The relationship between terrorism and the media has long been clear. Terrorists aim to provoke irrational fear among large numbers of people to achieve their goals and the 9/11 attacks of 2001 was an incident where they successfully did so (Burke, “How the changing media is changing terrorism”). For the next three days, media houses reported without advertisement breaks on the aftermath of the attacks which sent shock waves down the spines of every person (Kellner, 2004). After, the attack which stunned the world, the George Bush administration in America launched the ‘Global war on Terror’ which used a moral rhetoric to propel it’s “war on terrorism” policies, especially in Iraq. This ‘morality’ was strongly echoed through the US media.
The War on Terror describes a vague enemy, opposes a ‘tactic’, has no clear measure of success and just lifts the problem out of political, economic, and historical context. However, this was never given any light by the media (Reese, 2009). Instead the US media was responsible for propelling moralist sentiments among their citizens. In fact, it went to such an extent that, media reports ceased to describe the policy as the administration’s ‘war on terrorism’ but reported it as ‘America’s war on terror’ (Reese, 2007). The ultimate closing of the loop came when journalists, after having helped brand the policy, labeled the frame as public opinion: ‘the struggle that most Americans call the war on terrorism’ (Hoagland, 2002). The mainstream media in the US privileged the “clash of civilizations” model and established a binary dualism between Islamic terrorism and civilization (Kellner, 2003). This continues to pose serious consequences to the US and the rest of the world as many big media houses in the US continue to follow similar irrational paths during crisis situations.
In opposition to the scene in US media, the Indian media seems to be better at learning from its mistakes. In India, during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the media released confidential details while the attack was happening, and this led to a lot of panic. Without appropriate systems and channels of information in place, journalists went by what they saw, what was visible to the naked eye to report to the world. Was it poor judgement of the journalists to release this information? In the hindsight, yes. After these shortfalls happened, the government ordered notices to television news channels. However, with no proper guidelines for the media to report in crisis situations, the media houses were let free without major consequences. While reviewing the failures and addressing new challenges, the absence of a simple protocol was glaring. In fact, it took an attack like 26/11 for both the government and the media industry to evolve new frameworks for coverage. After the Mumbai attacks of 26/11, India’s News Broadcasters Association, came up with a new set of guidelines for the coverage of emergency situations. Though not always foolproof, these regulations have a strong influence on most newsrooms. For the most part, evidence indicates that private broadcast news media in India have complied with crisis reportage guidelines since they were put in place. The government formed better security strategies and developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) for communications in crisis and the media has learned from past mistakes and experience. Both the government and the media had lessons to learn from the handling of the Mumbai attacks. Since the 26/11 attacks, reportage of riots and terror strikes, including those on the Indian Air Base in Pathankot and an army camp in Uri, has broadly indicated this commitment (Mirchandani, “26/11 and the media: Where were the protocols?”). Baring a few minor exceptions, today, networks in India have become more responsible in the visuals and details they report in situations of crisis. However, the condition of the media in US and in other parts of the world is still disheartening to witness. The role of media in public opinion is huge and is a job that needs to be done responsibly. Hope the world takes notes from the media in India!
The War on Terror describes a vague enemy, opposes a ‘tactic’, has no clear measure of success and just lifts the problem out of political, economic, and historical context. However, this was never given any light by the media (Reese, 2009). Instead the US media was responsible for propelling moralist sentiments among their citizens. In fact, it went to such an extent that, media reports ceased to describe the policy as the administration’s ‘war on terrorism’ but reported it as ‘America’s war on terror’ (Reese, 2007). The ultimate closing of the loop came when journalists, after having helped brand the policy, labeled the frame as public opinion: ‘the struggle that most Americans call the war on terrorism’ (Hoagland, 2002). The mainstream media in the US privileged the “clash of civilizations” model and established a binary dualism between Islamic terrorism and civilization (Kellner, 2003). This continues to pose serious consequences to the US and the rest of the world as many big media houses in the US continue to follow similar irrational paths during crisis situations.
In opposition to the scene in US media, the Indian media seems to be better at learning from its mistakes. In India, during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the media released confidential details while the attack was happening, and this led to a lot of panic. Without appropriate systems and channels of information in place, journalists went by what they saw, what was visible to the naked eye to report to the world. Was it poor judgement of the journalists to release this information? In the hindsight, yes. After these shortfalls happened, the government ordered notices to television news channels. However, with no proper guidelines for the media to report in crisis situations, the media houses were let free without major consequences. While reviewing the failures and addressing new challenges, the absence of a simple protocol was glaring. In fact, it took an attack like 26/11 for both the government and the media industry to evolve new frameworks for coverage. After the Mumbai attacks of 26/11, India’s News Broadcasters Association, came up with a new set of guidelines for the coverage of emergency situations. Though not always foolproof, these regulations have a strong influence on most newsrooms. For the most part, evidence indicates that private broadcast news media in India have complied with crisis reportage guidelines since they were put in place. The government formed better security strategies and developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) for communications in crisis and the media has learned from past mistakes and experience. Both the government and the media had lessons to learn from the handling of the Mumbai attacks. Since the 26/11 attacks, reportage of riots and terror strikes, including those on the Indian Air Base in Pathankot and an army camp in Uri, has broadly indicated this commitment (Mirchandani, “26/11 and the media: Where were the protocols?”). Baring a few minor exceptions, today, networks in India have become more responsible in the visuals and details they report in situations of crisis. However, the condition of the media in US and in other parts of the world is still disheartening to witness. The role of media in public opinion is huge and is a job that needs to be done responsibly. Hope the world takes notes from the media in India!
No comments:
Post a Comment