Do media reporters / journalists aid the terrorists?

Replies

• 

  sauravgoswami

  Ywah they do!!! negatives news create more sensation than positive news,media is their only to raise its TRP and popularity,they dont think of a common man who is depended on them for guidance and proceedings!!!
• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  sauravgoswami

  Ywah they do!!! negatives news create more sensation than positive news,media is their only to raise its TRP and popularity,they dont think of a common man who is depended on them for guidance and proceedings!!!

  Look at the way they're covering the whole Mumbai Terror episode. Spreading the fear all over the country.
• 

  Differential

  This is a usual scene in India. I agree with you Biggie. Elecronic Media people are in rat race. For the sake of giving news first, and to attract the people, things are shown exaggarated. For the sake of making a news breaking, I wonder, if its truness is validated or not. This can cause rumours spread.
  
  I have heard this somewhere that when 9/11 happened in US, not a single drop of blood was shown to the world. Why can't we follow this strategy?
  
  Showing live coverage, I think, scares people and helps terrorists to identify whats going on. So it's no way useful. Today(Friday) Morning, I heard that media channels have been asked not to do any live coverage near Taj.
• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  Yeah, now they are spreading the rumor.
• 

  Ashraf HZ

  Its quite interesting.. you have situations where journalists fight for freedom of press and speech, and on the other hand, media taking advantage of people's fears for sensationalist news.
  
  Reading the posts so far, the sentiments are clearly that the media folks are a little heartless and money/ratings minded. Also, what about the citizens who take to the net to post pics and minute updates too? I'm pretty sure they have good intentions. But, people can still feel scared reading and viewing them.
  
  I believe that even if there was an order for a media black out, people would STILL want to find out what is going on. Its only natural. We have become a sort of society that thrives off information.. especially with the advent of the Internet.
• 

  sauravgoswami

  well we have to depend on them and hope they r showing the truth!!! they are the only source of information for us!!!
• 

  aashima

  We are not the ones whose information reception is more important than national security. Media no doubt helps the terrorists in some or the other way. For one, they terrorize people even when there is no scoop. Two, they perform as eyes for the terrorists to keep a check on the effects their actions are having. And must say, they do the job quite dutifully. In Russia, they have a rule. Media is not allowed (strictly!!) to cover any part of the information if such an unfortunate event occurs in the country! Perhaps, we need one like that too!
• 

  silverscorpion

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

  syedaafaq

  yeah according to me, media aids terrorists by giving the informations such as the number of security council or the nsg commandos arrived for the current operations, it also aids public and little bit to our security department too. because it gives the information to public and sometimes scares the terrorists by showing the number of security personnels activated for the operations against terrorism. it also questions the security department on behalf of the public that what measures they have taken so far to avoid terrorism completely from our country...
• 

  Ashraf HZ

  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!!
• 

  Mayur Pathak

  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.
  
  

  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

  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

  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!!
• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  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.