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.

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.