public interest litigation on TV news

[sweta singh]

PIL No.56 and more guidelines

The Bombay High Court admits a public interest litigation on TV news
coverage during the Mubai siege, and the New Broadcasters Association
comes up with more guidelines. THE HOOT brings you both.

News Broadcasters Association, Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage

In furtherance of the principles of self-regulation as contained in
NBA's Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, the following Guidelines
set-out specific standards which are to be adhered to by
member-broadcasters.

Fundamental Standards

All reporting must be done keeping in view the following supervening
criteria:

A. All news reporting must be done in "public interest".

B. Reporting should not sensationalise or create panic, distress or
undue

fear among viewers.

C. `Content' of matter broadcast should not be shown out of
`context'.

D. Subjects which promote horror, supernatural, superstition, occultism,

exorcism, divination, and the paranormal should be avoided.

E. Broadcasters should exercise care and objectivity in featuring

activities, beliefs, practices, or views of any racial or religious
group

in their content to prevent any negative impact thereof.

F. "Reconstruction" of events, when shown, should be clearly so

marked, and to be consistent with these Guidelines.

G. Broadcasters should eschew unhealthy competition that may lead to

deterioration of broadcasting standards.

1. Accuracy

1.1 Information should be gathered first-hand from more than one source,
if possible.

1.2 Reports received from news-agencies should be attributed and where
possible be verified.

1.3 Allegations should be reported accurately as made.

1.4 Use of archival material should be clearly labeled "file"
and preferably also state date and time of initial broadcast.

1.5 Errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest, giving
sufficient prominence to the broadcast of the correct version of
fact(s).

1.6 Facts should be clearly distinguishable from, and not be mixed-up
with, opinion, analysis and comment.

2. Impartiality, Neutrality & Fairness

2.1 For balanced reportage, broadcasters should remain neutral and
ensure that diverse views are covered in their reporting, especially on
a controversial subject, without giving undue prominence to any
particular view.

2.2 In editing content, broadcasters should ensure that there is no
distortion of the facts and events being reported or of the views
expressed.

2.3 Broadcasters should not use information or pictures obtained through
misrepresentation or deception. (For Sting Operation guidelines see
separate section below)

3. Law & Order, Crime & Violence

3.1 Content should not glamorize or sensationalize crime or condone
criminal actions, including suicide.

3.2 Content should not depict techniques of crime that may tempt
imitation, especially with reference to terrorism and suicide.

3.3 Reports on crime should not amount to prejudging or pre-deciding a
matter that is, or is likely to be, sub judice.

3.4 No publicity should be given to the accused or witnesses that may
interfere in the administration of justice or be prejudicial to a fair
trial.

3.5 Identities of victims should not be disclosed in cases of sexual
crimes and violence on women and children.

3.6 The dead must be treated with respect. Close-ups of dead or
mutilated bodies should not be shown.

3.7 Violence must not be depicted solely for its own sake, or for its
gratuitous exploitation or to pander to sadistic or other perverted
tastes. Scenes with excessive violence or suffering such as close-up
shots of persons being subject to brutality, torture or being killed and
visual depiction of such matter should be avoided.

3.8 Broadcasters should not glamorize or in any way promote individuals,
groups or organizations that employ or advocate the use of violence or
engage in criminal / nefarious activity. Hooliganism, vandalism and all
forms of delinquency should not be shown in favorable light.

3.9 Live broadcast of sensitive and distressing material without prior
scrutiny by senior editorial personnel should be avoided.

4. Good Taste & Decency, Sex & Nudity

4.1 In selecting content, broadcasters should abide by current norms and
mores of decency and taste, in visuals, language and behaviour, keeping
in mind the context in which any visuals, language or behaviour occurs,
including the broadcast time, type of content, target audience, use of
parental advisories, cautions and content classification.

4.2 Content that contains violent or sexual material, crude, offensive,
or coarse language or other content likely to disturb or offend even a
reasonable adult viewer should be avoided.

4.3 Subjects dealing with incest and sexual abuse, especially of
children, must be handled with extreme care and sensitivity.

4.4 Combination of violence and sexuality designed in a manner that
titillates should not be shown.

4.5 Coverage of killings, including terrorist attacks, executions and
assassinations, should not be explicit or prolonged.

