Copy for 'Deccan Herald' of August 11 2007
Television as newsmaker not reporter by S L Rao
The proliferation of television news channels has led to reports on any happening, however small, as major news, while ignoring others. Amitabh Bachan's hospitalization, his son's wedding, rescue attempts of small boys falling into deep holes, Sanjay Dutt's criminal trial and incarceration, get as much time as did
Delhi’s Sarojini market bombing, the Varanasi temple bombing, the Jessica Lal and Katara murder trials, etc.
However, the nuclear treaty developments, the shortfalls in investments in energy, farmer suicides and their causes, etc, did not get the same breathless
“breaking news" treatment. TV channels also attempt to create news, mixing news reportage with strong opinion, and influence the executive and judiciary through petitions of mass public opinion.
Print media, especially in English, has so far reported news, not camouflaged opinions, nor tried to create news. Amateurish reporting by inexperienced television correspondents of serious events, and poor crosschecking by editors, misinforms and misguides public opinion. This may also happen to the print media if it persists in publishing untrained and unedited “citizen” reporters.
Dr Mohammed Hanif was a brilliant student from a middle class Bangalore family, who left India to make his fortune in England and Australia. These countries are unsuccessfully searching for ways to identify

potential terrorists. Hanif was cousin to the two brothers from Bangalore who plotted to cause maximum damage by ramming an explosives laden car into Glasgow airport. Hanif had lent one cousin his SIM card, enabling calls on that card not to be traced to the cousin in England. Immediately after the Glasgow incident he was set to return to India on a one way ticket. With this information, it would have been irresponsible if the Australian police had not apprehended Hanif and interrogated him. No doubt,
Australian Prime Minister John Howard had won elections on issues of race and terrorism-when he supported the racist Pauline Hanson in one election,
"protected" Australia by refusing sanctuary to a boatload of starving Afghan refugees in the next. Hanif was his "tough on terrorism" action before the forthcoming General Election. Within days, Australian media, public opinion and political leaders protested, the Chief Public Prosecutor investigated, and Hanif was released. Our self-righteous television channels which have done little to expose the large number in our jails for years under trial, made Hanif into an Australian martyr, not a legitimate terror suspect. They did not prominently report the public outrage in Australia that influenced Hanif’s ultimate release.
Unfortunately the majority of terrorism acts everywhere, appear for many reasons, to be by
Muslims. Suspecting anyone who is Muslim is an unfortunate but in the present state of information unavoidable, fallout. But Hanif was jailed for more than being a Muslim.

The bizarre saturation coverage used to generate support and sympathy for Sanjay Dutt by television channels even condemned our criminal justice system and the "harshness" of a judge who for ten years had patiently interrogated the many suspected of plotting to kill and succeeding in killing hundreds in Bombay.
Sanjay Dutt is acknowledged to be a reformed drug and alcohol addict, who committed serious offences under the law by procuring lethal weapons from his criminal friends in the aftermath of major communal riots. He instructed other friends to destroy the weapons. That he wanted to thus "protect" his family or had spent 16 months in jail awaiting trial, is a 'good' man, has done
'good' deeds since, is religious, is son of the best loved actress in Indian cinema and of a courageous and conscientious M.P., is a popular actor on whom producers stand to lose the substantial sums that they have invested in new films featuring him, or that many like Pereira in Bombay who was sentenced less harshly after killing six people on the road, cannot exonerate
Dutt. Of course the Indian criminal justice system in
India is many times incompetent, corrupt and unfair in punishing more heinous crimes. It needs thorough reform. The lack of action against killers of Muslims indicted, by the Sri Krishna Report, is a terrible indictment of our political class. Television news does not examine these issues with similar saturation coverage. But the systemic faults must not allow us to excuse criminals who are proven to have committed crimes under the law.

Navjot Siddhu is an example of the different coverage when the accused is a television figure. Siddhu personally killed a man some years ago. During the unconscionably long years of trial, Siddhu became a television mega star. When he was found guilty, the news did not receive the breathless coverage that television would have given it f it had not been a television personality.
Competition compels channels to "create" news through excessive coverage, "sting" operations" and fomenting public opinion. Television reopened the
Jessica Lal case but the medium focuses only on such high-profile cases. Television news seeks to mould opinion. It has no clear priorities in reporting, or editorial self-regulation. Parliament should proceed with the legislation creating an Independent
Broadcasting Authority and regulate news channels.
(830)