You are here: 
Mumbai terror attacks coverage was extensive but theatrical, DD News was least sensational
Date: December 15, 2008 Author: Newswatch Desk
Research: Contentious
Research: Contentious
Shortly after it dawned on all and sundry that what was initially thought of as only a gang war, was in fact a concerted attack by terrorists on the night of November 26, 2008, all eyes of the nation, and the world, were trained on Mumbai. The coverage of the attacks was to become a watershed in India’s television history. But hardly had the first night wore on, signs of criticism of the coverage began surfacing. Over Facebook status messages, through SMSs, and subsequently through blogs and other outlets. Even as National Security Guard (NSG) commandos fought a pitched battle with the terrorists, and television cameras and journalists kept viewers updated all through, coverage itself became news. For all the wrong reasons, one might argue.
Going by the outrage expressed by critics through newspaper columns and blogs, among others, Newswatch decided to carry out a survey on what people thought of the reportage issue. The survey was conducted primarily over a web-based interface from December 3-6. The response was overwhelming. In all, 9,906 responses were selected for the analysis.
Some highlights of the survey results:
- 97 per cent said the high point was round-the-clock, extensive, coverage
- 74 per cent felt that the reportage-presentation was theatrical
- 73 per cent thought TV channels are goading the Indian government to go to war with Pakistan
- Arup Ghosh and Shireen of NewsX were thought to be the most cool/best anchors/reporters
- Barkha Dutt of NDTV was thought to be the most theatrical/worst anchors/reporters
- More than half said Shobhaa Dé was one celebrity who did not deserve to be on TV
- In most segments, DD News was seen to be the least sensational.
ABOUT THE REPORT
Extensive, theatrical: What people thought of the Mumbai terror attacks coverage on TV Edited and published by Subir Ghosh for Newswatch. © Newswatch 2008. Note: Even though efforts have been made to provide accurate information in this report, the publisher would appreciate if readers call his attention to errors by emailing newswatchindia@gmail.com. Suggestions for future study subjects can be sent to the same email address.
REPORT SPECIFICATIONS
Pages: 16
Format: PDF
Colour: All-colour
Price: Free
Size: 449 KB
[For download link, please scroll down.]
Format: PDF
Colour: All-colour
Price: Free
Size: 449 KB
[For download link, please scroll down.]
There are, nevertheless, limitations with this survey. Firstly, there was no sample identification or selection (see page 3 for the methodology). Secondly, since this was an online survey the results would also mean the opinion gathered was that of India’s Internet users only, and not that of the people as a whole. The survey results, unfortunately, leave out rural India from its ambit. In that sense, this survey is as elitist as the coverage of the attacks was made out to be by most detractors.
This survey is based on people’s perception of the television coverage—it is not a content analysis project, technically.
In all, 16 questions dealt with perceived negative aspects of the coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks by news and business channels. In all, 21 English and Hindi channels were shortlisted for assessment. Non-English/Hindi channels had to be left out for logistical reasons. Respondents were asked to rate each of these 21 channels on a scale of 1 to 5, in an increasing order of perceived negativity. These ratings were subsequently used to arrive at a weighted mean on a scale of 100. No demographic details were collected from the respondents. In other words, it is not possible, for instance, to say if 57 per cent men in the age group of 22-29 in North India believed that Sahara Samay was theatrical in its reportage/presentation.
This survey is also not about ranking channels. For example, the Table 1 results on page 2 do not mean that all respondents thought that Zee News was the most speculative in its reportage. It means that of those who watched Zee News, 86 per cent thought that the channel’s coverage was speculative.
This report also carries excerpts from relevant critical articles that appeared in newspapers, opinions of some of the survey respondents, and the response of Barkha Dutt (Group Editor- English News, NDTV) to the criticism of the coverage.