5. Privacy

5.1 Broadcasters should exercise discretion and sensitivity when
reporting on distressing situations, on grief and bereavement.

5.2 Persons should not be featured in content in a manner that
denigrates or discriminates against sections of the community on account
of race, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation¸ occupation,
religion, cultural or political beliefs.

5.3 Content that would cause unwarranted distress to surviving family
members, including by showing archival footage, should be avoided.

5.4 No information relating to the location of a person's home or
family should be disclosed without permission from the concerned person.

5.5 Surreptitious recording of any person or event should only be made
without committing any illegality and if editorially justified.

5.6 Interviews of the injured, victims or grieving persons should be
conducted only with prior consent of the persons or where applicable
their guardian.

6. National Security

6.1 Broadcasters should not disclose confidential information of
operations involving national security.

6.2 Broadcasters should use due discretion in reporting on operational
methods used by perpetrators of serious offences against the State
during the occurrence of the event.

6.3 Live interviews with perpetrators should not be aired.

6.4 Reporting of events which erodes public confidence in the capacity
of national institutions meant to protect them should be avoided during
the occurrence of the event.

6.5 Broadcasters should not reveal technical details of operations, to
prevent information relating to strategies and operations of security
agencies becoming known to the perpetrators.

7. Supernatural, Occultism & Paranormal

7.1 Subjects promoting horror, supernatural, superstition, occultism,
exorcism, divination, and the paranormal, which may be frightening to
children should be avoided.

7.2 Belief in superstition, occultism, exorcism, divination and the
paranormal should not be promoted.

8. Children's Interests

8.1 Broadcasters should not screen content that would disturb or alarm
children or tend to have a deleterious effect on their psyche during
their normally accepted viewing times.

8.2 At other times, broadcasters should use appropriate parental
advisories, cautions and content classification. Content relating to or
containing antisocial behaviour, domestic friction, drug-use, smoking,
alcohol-use, graphic violence, menacing or horrifying imagery, sexual
material, crude, offensive or coarse language or other content that is
likely to disturb, alarm or otherwise affect the psyche of, or cause
distress to, children should be avoided.

9. Racial & Religious Harmony

9.1 Racial and religious stereotyping should be avoided.

9.2 Caution should be exercised in reporting content which denigrates or
is likely to offend the sensitivities of any racial or religious group
or that may create religious intolerance or disharmony.

10. Sting Operations

10.1 Sting operations should only be conducted in "public
interest" and when no other means is available to obtain the
requisite information, without any illegality or inducement and subject
to the legitimate right to privacy.

10.2 Broadcasters should resort to sting operations only if editorially
justified, for exposing wrong-doing, particularly of the public facets
of people in public life.

10.3 No sting operation should be conducted except with the concurrence
of the person overall in-charge of editorial function; and the Managing
Director and/or the Chief Executive Officer of the broadcaster should
also be kept fully informed of any sting operation.

10.4 Sting operations should be so conducted as to obtain
"evidence" of an offence but not to induce "commission"
of an offence.

The Hoot urges you to send feedback on these guidelines to n <http://>
banew...@gmail.com <http://>

PIL no. 56

The Petition

TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HIGH
COURT AT BOMBAY.

My name is Vishal Dadlani. I was born in Bombay in 1973, and have lived
here my whole life. I'm a musician.

Just like the rest of the world, from the moment I learnt of the
attacks, I stayed up watching television. I saw our local Police try to
figure things out, I watched our valiant Officers Karkare, Salaskar and
Kamte arrive, and almost immediately, lose their lives. I saw the NSG
and Marcos arrive and started to watch each step of their operation,
when suddenly, realization dawned! Over the next thirty or forty hours,
I watched, helpless and frustrated, as our very own electronic media did
things that seemed blatantly wrong to me.

What they were broadcasting in the name of the news, were in fact the
exact operational procedures, locations, and actions of our
anti-insurgency forces! Minute-by-minute!

I don't know anything about how the Armed Forces work, and I understand
nothing of terrorist-strikes and the correct media procedures involved.
There are a few questions I would like to bring up, and have answered,
though.

