SIGHT & SOUND
A limit to disaster shots
Amita Malik

The coverage of the bomb blasts at Malegaon has once again raised the ethical and professional correctness of showing human bodies, limbs and people battling for their lives on hospital beds. The western media obviously have a code for it, which was amply evident in two of the worst terrorist attacks, the one on the twin towers in New York and the ones in London on underground trains and a bus. Not once did one see bodies, limbs or any of the victims. In addition, the police was alert, cordoned off the dangerous areas. The disciplined people of those two cities obeyed the police, because it was courteous but firm. Contrast the mayhem in Malegaon, where one could see children being trampled on by fleeing adults, although one also saw elderly men trying to protect them.

So, while it was admirable of Sahara Samay to have had a reporter on the spot to file the first horrifying shots, and other channels got their first shots courtesy Sahara and said so, one will also have to say that far too much was shown. This cannot only upset viewers, including small children and elderly people, but also give ideas to other terrorists in the creation of panic and destruction.

I had suggested this before and do so again: That in such a case, channels should agree to pool their resources as they did this time instead of trying to outdo each other in extravagant "exclusives" and "firsts" where they go beyond the bounds of reason and decency.

Think of the anguish of the relatives of the victims when they see the latter cruelly exposed on TV. And the cruelty of asking severely injured people to recount what happened. Not least of all, the harassment of the police, top officials and others for long interviews with what are sometimes silly questions impossible to answer at that stage. Reporters might have a job to do but more important is the job of security and administration by officials on the spot. Much more useful were the elders of communities who went on TV and called for peace and calm and the statements by top officials that the situation was being controlled.

A most vexing problem in another sphere is the intrusion of advertisements into what is legitimate viewing or the favourite programmes of viewers for which they have paid. I am shocked at the way Ten Sports, which got contracts for various sports events after a lot of competition, treated tennis lovers over the coverage of the US Open Tennis.

I once counted up to seven ads, including that odious one about a bridegroom who terrifies his waiting bride by brandishing a pair of murderous scissors because he is having problems with his underwear. Taking just one example: During the Andy Roddick-Mikhail Youzhny semifinal, the ads went on for so long that at crucial points in the game, the play came in only at 40-15, 30 all and 30-15. This is unforgivable and an insult to sports lovers.

I tried to ring up Ten Sports to protest on the spot, but they are based in Dubai with no office apparently in Delhi. I had to give up. The government is putting all sorts of curbs on various aspects of the media under the excuse of moral values. If the government has not yet done anything to curb the over-intrusion of ads at the expense of programmes, at least the channels should have a sense of duty towards the viewer, without whom there would be no TV.

Last word: What an ironic coincidence that the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the 100^th of Satyagraha should be on the same day. Every channel did a splendid coverage of both, with vintage photos, modern visuals and panel discussions with real experts. A pity that our anchors had great difficulty with the pronunciation of ‘satyagraha’, which carried from satyagriha to satyagruha. Someone even said satiyagruha.