Scoops, spooks and scepticism

I was going to start this edition of the column talking about general TV reportage on two definitely bearded men...

I was going to start this edition of the column talking about general TV reportage on two definitely bearded men, Amitabh Bachchan and Swami Ramdev, who allegedly infiltrated a proud entity, Great Britain. But 24215;7 TV news is so unsettlingly dynamic. I was forced to switch my attention to a Times Now 8220;exclusive8221; on two possibly bearded men, LeT chaps apparently, who allegedly infiltrated a proud entity, the Indian Air Force.

My first-millisecond reaction to the Times Now story was that of any journalist: LeT guys in IAF?! If the story held, it would be something. My thirtieth-second reaction was, Would the story hold? I had remembered a Times Now 8220;exclusive8221; on Abu Salem8217;s videotaped confessions that had turned out to be somewhat less explosive than an LeT bomb without a detonator. By the sixty-sixth or sixty-seventh second I had started thinking, When did our national security advisor send the warning missive on which the Times Now story was based? It turned out that the letter was sent in September 2005. The IAF spokesperson quite frankly acknowledged the receipt of such a warning and said his force was found to be LeT-free after a thorough search.

I could understand that Arun Jaitely, as the Opposition spokesperson, had no time to consider such details but announce, to the visible delight of Times Now anchors, India8217;s 8220;last bastion8221; was under grave threat. Congress spokespersons would have done the same thing had the BJP been in power. But I couldn8217;t understand why the datedness of the letter 8212; 10 months are an eternity multiplied by infinity in journalism 8212; and the IAF8217;s fairly open-faced clarification did not persuade Times Now to give the story less than star billing.

And that was not the only thing about TV and terrorism I didn8217;t understand. What prompted the CNN-IBN reporter to tell us, during a panel discussion on terrorism/Pakistan/Indian response, that a India had three ways to attack Pakistan and b that while these options were not being actively considered now, another attack or two and all bets would be off? Two possible explanations: a there was an unforeseen transference of patriotic rush from CNN-IBN8217;s SMS poll 96 per cent saying 8220;attack Pakistan8221; to the reporter b the reporter8217;s assault plan was an unwitting attempt to cancel out the striking observation of another panelist; the latter8217;s thesis was that the Indian police could only beat up people and never produce prosecution-worthy evidence so talk of Pakistan8217;s complicity in terrorism was more or less meaningless.

Who could we blame if we couldn8217;t blame Pakistan? I found an answer on an NDTV panel discussion, where an ex-spook said with omniscient authority that the Mumbai blasts could be linked to Al Qaeda. TV, much more than newspaper comment pages which aren8217;t blameless, has done this for ex-spooks and security analysts: it has given them a forum where they can say just about anything and not be questioned about it.

Now to come back to my original starting point. I have space for only two observations. First, if Amitabh Bachchan is a cultural export, importing countries must be prepared to accept a package deal 8212; they8217;ll have to sign for the receipt of Amar Singh as well. Second, when TV and, I should add, the print media reports that Indian actors or yoga experts are making popular cultural waves in a Western country there should be a rider: is the interest primarily among the NRI community or more generally distributed.

If you did a thorough reconnoitering of British pubs 8212; the best place to feel Britain8217;s popular cultural pulse 8212; you would have discovered, like the IAF did in a different context, that the bearded men in question didn8217;t quite have the impact TV claimed.