1. Is it acceptable to us that what should have been a classified
operation, was in fact an open book? Are we fine with the fact that
terrorists inside the besieged buildings could have had real-time access
to the same news channels that we did, thus giving them complete and
thorough information about the actions of our forces? Is it condonable,
that some of our men may have been placed at a disadvantage (and even
killed) due to the fact that the very terrorists they were trying to
locate and subdue, probably knew every detail of their positions and
plans?

The electronic media may defend their position with the "Freedom of the
Press" slogan that has been so often invoked, but I beg to differ. I
think that in the absence of responsible self-censorship, the media must
be instructed to act in a particular manner, as required by on-ground
reality.

The TV channels may try and say that their "live" feeds are slightly
delayed, thus reducing their relevance to the terrorists. However,
consider a terrorist inside a building, who has no information as to how
and from which direction the forces are approaching. Then, consider the
same terrorist, a few minutes later, with complete details as to where
the forces have entered from, and obviously, the direction of their
approach.

It was approximately forty hours after the attacks began, (and I'm told,
on repeated requests from the I & B ministry) that some channels started
to point their cameras away from the operations, and started to say
things like "without giving away too much detail"! Too little, too late
perhaps?

This was obviously a huge mistake. I think it's crucial that this
blunder not be repeated, and to that effect, a code of conduct be
created for the electronic media in times of national crisis.

The electronic media must not be allowed to show a live anti-terrorist
operation until it is safely concluded! They must obey when they are
told to disperse, and they must respect cordons created by the operating
force.

2. Another question I'd like to ask is whether it's correct, both
morally and legally, for a TV channel to broadcast to the Nation, an
alleged live phone call, purportedly from one of the terrorists. The
perpetrators of a colossal crime against our Nation, being allowed to
air their vitriolic propaganda on one of our own news channels! Does
this seem wrong to anyone else?

3. Some TV channels also had "live-and-direct" phone conversations with
guests within the hotels, in which the said guests divulge their
locations and room numbers. I can't see the point, or the newsworthiness
of this. Someone who has managed to get away to a relatively safe place,
unknown to the terrorists, is made to give up his location. The guest,
of course, assumes it will assist the rescue operation if he tells them
where he is, but the TV channels broadcast this information, possibly
even to the terrorists themselves. Is this OK by us? I sincerely hope
not!

This is a time of great anger for India. We feel violated and hurt, we
feel helpless and lost. Without credible leadership anywhere, we are
left to our own devices. I think it's important, however, that we set
aside our anger and our emotional responses, and with a calm and
collected rationale, think of the things we can change to make our
country safer for all of us to live in.

If we can all make or facilitate one change each, I think it will add up
to making a huge difference! I ask all of you to join in and sign the
following petition. Hopefully the Courts will take cognizance of our
opinion, and help us to make this small change that will keep our Nation
and the defenders of this Nation a little safer in any future
eventuality of this nature.

PETITION TO THE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI:

We, the undersigned, citizens of India, humbly pray for the following
reliefs;

1. That this Hon'ble Court call for the complete and unedited footage
from all TV News Channels broadcasting the attacks 'live', starting from
9:30pm on Wednesday 26th November 2008 and until the morning of Saturday
the 29th November 2008 and examine the same by itself or through any
appropriate agency as appointed by it, to investigate and determine the
manner in which sensitive information pertaining to the movement of
Counter-Insurgency Operations was broadcast 'live'.

2. That this Hon'ble Court take cognizance of the broadcast of
inflammatory propaganda (if any), on any such TV News Channels, and an
appropriate Writ Order or Direction be passed by the Court against such
TV News Channels as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

3. That this Hon'ble Court make and issue such other Writ, Order and
Direction as it may deem appropriate directing the Authorities to
formulate a model Code-of-Conduct within a fixed time frame; that be
made mandatory to the TV News Channels, to regulate the 'Live' broadcast
of such and similar eventualities and operations.

4. That this Hon'ble Court make and issue such other Writ Order or
Direction as it may deem appropriate in the matter.

Sincerely,

Vishal Dadlani

and

The Undersigned

(25188 signatories)

--
Lecturer
Centre for Media Studies
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
Kashmere Gate
Delhi - 110403, India
Ph:+91-11-23900347/48
M: 09868616222
www.ggsipu.nic.in

'Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what no body has thought.' Albert von Szent