Media’s Role in Covering Anti-Terror Operations

There has been a flurry of opinions and views in recent days in the media, both mainstream and social, on a ‘looming threat’ to the freedom of the Press in the country. The scare has been triggered by sections within the media and outside after the Union Govern-ment ordered a one-day telecast ban (on November 9) on a leading Hindi television news channel, NDTV India. The ban has come as a ‘token punishment’ to the channel for having, according to the Government, revealed details that could have compromised national interest, in the process of covering the Pathankot terror attack early this year. The Government’s action has expectedly re-sulted in a sharp response from its critics who are ever in wait for an occasion to pan the Narendra Modi-led regime. Some of them even see in this ‘rebuke’ a return to the Emergency days. Of course, the channel has a right to be upset and respond accordingly, and it has. But there is no justification for an over-reaction that has poured in from various quarters, comparing the decision to those im-posed during the dark days of the Emergency. In any case, the ban has reportedly been put on hold for some time by the Government which wants to review the decision of the inter-ministerial committee.

The decision to ban NDTV India broadcast for a day was taken following a recommendation of an inter-ministerial committee of the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. The panel had concluded that the broadcaster had revealed “strategically sensi-tive” information while covering the terror attack incident. The committee believed that the mine of sensitive information which the channel put out in the public domain, could have been readily picked up the terrorist’s handlers and had the “potential to cause mas-sive harm not only to national security but also to the lives of civilians and defence personnel”. The inter-ministerial committee point-ed out that while the operation was underway to neutralise the terror strike planned and executed by anti-India elements based in Pakistan, the news channel had reported details of the ammunition stockpiled at the airbase, as well as of the presence of Indian fighter jets, mortars, rocket launchers, helicopters etc. at the air base at that point in time. The government, after taking into consid-eration the explanation of the channel, came to the conclusion that it had violated broadcasting guidelines in permitting the telecast of such coverage and therefore, went along with the panel’s recommendation of a “token penalty” of one day’s “off-air” so that, in the Committee’s words, “they do not get away completely for this huge indiscretion and violation of specific rule or guideline relating to national security concerns”.

On its part, NDTV India has summarily rubbished the allegations. It said, “Every channel and newspaper had similar coverage. In fact, NDTV’s coverage was particularly balanced.” In a statement posted on its website, the channel claimed it had been “singled out”. The channel has expectedly received support from the Editors Guild of India (EGI) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA). The EGI called it a “direct violation of the freedom of media… and amounts to a harsh censorship imposed by the Government remi-niscent of the Emergency”. The NBA, on its part, echoed the channel’s disbelief by saying that it was “surprising to note that NDTV has been singled out by the inter-ministerial committee, when the rest of the media too did cover the terror attack and all such reports were available in the public domain”. Outraged journalists across the media spectrum have pitched in with their thoughts as well. Never the ones to let go of an opportunity to make extreme comparisons in a bid to emerge as sentinels of free expression, they have converted an issue of what at the worst could be termed as the Government’s knee-jerk response, into an Orwellian conspiracy. Writ-ing for The Economic Times Sunday issue, TK Arun suggested that, if the Government did not withdraw its ban order, the Infor-mation & Broadcasting Ministry should “rename itself as the Ministry of Truth” and that the “rest of us should fast-forward from 1975-77 as the epitome of democracy in danger to a footloose Nineteen Eighty Four”.

Those of us who have read George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four will not only catch the comparison but also find the analogy ridiculous. In his dystopian novel, Orwell talks of the dismal affairs in the state of Oceania where various ministries are at work to serve exactly the opposite purpose for which they have been deliberately mis-named. Thus, the Ministry of Love supervises a brutal machinery of repression and brainwashing; the Ministry of Peace works overtime to wage wars with other nations; the Ministry of Plenty is to ensure that people are always in need of essential goods and are never prosperous enough to become difficult to rule. And there is the Ministry of Truth, which serves as the state’s propaganda arm but in reality is a machine for the falsification of truth and historical events. Thus, the Newspeak language taught through the ministry is something like: ‘Two plus two is five.’ If you don’t accept it, you better take care. Further the Ministry of Truth’s motto is: War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.

