TELEVISTA
Spare us the gory details
Amita Malik

Among the most newsworthy events which have to be covered by television are accidents, murders and other unnatural injuries or deaths. Quite naturally the question arises: How much should one show? It must be remembered that television involves family viewing, including children and elders. Also, relatives and friends of the victims are also watching and it is important to spare them unnecessary pain or embarrassment.

But after watching the media coverage of the Scarlet Keeling rape and murder in Goa, one was left wondering why even the most sober of channels, such as CNN-IBN, did not hesitate to show the most ugly bruises, blood spots and scratches on the most vulnerable parts of the body of the unfortunate teenager. This is perhaps the first time I have seen injuries in such detail involving a murder victim.

Extensive coverage of the rape and murder of Scarlet Keeling in Goa was in poor taste

The shots were probably taken in the mortuary, perhaps after the postmortem. They must have been taken for the records to facilitate investigations. As such, they should have been for the viewing of investigators and of family members if they so wished. I think it was nothing short of the worst kind of sensationalism to show them in such detail to viewers. They left me extremely distressed and wondering why this was done.

I am an adult and a professional viewer who has seen coverage of this kind of gory event on international channels as well in many parts of the world. Seldom have I seen this kind of gory coverage of a distressing event. I think it is time that both the parties involved — those who provide such footage to channels and the channels which show them — should stop and consider at what stage they should call a halt. Because it is not only bad for family viewing but can cause untold distress to the relatives and friends of the victim.

Sport, politics and cinema, though not always in that order, continue to be the focus of the media. Thus while India's double triumphs in cricket continue to be shown days after they were over, and with the same shots and comments, cricket, startingly, gave way to hockey, where India disgracefully failed to qualify for the Olympics — the first time in 80 years. All those concerned, including the thick-skinned K.P.S. Gill, shot their mouths off. Gill faced the maximum and what seemed to be deserved criticism.

I was not the only one intrigued by his remarks to the effect that hockey was not a coffee machine and more time was needed. This after 80 years of competition certainly sounded like an arrogant and insensitive remark. But it is typical. Typical, too, was how the limelight at the felicitation function for the cricket team at Ferozeshah Kotla was hogged by politicians and bureaucrats. Not a single famous retired Indian cricketer was present, although Kapil Dev is easily available in the Capital. They should have flown in Ravi Shastri, Sunil Gavaskar and other famous veterans and put them in the front row. If I were Queen for a day, I would throw out all the elderly and pushy young politicians who now head sports bodies only to be in photos on the front page.

One has got tired of this tamasha, and I am not the only one. Do these sort of undeserving persons head sports bodies abroad also? I cannot think of any other country with so many politicians heading sports organisations. Kings, presidents and prime ministers as patrons and decorative figure-heads is acceptable. But such persons occupying active positions is certainly not.