Opinion When the story changed

However,it would be unfair to judge the efficacy of a body on the basis of an incident that happened barely eight weeks into its existence. We would need to judge it on the basis of what has happened since then. The first thing that happened post attack was the drafting of elaborate guidelines to cover such emergencies. Taking note of the criticism that the electronic media attracted for its live coverage,the guidelines,issued by Justice Verma on December 18,2008,clearly said,“In live reporting of hostage situations or rescue operations,no details of identity,number and status of hostages should be telecast or information given of pending rescue operations or regarding the number of security personnel involved or the methods employed by them.” The guidelines further said,“media should avoid live contact with victims or security personnel…or the perpetrators during the course of the incident… Special care should be taken in broadcast of any distressing visuals.”

To the best of my knowledge,these guidelines have been followed since then,which speaks for the strength of self-regulation. Nothing is perfect. A news channel faces dynamic and unforeseen situations,like the Mumbai attack itself. Self-regulation evolves to face the challenges that life throws at us — I cannot promise that my conduct would be free of mistakes,but I can promise that I will learn from mistakes.

The court observed that the TV channels were driven by commercial interests and TRPs in their coverage of the Mumbai terror attack. I would say that in those critical days,the uppermost consideration was to gather and transmit to our viewers information on what was happening and why,and what the government was doing to tackle it. TRPs were far from our minds,and commercial interests the farthest. If commercial interests were paramount,would we have dropped commercials for countless hours? I would not even compute the value of the commercial loss because it would put a price on a decision that was taken purely in the public interest.

Far from hurting the argument of self-regulation,the Mumbai attack became a catalyst for self-regulation in more ways than one. Soon after the attack,there appeared to be steps taken in a section of the government to impose undemocratic restrictions on the electronic media. The electronic media resisted and protested. Out of this protest emerged another forum of self-reform — the Broadcast Editors’ Association (BEA). This body of editors of national and regional TV channels has the twin mandate of creating consensus on what is worth airing and protecting the freedom of the electronic media,thereby preventing any encroachment by the executive.

This brings me to my central fear,that the observations of the Supreme Court might give ideas — or a handle — to those who believe that content can be regulated by a state-appointed body. The chairperson of the Press Council of India,Justice Markandey Katju,has been claiming for some time that the electronic media is his natural fiefdom. To all those who pitch for state regulation,I would most respectfully and humbly submit: please do not assess us according to what happened in Mumbai. Judge us by what happened after Mumbai.

The writer is president of the Broadcast Editors’ Association

express@expressindia.com