Indian Media and The 26/11 Attack: From Breaking News to Broken Societies
The monstrous memories of Mumbai’s night of terror still send shivers down the city’s spine when the serene Taj Hotel fell victim to flames and rubble.
Amidst Taj’s mayhem emerged a survivor, battered but unbroken. His escape was nothing short of miraculous, a declaration of the indomitable human spirit that refuses to surrender to fear. But in this moment of triumph, he felt a sudden tug on his hand, forcing him to turn around and face the unknown.
It was apparently none other than a persistent reporter, who had been obsessively reporting live from the tragedy’s frontlines. As the survivor caught his breath, the reporter, Ms Dutt, thrust a microphone in front of him, probing for answers in the heat of the moment, and began interviewing him. However, in the frenzy of emotion and fear, the man let slip the location of his wife to the world, who was holed up somewhere within the hotel's blood-soaked walls.
The gunfire’s deafening sounds and the innocent victims’ screams only added to the maelstrom of emotions that engulfed him. Such ‘uncensored’ airing of sensitive information by reporters like Ms Dutt came under fierce scrutiny, as critics like Chaitanya Kunte condemned the media's actions as a callous disregard for the safety of innocents.
As the world watched in horror, the man's journey through the cobweb of a terrorist attack he had just escaped was far from over.
This ‘fidayeen’ attack, meticulously crafted by Pakistan-based groups with deep pockets and even deeper hatred for India, targeted specific places to assume an international face. Some aspect or another of the incident kept appearing in print media, with bold headlines, TV shows hosting heated debates, and round-the-clock reportage, for months to follow. The coverage began morphing into a commercialized spectacle, with oligopolistic centralizing trends driving the narrative. This transformation, seen as a stain on the media's record, betrayed its journalistic integrity.
During national crises, journalists practised an irresponsible form of 'adventurous' journalism —flaunting the latest developments from live attack locations, capturing dramatic footage from perilously close distances, all in the name of higher ratings and more views. The coverage was spilling everywhere, reaching the monitors of the Pakistani terrorist groups too. As a high-ranking official of India’s security agency RAW said, “it cannot be ruled out that the accomplices of terrorists holed up inside the Taj were constantly giving the latter operational instructions over the phone following the live telecast of the rescue operation as it unfolded itself.” The self-serving media was accused of disseminating delicate information and flippantly disregarding the security commandos’ admonitions, jeopardizing the safety of hostages and police personnel when brave commandos like ATS Chief Karkare and encounter-specialist Salaskar were gunned-down, hardly firing a bullet before their demise.
The Indian communication and broadcasting sphere is plagued by structural anomalies that impede its ability to conduct thorough investigative reporting. This problem has only worsened since the horrendous 9/11 attacks, resulting in coverage that is marked by ‘obscenity’, which according to Jean Baudrillard, “is no longer the traditional obscenity of what is hidden, repressed, forbidden, or obscure; on the contrary, it is the obscenity of the visible, of the all-too-visible, of the more-visible than-visible.”
The media dangerously framed the attack as a declaration of war, marked by phraseologies like “War-front Mumbai” or “Pakistan: our political Satan,” painting a harshly distorted portrayal. This allowed the public to link the attack to an extremist motive, tarnishing India’s thriving economy and tourism. Asphyxiated under the stifling pressure of cut-throat competition, the media prioritized the erosion of investigative journalism in favour of theatrical coverage, and the negative effects —blood-soaked pictures, morbid impressionistic scenes, violence —over positive ones —objective “hard” information and critical assessments of the developments. This ‘patronizing’ attitude only served to stoke the embers of vulnerability, causing a widespread frenzy of panic as the body count mounted. The aftermath? An epidemic of crippling paranoia, debilitating sleeplessness, and panic attacks that put psychotherapists in Mumbai and other bustling metropolises on high alert.
Furthermore, the media’s political tabloidization ended up furthering the terrorist foothold. By making baseless accusations against the state for operational inefficiencies, they sparked mob fury, fading the state's authority and popular sovereignty.Similarly uncorroborated were news reports suggesting that many Indians favoured war with Pakistan, demonizing it and sometimes even Islam as a whole. The recital also boosted the electoral attractiveness of parties, like the right-wing BJP party, believing they were better equipped to handle terrorism. However, the media’s anti-Pakistan, anti-politician, and anti-state rhetoric reinforced jingoistic communalism and nationalist sentiments, hastening the public's cognitive polarization to fuel a collective thirst for vengeance. Resulting in extreme demands for military action and a rejection of democratic principles, this endangered India's long-standing traditions of secularism and democracy.
The media's accountability in amplifying fear and manipulating perceptions cannot be denied. However, credit must be given where it's due. Despite relentless obfuscation sown by terrorist networks, the media's sting operations in Pakistan and India were instrumental in identifying the militant group responsible, unearthing the Pakistani roots of the lone surviving terrorist, and silencing radical sections of Pakistan's army and Islamic parties who denied Pakistan's involvement in the attacks. These parties had peddled fabricated theories that either India’s government had staged the attacks or it was the work of homegrown terrorists with no links to Pakistan.