To download the report, click on the link below.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| mumbai.pdf | 448.58 KB |
RATE THIS ITEMTOOLS:
- Add new comment
- 17473 reads
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Mumbai terror attacks coverage was extensive but theatrical, DD News was least sensational
Shortly after it dawned on all and sundry that what was initially thought of as only a gang war, was in fact a concerted attack by terrorists on the night of November 26, 2008, all eyes of the nation, and the world, were trained on Mumbai. The coverage of the attacks was to become a watershed in India’s television history. But hardly had the first night wore on, signs of criticism of the coverage began surfacing. Over Facebook status messages, through SMSs, and subsequently through blogs and other outlets. Even as National Security Guard (NSG) commandos fought a pitched battle with the terrorists, and television cameras and journalists kept viewers updated all through, coverage itself became news. For all the wrong reasons, one might argue.
Like tigers, good news coverage too these days is a rare sight
In early 2005, wildlife officials in the Sariska Tiger Reserve discovered that poachers had wiped out the entire tiger population in the protected area. Once the lid was blown off, the tiger remained in the media limelight. Through the constitution of the Tiger Task Force to the launching of its controversial report on the status of tigers in the country, the big cat kept making headlines.
Sariska had been the tip of the proverbial iceberg; but the actual aggregate of tigers in the wild in India degenerated into being a guessing game for all and sundry. As mudslinging went on between the so-called wildlife elite and their neophyte critics, there were conservationists who waited with bated breath for the real numbers to come out.
This did eventually. On February 12, 2008, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) announced in New Delhi that just 1,411 adult tigers remained in the wild in India. It was official, it was big news. Or so it ought to have been.
The media added a communal colour to the October Assam clashes
Early October came the news that ethnic clashes had broken out in Assam. The two groups in question were the indigenous Bodos and Bangladeshi migrants. Sectarian violence in Northeast does not always make it to the front page of newspapers. But this one did — coming as it was in the backdrop of the attacks on Christians by Hindu rightwing elements in Karnataka and Orissa, and a palpable sense of Islamophobia that seemed to be all-pervading in the aftermath of the serial blasts in Ahmedabad, Bangalore and New Delhi.
Most media oulets threw ethics to the winds by naming the Orissa rape victim
After two months of silence, the nun who was raped and paraded naked by a frenetic mob of Hindu rightwingers in Kandhamal in Orissa, chose to speak about her horrifying experience at a press conference in New Delhi on October 24, 2008. She narrated her ordeal, and issued a signed statement. Many news outlets reported the heart-wrenching tale. But there were others who threw elementary media ethics to the winds and went overboard—they named the victim. Though two-thirds of the news stories that were tracked by Newswatch desisted from identifying the nun by name, a substantial one-thirds did.
If this proportion was not alarming enough, when the researchers narrowed down the number of news items tracked for the study to distinct and original stories, it was found that slightly more than half of the news establishments which reported reported the press conference were guilty of naming the victim.
Media covers accused more than victims in high-profile cases, finds Newswatch study
The last few years have seen a number of high-profile cases in Indian courts wherein the rich and mighty have been held guilty and sentenced to prison. The news media, in many cases, has been accused of conducting its own shadow trials. The news media coverage these court cases have derived has been phenomenal. This year saw Delhi courts passing verdicts in the Shivani Bhatnagar murder and BMW hit-and-run cases.
Good Job!
have you seen the PDF file?
checkin it out.....
swagatam.. pls do
I sifted through, will be reading into it more. Limitations aside, I must say it is a laudable effort you put through. I am saving it, I am sure years ahead, into the future, It will be a Great Record. Thank You.
great job! can't thank u enough!
thanks shubho... we have all read what the critics had to say about the mumbai coverage... the point here was to see/hear what people felt.. with certain sampling limitations, of course
hey u hv a done a great job here and a much needed one at that! more power to you!!
very well conducted subir-wish it can reach out to as many people as possible-clearly exposes the mindset of the people of mumbai post carnage--but I guess this is basically what everyone must have felt in the rest of the country as well.
thanks for taking the trouble to do this. good job.
agree... the objectivity of news was not something others cared for in attempt to outsmart each other with sensation, hypotheses and presumptions
nice work done.
barkha's response is also note-worthy.
i may say - it was for the first time country and people of the country and media of the country were experiencing such horrible event.
