Do media reporters / journalists aid the terrorists?

[ash]

I suppose there should be a clause regarding media coverage of events that links to national security. When Prince Harry served for a while in Afghanistan, there was an agreement between the British government and the media about keeping it a secret (for his safety). Well, the secret was out later after a while, but the point is, cooperation between media and state works better than trying to keep things confidential/quiet and hoping the media wont find out.

Anyway, police forces are generally capable of forcefully blocking out live coverage if needed, by jamming communication signals other than their own.

[sauravgoswami]

All depends on the situation media should act sensibly and they are better judge what they should show wat not,poeple should only watch those channel for e.g BBC, they are a responsible media channel!!

[mayurpathak]

Complete media blackout was not possible because there were many worried households wanting to know whats happening. Even I was glued to the TV screen the whole day. Yes I agree that media could have acted more responsibly by not showing the movements of our troops. But to be very frank, they were just doing their job.

[gohm]

The problem though is that this is a slippery slope. Whats to prevent individuals/government from keeping information from the populus by guising it as "national security"? It happens all the time. That is a lot of power to give a person(s) who decides that. I think rather than polityical/legislative sollutions the populus should not watch/support media thus causing the media to alter their coverage (loss of advertising revenue in the case of the US) The media is way too negative and does need to change their style/ethics.

Originally Posted by ash

I suppose there should be a clause regarding media coverage of events that links to national security. When Prince Harry served for a while in Afghanistan, there was an agreement between the British government and the media about keeping it a secret (for his safety). Well, the secret was out later after a while, but the point is, cooperation between media and state works better than trying to keep things confidential/quiet and hoping the media wont find out.

Anyway, police forces are generally capable of forcefully blocking out live coverage if needed, by jamming communication signals other than their own.

[aashima]

Originally Posted by silverscorpion

Now Russia is different. We cant force our media to keep away from something altogether.. That would create far more problems.

Don't you think the temporary problems it might cause are affordable compared to those we face otherwise in the long run?
Think about it!

[aashima]

Originally Posted by mayurpathak

Complete media blackout was not possible because there were many worried households wanting to know whats happening. Even I was glued to the TV screen the whole day. Yes I agree that media could have acted more responsibly by not showing the movements of our troops. But to be very frank, they were just doing their job.

Complete media blackout isn't demanded, neither it is advisable as people living far away too need to know the process and any development but media definitely can filter their news to certain important and harmless pieces.
For instance, a malaysian couple which was dining in The Oberoi hotel that time has complained that CNN news channel disclosed their hiding place then and their which led the terrorists to them. They were rescued later.
This is not done!
News agencies are pin pointing politicians for their flawed attitude and using this episode to accuse their rivals but isn't media doing the same? One can hear on every news channel "This news has been brought to you only by our channel" or "Our channel was the first one to recieve the clips we're showing". Everyone is busy fishing in the troubled waters! Grow up yaar.. its our nation!!

[The_Big_K]

Good to see all the comments. We, of course, do not demand complete media blackout. While we all were glued to the TV all day, we all were scared. We felt insecure.

The news papers and news channels could have just 'informed' us of the attack instead of running live coverage of the attack and scaring all of us.

Not very sure if this convinces you.

[raj87verma88]

The media does not know the meaning of responsibility. Maximum of the news channels are shit. The way the reporters go about and the way the news is reported, it makes me wonder whether these people are even trained. Half of the reporters do not give news but their own views on something. And the way the news anchor and reporter talk to each other, its like you are a third party listening to a conversation between two people. They want the TRPs and have no moral sense.
Even international news channels. A CNN reporter was accusing the Indian Army for lack of communication and that no information was being given about the army's strategy. Was the reporter expecting the whole battle plan and all the other top secrets?
Another Hindi news channel was proudly reporting "that the terrorists are watching their channel". Don't these idiots realize that if they are watching your channel then they are also watching your live coverage and are getting an idea of the movement of the police/army personnel? No, they have to show everything. Its breaking news and means more viewers, more viewers means more money.
Ash said that the forces can jam the live signals. No they can't. If they do, all the media will be behind them like angry wasps.
Personnaly, I am so fed up with news channels, I have stopped watching them. I get my daily dose of news through newspapers. The reports, views and editorials in papers are far better.