Their coverage also helped non-victims understand the gruesomeness and extreme brutality exhibited by the attackers. Even today, as I walk the historic streets of Colaba Causeway, the haunting echoes of the hostages' screams in Taj's silent hallways, the bloodstains imprinted on the restored walls of the Jewish Chabad remain vividly etched in my memory —a testament to the media's role in uncovering the 26/11 attack.
Therefore, modern journalists’ pursuit of attention-grabbing content can have both advantageous and detrimental effects on society —a double-edged sword that requires caution.
In a world of rampant political neo-liberalization, the media has become a potent force, capable of swaying the opinions of millions. During harrowing times like the 9/11 attacks, Boston Marathon Bombings, or the Paris Terrorist attacks, countless Ms Dutts wield a powerful tool: the ability to become a driving force in shaping perceptions through its unparalleled reach and persuasive storytelling. And when it comes to terror attacks, the stakes are even higher. Yet, all too often, the media ends up abandoning its obligation as a sentinel of unprejudiced discernment, resulting in the erosion of the public’s trust in it.
Editors, keepers of keys to what is to be told to the audience and how it is to be told, hold a crucial responsibility in upholding ethical standards of journalism by flowing unbiased information across minds. As it’s a tenuous tightrope walk of getting the story out and ensuring the safety of those involved, it’s critical for the bifurcation between the state and editors to be dissolved to strengthen all the pillars of democracy. Until then, the media will continue to sensationalize national crises and turn them into bloodbaths, and reduce complex issues to tabloid fodder and politicians to mere entertainers.
Only then can survivors like the man who braved Taj’s horror truly break free from the suffocating grip of the cobweb of infotainment journalism.
Bibliography
Elst, Koenraad. "When "Journalist" Barkha Dutt Ended up Endangering the Lives of 100s during the 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attack!" News Bharati, 26 Nov. 2022, www.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2022/11/26/Barkha-Dutt-reporting-during-the-26-11-Mumbai-terror-attack.html.Accessed 2 Mar. 2023.
"Remembering the Role Barkha Dutt Played in Endangering the Lives of 100s of Civilians during the 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attack." OpIndia, 26 Nov. 2019, www.opindia.com/2019/11/barkha-dutt-mumbai-attack-ndtv-oberoi-terrorists/. Accessed 2 Mar. 2023.
Krishnan, Raghu. "Let Us Remember Not Just the Horror of 26/11 but the Heroes." The Economic Times, 25 Nov. 2020, economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/andwordsisallihave/let-us-remember-not-just-the-horror-of-26-11-but-the-heroes/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2023.
Coulter, Gerry. "Jean Baudrillard, The Conspiracy of Art." The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, vol. 44, no. 4, Nov. 2007, pp. 495+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A174062023/AONE?u=anon~f4978e55&sid=googleScholar&xid=d2989e45. Accessed 16 Sep 2022.
"2008 Mumbai Attacks." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Feb. 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks. Accessed 11 Feb. 2023.
"Lashkar-e-Taiba." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Feb. 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Taiba. Accessed 14 Feb. 2023.
"Erroneous Reporting on the 2008 Mumbai Attacks." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Dec. 2022, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erroneous_reporting_on_the_2008_Mumbai_attacks#:~:text=There%20was%20enormous%20media%20coverage,attacks%2C%20which%20also%20caused%20confusion. Accessed 14 Feb. 2023.
Chandran, Rina. "Indian Media under Fire for Mumbai Attacks Coverage." Reuters, 5 Dec. 2008, www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-36891720081205. Accessed 13 Feb. 2023.
Gopalakrishnan, Raju. "India Directs Anger at Politicians After Mumbai Attacks." Reuters, 30 Nov. 2008, www.reuters.com/article/us-india-mumbai-politicians-sb-idUKTRE4AT0IN20081130. Accessed 15 Feb. 2023.
Mitra, Antara. "All for Brownie Points!: Reappraising the New Commercial Media and Media–Terrorism Nexus in the Context of the Mumbai Attacks of 26/11." Asia Eur J, vol. 7, 2009, p. 433–447, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-009-0235-1. Accessed 14 Feb. 2023.
Kellner, Douglas. 9/11, Spectacles of Terror, and Media Manipulation. Critical Discourse Studies, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900410001674515. pp. 41-64.
Hallman, E A. R. I. B. A. S. F. T. B. M. B., et al. Media’S Role in Broadcasting Acute Stress following the Boston Marathon Bombings. Edited by Shelly E. Taylor, 1st ed., vol. 111, PNAS, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1316265110. pp. 93-98.
Robert, M., Stene, L. E., Garfin, D. R., Vandentorren, S., Motreff, Y., Roscoat, E., & Pirard, P. (2021). Media Exposure and Post-traumatic Stress Symptoms in the Wake of the November 2015 Paris Terrorist Attacks: A Population-Based Study in France (C. Theleritis, Ed.). Front. Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.509457
VAIDYA, APRA. “The 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attack: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI PRINT MEDIA.” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, vol. 21, no. 4, 2017, pp. 98–109. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48531308. Accessed 3 Mar. 2023.
Comments
Post a Comment