Why media should not highlight threats
By all accounts, this Ilyas Kashmiri is a “serious player” in the global terror network. So, his threat to the upcoming sporting events can’t but be taken very seriously by the Government. One understands why, even if it is asphyxiating for everyone involved in these global events about to unfold in the Capital from February 28 with the Hockey World Cup, security has to be extra-hyper and Delhi, indeed, has to be turned into a partial fortress.
All this becomes even more necessary because Kashmiri’s threat has been “done to death” on TV channels and all other hues of the media. So much so that we know all about this shadowy figure who resides across the border. With special news packages being splashed on TV channels about his various exploits till now – and that includes his involvement with Headley and the Mumbai attacks – he has been turned into a larger than life threat in popular perception.
Indeed, the supreme duty of the media is to keep everyone informed and purists would argue how Kashmiri’s threat is too big to be missed, deliberately or otherwise and nothing else but a page 1 mention would have done justice to the news. They would say, what would news be if the media were to ignore what a “serious terror player” has on his mind. They would also argue that by splashing Ilyas Kashmiri all over the place, the media would be doing its other, less publicised, duty – that of activating the Government to the maximum in the face of media glare.
All this cannot be disputed. But there is another way that the media could have dealt with Ilyas Kashmiri’s threat. Consider this: What would Ilyas Kashmiri do if none in the media was ready to publish, broadcast, telecast or webslide his threat? What if, the media develops this unwritten code wherein whichever media house gets the “for publication” threat letter, it hands it over to the Government and works jointly to minimise the publicity of the threat.
What would Ilyas Kashmiri do if, despite all his efforts, he just does not find a way to convey his threat to anybody at all? How does he create public fear which is the staple of all terror operations?
Some would say this would provoke him into action. But isn’t the holding of sporting events in India enough provocation for him already? And wouldn’t the Indian Government have been as security conscious as it is now had Kashmiri not said it in so many words? Mumbai didn’t happen after an announcement. Neither did the serial blasts of 1993 or, for that matter, the Parliament attack.
India is unlikely to suspend the global sporting soiree that it is about to display, threat or no threat. Only, it has to go that extra mile where security is concerned. That it would still do, having been told by the media secretly what Kashmiri says he will do.
The argument here is that the terrorati have long been using the media to create a fear psychosis that achieves more than half their target. It keeps them in the news, it keeps public fear at the maximum and it bleeds the nation in organisation upkeep, not to mention that it lends a huge profile to hitherto unknown terror outfits.
If one were to go through the crime files, one is unlikely to find a definite date or occasion-oriented threat actually being carried through by the terrorists.
The media’s handicap is that it is not equipped to assess the veracity of any threat letter that lands in its mailbox. The other handicap is that it must disseminate information. Yet another, and the bigger handicap is, of course the cut-throat competition between TV channels which have to not just grab all information but also make it bigger than it actually is. That pushes up their TRP economy, in other words, their survival. One channel’s prudence in playing down a sensational piece of news almost always becomes another channel’s exclusive and the same goes for the newspapers.
Top terror operatives have systematically used the media to up their ante. Osama bin Laden officially started it all by sending tapes to Al Jazeera detailing his plans to the Americans. With the Osama tapes, Al Jazeera hit a jackpot – from almost a localised TV news channel in the Middle East, overnight it became the most talked of media entity globally. It got money, it got reputation and it soon expanded into a global network appointing fulltime bureaux in more nations that it had ever dreamed of. All this because it, perhaps inadvertently, became the publicity vehicle of the world’s most wanted man. Wonder what would have happened had Al Jazeera refused to air those tapes and had, instead, mailed them to the Pentagon for further action. Wouldn’t it have been a more fear free world then? In the same context, the Hockey World Cup, too, could have been held in less fear than it is being done now, had the media buried Kashmiri.
Over the years, the media has followed certain laid down ethics. Not many in media who are taken seriously by the public ever violate this code. Rape victims, for example, are never named or photographed; the unwritten advisory to all Editors is to avoid blood-torn human bodies on the pages, be it accidents or crime to terror; Hindus or Muslims are rarely called thus in riot reports. All this, pundits say, does not take away from the news. Only, it shocks and intimidates readers/viewers a little less.
There are umpteen examples of the media not turning up at all and a destructive intent being reduced to a flop show. One example of that was some years ago in Mumbai. The Shiv Sena was protesting against something and had duly informed the media that they would be indulging in large-scale arson at a particular place. Quite unprecedented, but the media decided jointly not to “cover” this event. The Sainiks waited all morning in vain for someone to turn up at their anointed spot. When no one came, they returned without putting their tod-phod plans to action. One big day was saved only because someone in the media managed to convince everyone that this was not news.
Perhaps, Kashmir and his ilk demand similar treatment. Of course, in a scenario where you dump terror threats, not only has the media got to develop a mechanism of unanimity but it would also need the muscle of intense Government commitment to nullifying a potent incident by covert and overt security which would look routine and keep the chirp out of its operations.
Ignoring Kashmiri would sound too much of an audacious view but if executed with discipline it would go a long way in reducing the build-up of nationwide scare. Last heard, and despite Kashmiri’s threat, the tickets for the India-Pak hockey match on February 28 are sold out.
