India

The Mumbai terrorist attacks and the social responsibility of the media.

By Ananda Siddhartha.

In today’s society the mass media has become an integral part of everyday life. There has been a rapid spread of cable, satellite television channels, cheap access to internet and digital technology which has resulted in the brisk transfer of information even as it happening. But the question still remains whether the media is making people more responsible and critical or just passive receivers of information.

In his book Understanding Media, the Canadian sociologist, Marshall McLuhan, has suggested that developments in communication were the main force for change in human society. Not all sociologists would agree with this. Some would believe that the media is just a reflection of society and therefore there is little chance of it changing society as such. Marxists on the other hand maintain that it is the logic of capitalism that dictates the content of the mass media, whose impact on people is to promote consumerism and the views of the ruling classes.

The media has the potential of turning people into uncritical viewers. One sits in front of the television, for example, and just ‘consumes’. This phenomenon has also been termed as ‘infotainment’. A good example of infotainment was the media coverage of the Mumbai terrorist attacks on November 26th, 2008. The media went hysteric and exploited a serious problem in a very irresponsible way. For example one television channel interviewed a ‘terrorist’ while it filmed the unfolding scenario in Mumbai. Another channel reported the actress Simi Garewal saying that Muslims in Mumbai slums were hoisting Pakistani flags. (She later corrected herself and said that she mistook the green flags for Pakistani flags). They also fanned war hysteria by airing interviews asking for war against Pakistan. News channels interviewed children saying that Pakistan must be bombed. Other channels showed clips of fighter planes that spoke of the state of readiness of the Indian army and the build-up of troops along the border. The reports prompted the army to issue a clarification that no such movement of troops had taken place. The media coverage was titillating. They tried desperately to keep the viewer interest alive through all kinds of irresponsible sensationalism, as the Simi Garewal interview revealed. For the media, war, or even talk of war, was great for TRPs (Television Rating Points).

In the prevailing atmosphere, where fact and fiction merged to create a fantasy, jumping at shadows became a dangerous reflex. A few civil society initiatives did try to address both the sense of insecurity and the anger and confusion of citizens. While some groups focused on campaigns to remove incompetent ministers from the government, others sought better security and more funds and equipment for the police. On December 10 Mumbai-based women’s organizations held a silent march at the CST with the simple message: Say no to war and yes to peace. The overwhelming response of commuters and long-distance train travelers was a hopeful sign against the madness of war. While the media may have privileged coverage of loud voices supporting a war with Pakistan to solve India’s terrorist problem, a silent majority has responded through vigils and peaceful marches against more violence. This shows the growing resilience of sections of society towards a sane response to the crisis despite the irresponsible manipulation of people’s feelings by the media.

Article by Ananda Siddhartha