magazine showed that an overwhelming majority of those surveyed also

felt disturbed by the coverage. Over 10,000 people took the online

survey. The survey results are not representative of all opinion but

unambiguous. Most felt that the news channels had been way over the top,

indiscreet, speculative, unquestioning about information they were

getting from various sources, and often seemed to be goading the

government to go to war with Pakistan. They were theatrical in terms of

dramatization of events and use of colorful language, irresponsible in

giving away the locations of guests still hiding in the attack sites,

were obsessed with elitist institutions like the Taj / Oberoi while

ignoring 'common man' sites such as the CST station and the Leopold

Cafe. Those surveyed felt they were intrusive while interviewing

hostages, overemphasized the Pakistani angle while the operations were

still on, obsessed with 'exclusive coverage' while covering the tragedy

and trivialized the issue of terrorism by including celebrities and

non-experts in their 'panels'. As a thumb rule, the regional language

news channels were a lot more hysterical than the English language

media. In the blogsphere too there was outrage such as the well written

critique by Harini Calamur. Another excellent criticism is by Anjali

Deshpande and SK. Pande in The Hoot.



As Deshpande and Pande write (I've masked names of channels and news

anchors since this would focus attention on a few channels or anchors

when almost all were equally culpable ), Channel A continued showing the

operation. It also took us to the scene outside the Trident. There

News-anchor, B spoke to the Deputy Chief Minister RR Patil asking him

for details. She asked him whether there were any Indians among the

hostages. RR Patil said he could not disclose information for it could

affect the security of the people held hostage. Patil also pointed out

that [showing the] firing from outside could give away the direction

from, which security forces were approaching the building. Despite that

the channel showed where the commandos were hiding behind pillars!



Channel C reported on November 27, around 6 P M that the terrorists were

being given updates by people in other countries who are watching TV!

Despite this the live coverage continued uninterrupted and continues

even now.



Meanwhile there were also rumbles in the government that if the media

would not police itself then the government watchdog National

Broadcasting Authority or NBA would.



So unsurprisingly, the heartfelt wish of the media must be to close the

chapter on the media coverage of 26/11 and do nothing to redirect

attention on their role.



[color="#0000FF"]The Dan Reed documentary is thus, for them, the worst of news. It is

embarrassing and damaging as it shows all too clearly the link between

the media coverage and the actions of the terrorists and their handlers.

And it almost casually leaves us with an elephant in the room, viz., the

possibility that lives of hostages and members of the armed forces may

have been lost or endangered on the altar of the fierce competition

between channels for better TRPs and the need for exclusives in the

midst of carnage and human tragedy.[/color]



Posted by nizhal yoddha at 1/04/2010 07:37:00 AM 0 comments Links to this post