Media and its coverage of BDR tragedy
THE coverage of the recent tragedy at the Bangladesh Rifles headquarters by the media, particularly the private television channels on which we were reliant for information as the rebellion unfolded inside the BDR compound, was most disappointing. If one is to take, in Adam Smiths words, the view of an objective spectator of how the event was covered on February 25 and most of February 26, there is no denying that the portrayal of jawans grievances, which inundated our TV screens, was somewhat lopsided. Invariably, the coverage during these initial hours played a pivotal role in conjuring up public sympathy and approval of the incident based on the grievances expressed by the mutineers to the TV cameras. Through this process, with or without the intention or knowledge of the newspersons or TV channels, a stream of disinformation was generated and circulated to the public. However, the next day, not surprisingly, we saw the same media sharply reverse their line of reporting as the gruesome reality of what took place inside the BDR headquarters began to surface. A readjustment and a shift in the discourse became evident.
It is quite possible that the lack of information or communication between various parties may have contributed to the mismanagement of whatever little information was available for broadcasting. Naturally, as the days unfolded, a more vivid picture of what actually happened in Pilkhana began to emerge and we got to know about them from news reports, talk-shows, and government statements in almost real-time television. The interesting aspect of the new stream of information flowing in on day two was that a fresh genre of information (or disinformation) was being produced and fed into the mainstream. For those of us religiously following the talk-shows and the news to gather whatever little more we can learn about the carnage at BDR headquarters, a stark reversal in the medias sentiment and approach reinforced by the rhetoric of experts present baffled us. It seemed that we were being asked to forget everything we had already witnessed, seen, read or heard and now needed to reorganise our perception of what had happened at Pilkhana from scratch. A new set of information, knowledge and direction was in production, which seemed primarily focused on compensating for the early mishap. We found the apologetic electronic media complying with, and at the same time resorting to, an opposite line of disinformation in its effort to make up for the earlier glitch of turning the audience sympathetic towards the BDR jawans.
By bringing experts with proficiency in defence, security, crisis management and politics, the TV channels became a place where expression of only a certain definitive perception seemed permissible. They became a medium for expressing utter and complete animosity towards a certain government institution and its individuals. The discussions, which often enjoyed representations from only one side of the debate, unabashedly permitted the use of demeaning slurs such as chhokras and oi betas while referring to these personnel on national TV. Such meaningless insults and belittling of an institution, which is still part of the peoples government and owner of a glorious recognition in our countrys history are simply not acceptable.
It is certainly true that a handful of rogue individuals in the BDR are responsible for the ruthless massacre of members of our armed forces and hence not worthy of forgiveness in the eyes of the law. Their attack on the army is an attack on Bangladeshis and our right to exist as a sovereign nation. This pre-planned massacre must be dealt with the harshest punishment to make it clear such acts will receive zero tolerance from the people of Bangladesh. The carnage has left a deep scar in each of us. It must be said the urge to avail no justice to the killers can, at times, be overpowering.
However, such sentiments cannot be translated into intolerance or disrespect for our other institution, one which is also assigned to protect us, and its soldiers. The media must not forget that the individuals in what they now perceive as a rogue institution are people of this country with full entitlement to justice and consideration as individuals in any other institutions or non-institutions. This sentiment was particularly missed when the government announced three days of national mourning specifically and exclusively dedicating them to our fallen army personnel, while excluding the civilians and BDR men (already stamped as criminals) who are victims of a similar barbaric fate. Not only did the media not denounce such discriminatory treatment by the government, they actively prototyped the selective mourning strategy of the government and telecast their condolences accordingly. Such sentiments disabled the media of portraying objective post-Pilkhana carnage coverage. For instance, while the news and talk-shows did make a prompt and genuine effort to bring the heartbreaking stories of our lost army officers and their families into the limelight, they were highly unsuccessful in bringing the stories of other victims and their loved ones from other quarters. There was no coverage or debates, taking place on the fate of the BDR jawans who got killed or on civilian victims and their families. Their stories for the large part remain un-chronicled.
What caused the electronic media or, for that matter, the media in general to embark on this subjective and reactionary line of reporting? Perhaps, the accusation made by the army chief about the media playing an irresponsible role in its initial coverage of the BDR rebellion made an impact. Or it could be the media responding to the information ministers call to exercise self-regulation when reporting events such as these. Either way, the media readily made itself available as a platform, which facilitated one-sided condemnation of the BDR a legitimate state institution by the government, political parties, experts, other state institutions and various members of civil society. In doing so, it exacerbated the tension between the BDR and the army at a time when all of this blame-game and finger pointing should have been avoided and certainly not patronised by the media. The flow of disinformation that followed managed to create a feeling of aversion from the public towards the institution of the BDR as a whole.
Disinformation and its use are not entirely a new journalistic phenomenon in our country. In recent times, the newly emerging TV channels and some national dailies have established themselves as powerful entities in shaping public sentiments. For instance, we have witnessed their influential role both prior to the national elections (in mobilising public opinion on issues such as corruption and punishment of war criminals) as well as after the democratically elected government has taken office (by, for instance, providing intensive coverage on issues concerning the TIFA and transit deals). In both these cases, the media played an instrumental role in addressing the times and was successful in organising peoples aspiration to pressure decision-makers to deliver some coherent changes in governance. However, the extent of journalistic methods employed in addressing some of these issues remains questionable and is a matter worthy of discussion.
Practice of journalistic professionalism and ethics are a rare sight in many of our electronic media and certainly in some giant dailies. There exists deeply-rooted schism between facts and comments, between what we know and what we are told, between what is unknown and asserted, between what is revealed and concealed in the information we receive. This blurring of the line between information and opinion, and tendency to pass the former as latter and vice versa, contributed to the systemic production of disinformation and the propensity to use the latter as information.
It is undeniable that the electronic media in its few years of existence has come a long way, and certainly fared well in communicating a fairly non-partisan outlook. However, application of objectivity and ability to paint a comprehensive picture of the issues at hand still remain uncultivated areas for our electronic media. News reporting and talk-shows will do well by utilising journalistic craftsmanship and a sense of service to the people. After all, the media is an integral part of a democratic system that must participate in building a critical mass. Information, critical mass and democracy are interlinked and dependent on each other for each of their survival. Disinformation threatens, overpowers and weakens these three crucial elements of our political life from functioning. Nobody can be secure in the knowledge that the information we are reliant on is susceptible to possible designing. Security can only be addressed through access to genuine information, and genuine information can be attained by asking the right questions.
http://www.newagebd.com/2009/mar/16/oped.html#1