All this becomes even more necessary because Kashmiri’s threat has been “done to death” on TV channels and all other hues of the media. So much so that we know all about this shadowy figure who resides across the border. With special news packages being splashed on TV channels about his various exploits till now – and that includes his involvement with Headley and the Mumbai attacks – he has been turned into a larger than life threat in popular perception.
Indeed, the supreme duty of the media is to keep everyone informed and purists would argue how Kashmiri’s threat is too big to be missed, deliberately or otherwise and nothing else but a page 1 mention would have done justice to the news. They would say, what would news be if the media were to ignore what a “serious terror player” has on his mind. They would also argue that by splashing Ilyas Kashmiri all over the place, the media would be doing its other, less publicised, duty – that of activating the Government to the maximum in the face of media glare.
All this cannot be disputed. But there is another way that the media could have dealt with Ilyas Kashmiri’s threat. Consider this: What would Ilyas Kashmiri do if none in the media was ready to publish, broadcast, telecast or webslide his threat? What if, the media develops this unwritten code wherein whichever media house gets the “for publication” threat letter, it hands it over to the Government and works jointly to minimise the publicity of the threat.
What would Ilyas Kashmiri do if, despite all his efforts, he just does not find a way to convey his threat to anybody at all? How does he create public fear which is the staple of all terror operations?
Some would say this would provoke him into action. But isn’t the holding of sporting events in India enough provocation for him already? And wouldn’t the Indian Government have been as security conscious as it is now had Kashmiri not said it in so many words? Mumbai didn’t happen after an announcement. Neither did the serial blasts of 1993 or, for that matter, the Parliament attack.
India is unlikely to suspend the global sporting soiree that it is about to display, threat or no threat. Only, it has to go that extra mile where security is concerned. That it would still do, having been told by the media secretly what Kashmiri says he will do.
The argument here is that the terrorati have long been using the media to create a fear psychosis that achieves more than half their target. It keeps them in the news, it keeps public fear at the maximum and it bleeds the nation in organisation upkeep, not to mention that it lends a huge profile to hitherto unknown terror outfits.
If one were to go through the crime files, one is unlikely to find a definite date or occasion-oriented threat actually being carried through by the terrorists.
The media’s handicap is that it is not equipped to assess the veracity of any threat letter that lands in its mailbox. The other handicap is that it must disseminate information. Yet another, and the bigger handicap is, of course the cut-throat competition between TV channels which have to not just grab all information but also make it bigger than it actually is. That pushes up their TRP economy, in other words, their survival. One channel’s prudence in playing down a sensational piece of news almost always becomes another channel’s exclusive and the same goes for the newspapers.
Top terror operatives have systematically used the media to up their ante. Osama bin Laden officially started it all by sending tapes to Al Jazeera detailing his plans to the Americans. With the Osama tapes, Al Jazeera hit a jackpot – from almost a localised TV news channel in the Middle East, overnight it became the most talked of media entity globally. It got money, it got reputation and it soon expanded into a global network appointing fulltime bureaux in more nations that it had ever dreamed of. All this because it, perhaps inadvertently, became the publicity vehicle of the world’s most wanted man. Wonder what would have happened had Al Jazeera refused to air those tapes and had, instead, mailed them to the Pentagon for further action. Wouldn’t it have been a more fear free world then? In the same context, the Hockey World Cup, too, could have been held in less fear than it is being done now, had the media buried Kashmiri.
Over the years, the media has followed certain laid down ethics. Not many in media who are taken seriously by the public ever violate this code. Rape victims, for example, are never named or photographed; the unwritten advisory to all Editors is to avoid blood-torn human bodies on the pages, be it accidents or crime to terror; Hindus or Muslims are rarely called thus in riot reports. All this, pundits say, does not take away from the news. Only, it shocks and intimidates readers/viewers a little less.
There are umpteen examples of the media not turning up at all and a destructive intent being reduced to a flop show. One example of that was some years ago in Mumbai. The Shiv Sena was protesting against something and had duly informed the media that they would be indulging in large-scale arson at a particular place. Quite unprecedented, but the media decided jointly not to “cover” this event. The Sainiks waited all morning in vain for someone to turn up at their anointed spot. When no one came, they returned without putting their tod-phod plans to action. One big day was saved only because someone in the media managed to convince everyone that this was not news.
Perhaps, Kashmir and his ilk demand similar treatment. Of course, in a scenario where you dump terror threats, not only has the media got to develop a mechanism of unanimity but it would also need the muscle of intense Government commitment to nullifying a potent incident by covert and overt security which would look routine and keep the chirp out of its operations.
Ignoring Kashmiri would sound too much of an audacious view but if executed with discipline it would go a long way in reducing the build-up of nationwide scare. Last heard, and despite Kashmiri’s threat, the tickets for the India-Pak hockey match on February 28 are sold out.
Published February 28, 2010, Sunday Pioneer; http://www.dailypioneer.com/239046/Why-media-should-not-highlight-threats.html
Comments
Post a Comment