Are we to now believe that Narendra Modi’s Government and its Information & Broadcasting Ministry in particular have as dangerous and devious designs as the Ministry of Truth did? The decision to black out a channel or two for 24 hours based on an inter-ministerial recommendation —which itself relies on clear guidelines the Government had laid out in 2015 for media coverage involving national security interests — is considered a fit enough case to fear a revisit of Orwell’s 1984! A lone incident does not a design make. Moreo-ver, the media in the country has remained as robust as ever (barring the Emergency period when it had been effectively gagged; in many cases sections of the media not just happily complied but also colluded in the task). Anti-Modi voices have had a free run. The electronic and the print media did not face harassment for airing outright insulting comments on the Prime Minister — to give just one instance, remember the use of the term “psychopath” by a Chief Minister for Prime Minister Modi. Reams have been consumed and hundreds of prime time TV hours exhausted in ridiculing the Government’s various initiatives like the clean India campaign and the Smart Cities project, questioning the Defence Ministry’s functioning on issues such as one-rank-one-pension, and rubbishing the Government’s claims of a financial turnaround. Many of these criticisms were clearly motivated less by facts at hand and more by an innately built prejudice. It’s of course equally true that certain channels have been overboard in their praise of the Government, but that’s not because the regime compelled them to do so. There is nothing to suggest that the Modi Government has in its more than two years in office been harsh to the NDTV group or that it has choked the channels the group owns by blocking advertise-ments. It must be noted here that the channel has generally been less friendly to Modi, before and after he became the Prime Minis-ter. However, it has generated revenues for itself through the airing of various programmes that have become the Government’s flag-ship ones, such as the ‘Swachch Bharat Abhiyan’. But no sensible person within the Government or outside will hold these facts against the group, let alone act with vengeance. This is not Orwell’s 1984.

Let’s now return to the issue at hand — that of NDTV India having violated a Government directive on the live coverage of anti-terror operations. According to the guidelines, live coverage of terror operations was restricted to a periodic briefing by authorities concerned. Visual coverage at and around the scene of the operations was prohibited. A fresh clause in the Cable Television Network News said that no programme should be aired that “contains live coverage of anti-terrorist operation by security forces, wherein me-dia coverage shall be restricted to periodic briefing by any officer designated by the appropriate Government till such operation con-cludes”. Further, the new guidelines defined ‘anti-terrorist operation’ as “such operation undertaken to bring terrorists to justice, which includes all engagements involving justifiable use of force between security forces and terrorists”. Violation of these guidelines (or programme code) invited action such as the erring channel having to go off-air for a period of time — or even barred for good through revocation of its license in accordance with the Cable Television Network (Amendment) Act. These amendments had come af-ter the Union Home Affairs Ministry had strongly recommended a ban on the live coverage of anti-terror operations. It had written to the Information & Broadcasting Ministry, citing the Mumbai 26/11 case when channels aired live broadcasts of anti-terror operations being conducted by Indian security forces, thus giving away previous information to not just the Pakistan-based handlers of the terror-ists in action but also to the terrorists who were inside the buildings where they were engaged in mayhem. It may be recalled that, sensing the damage such live coverage was causing to the anti-terror operations (risking the lives of the trapped innocent people and well as those of the security personnel), the then Government (Congress-led UPA regime) had moved in to quickly to block the cover-age. This was 2008, and nobody had then slammed the decision as a movement towards the establishment of a Ministry of Truth or return to the days of Emergency!

But then so many of us here take cues from the Western media. In August 2015, BBC carried an article by its Delhi correspondent, an Indian, headlined, “Fear of censorship in Indian media’. The writer began with a quote from George Bernard Shaw, “Censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing challenges.” The only minor problem is that terrorism as we know it today did not exist during Shaw’s time, nor did the perils of anti-terror operations. The BBC correspondent then moved on to Orwell. The context was the Modi Government’s displeasure over some television channels airing interviews which criticised the hanging of terrorist Yakub Memon. That the hanging still continues to draw criticism in sections of the media, without such media be-ing any worse off, does not apparently matter to those who have made up their minds. In any case, what censorship had been imposed on those channels back in 2015?