Surely its was an audacious attack and took everyone including the media by suprise...but what was shockign to see was the approach of most of the premi...
Even to the given date perhaps NewsX is the only news channel ... now which has consciously decided to refrain from showing Gory visuals..burning footage of Taj and shots of gunfire.
Good work
I like the observationa nd the way u have expressed!!
Some channels aught to be banned - India TV for one - it sensationalises everything - just visit this blog http://stupidindiatv.blogspot.com/
geat job in shost time
io now feel almost sad for barkha
sir, we all need to pay for our sins some time!
hey spare a thought for barkha..she is ok...:)
super super
good stuff subir
good work i have fwded to all my e groups and also posted it on the face book peace campaign
great .. an eye opener.. presentable and recommendable job
Awesome job, may need your permission to use parts of this for an academic paper I am writing. Tell me how I should go ahead with this. I am stunned by the amount of work and passion you have invested in this.
Just read the full reportVery fair to let Barkha have her say, if only a lift from their own weblog. I wonder if NDTV showed the Indian navy chief the same courtesy.
Regarding Kargil, was a colonel sacked or not? If he was sacked, what was the reason? Too many salacious stories flying around. Time for the government to clear up the confusion.
Great work, how do i download and put this report on my site?
Fantastic effort. At least there is some tabulation of the media event available now. Thanx...
hi subir just read the report and wanted to congratulate you for putting together an excellent analysis. Helps all of us to form a 360 degree perspective of the event coverage and not getting too critical without a knowledge of facts and fgures
ritu: newswatch stands for both press freedom and journalistic ethics. the idea of banning is self-defeating and is almost always an act of a regime or a dispensation which is totalitarian. in other words, when someone loses an argument, they call for a ban. for newswatch, bans and controls are associated more with military dictatorships, Stalinist communism and Islamist fascism.
there are other more democratic and civilised ways of handling these india tvs, calling for a ban is not one of them
vani: please feel free to do so. people must know. if you need something formal, please revert to me over email. thanks.
dhara: the download lnk to the PDF file is there on the page. however, there is no way you can put up the full report. you'll only be able to put up the intro given here and a link to the PDF file.
how does one download the full report?
just after the main content ends, there is a head called attachment. there you should be able to see a link "mumbai.pdf". it is a PDF file. to open it in your browser just click on the link. alternatively, right click on the link and save it on your comp and read it at your leisure.
i just love the design/layout. apart from the content itself of course. in fact all your reports are impeccable both in form and content. really neat and stylish. neat probably is the catchword here. do you folks also design for others?
i am glad the reports look good... a considerable time goes into designing these reports.. and yes, we do design stuff for others provided that your/their subject matter is not something we abhor and of course if you have the money
some details please!!!!!
kindly see http://www.newswatchplus.in/
Timely work, Subir. Although it hurts to say it, another terrorist attack is inevitable, and it would help for some TV channels to take a long look in the mirror before debouching into the field again. I'm glad, and vindicated, that most people in the survey share an aversion to the Barkha Dutt brand of high-decibel, chicken-with-its-head-cut-off paratrooper journalism.
The problem is that it wasn't just the terrorist attack that was insanely covered: its aftermath, including making 'shaheeds' and 'martyrs' - how did the media see it fit to adopt these words, with their heavy subtext? - out of those who died in the line of duty, has been equally voluble and bellicose. Perhaps Newswatch could now do a post-event follow-up of how the media is covering the causatum of the terrorists attacks on Mumbai.
Fantastic study. Barkha was very disappointing. She was hysterical and absolutely a turn off. Surprising, but, yes, yes, DD was the best. Thank you, Subir, for a great job.
Excellent job. This is rich, oozing with info. This must be preserved by students of both the print and electronic media.