The subject of the role of the media in being a responsible chronicler of anti-terrorist operations is not limited to India. Back in 2005, Raphael Cohen-Almagor of the University of Haifa (Israel) wrote in the Canadian Journal of Communication, “During the past 40 years there have been many instances in which media coverage of terrorist events was problematic and irresponsible, evoking public criti-cism and antagonising the authorities.” That said, Cohen-Almagor added, “Through close scrutiny of irresponsible actions of some me-dia outlets in crisis situations in the US, the UK, Israel, Canada and Germany, it (his paper, titled, ‘Media Coverage of Acts of Terror-ism: Troubling Episodes and Suggested Guidelines’) argued that important lessons should be learned, indicating the need to develop a set of guidelines for responsible media coverage of terror. One might think that in this triangle of Government, media and terrorists, the media would side with the Government in the fight against terror. This study shows that this was not always the case.” The author offered several instances in his case study to illustrate the negative role the media played in crisis situations. One such merits mention. “NBC played a pernicious role in the Tehran crisis when it reported in the early days of the hostage taking that two US emissaries were being dispatched to Iran. The report was broadcast despite Government objections, and shortly thereafter Ayatollah Khomeini announced that the emissaries would not be received in Tehran. NBC failed to understand the delicacy of the situation and the need to cooperate with the Government in such sensitive matters, where lives were at stake. Instead of cooperating with the American authorities, the media network competed with them, proving their ‘independence’.” He further wrote, “The media should not glorify terrorism.” Referring to a kidnapping executed by a bunch of terrorists who went by the name of the Symbioses Liberation Army, he said that the media “gave a small group of criminal misfits a Robin Hood image and transformed it into an internationally known movement…”

All of this sounds similar to the situation now at hand in India. The Government felt the need to regulate the media coverage of anti-terror operations in the larger national interest, which is why the 2015 amendments came about. The Government decided to award a token punishment to a news channel for flouting those guidelines and endangering national security. This clearly had nothing to do with stifling the media’s freedom — even as the channel has the right to respond, which it has by claiming, among other things, that the Government was being subjective in first interpreting and then invoking those guidelines against it. The problem is, even on issues of national security, sections of the Indian media believe that cooperating with the Government is akin to somehow endorsing it and losing their ‘independence’. Also, it must be noted in the context of what Cohen-Almagor observed, that the glorification of the likes of Yakub Memon and Afzal Guru, both terrorists, by sections of the media, ably assisted by an assorted bunch of Left-Liberals with an octopus-like reach across the intelligentsia, was truly sickening — more so when the accused had had a fair and free trial by the courts before being declared guilty. Indeed, had these sections of the media that are so touchy about ‘freedom’, resisted the temptation to be one up on competitors and refrained from putting out sensitive information which had the potential to compromise anti-terror exercises, or give oxygen to terrorists through wide coverage, there would have been no need for the amendments of 2015.

Nearly two decades ago, when the US still did not understand what terrorism was — 9/11 was four years away — Raphael F Pearl, an international affairs specialist at the Congressional Research Service, authored a paper titled, ‘Terrorism, the Media, and the Govern-ment: Perspectives, Trends, and Options for Policymakers’. He said therein that terrorists wanted “favourable understanding of their cause”; “publicity”; “legitimacy”. Further, “in hostage situations” they sought “details on identity, number and value of hostages… and rescue attempts”. Nearly all of these can (and have in many instances including in India) be had from irresponsible media coverage of crisis situations, including anti-terror operations of the kind we saw in Mumbai in 2008 and lately at Pathankot. Pearl added that Gov-ernments in such circumstances want the media coverage to “advance their agenda and not that of the terrorist”; “have the media present terrorists as criminals”; and “avoid ‘weeping mother’ emotional stories on relatives of victims”, as such coverage builds pres-sure on Governments to make concessions.

However, the problem is that the media wants to be ‘the first’ in the race for honours and ends up boosting the terrorists’ cause, even if inadvertently. With the country facing serious terror threats almost on a daily basis, it is imperative for the media and the Govern-ment to work in tandem and not as antagonistic parties. Rules that define the media’s role and the red lines it must not cross— and if they are breached, then there must be punishment — mustn’t be seen as an assault on Press freedom. It is hoped that following the government’s decision to put on hold the ‘penal action’ will provide the right opportunity for both side to re-engage and come to rea-sonable conclusion to the unfortunate episode and evolve a consensus on how the media should, in national interest, deal with such situations that are unfortunately bound to re-surface in future as well.

(The writer is Opinion Editor of The Pioneer, senior political commentator and public affairs analyst)