Photo: Finn Rasmussen/IMS

“It may be hard for the media to admit this, but there’s blood on your hands now”, said one senior military official in the Philippines to the media, with reference to their role in covering a recent hostage-taking drama in the archipelago

By Ranga Kalansooriya, IMS

The officer was critical of the live media coverage of the incident which would have provided the culprit with real-time information on counter measures by the security establishments. Eight Hong Kong tourists were killed along with the disgruntled ex-policeman who seized their vehicle in a bid to get his job back during this hostage drama.

“We could have worked for the safe release of the hostages if TV and radio stations had been more careful in their reportages,” he was quoted as saying by the media.

Competitive media sacrifice professionalism

The criticism of the media’s handling of sensitive situations such as a hostage crisis is not unique to to the Philippines. The same blame could easily be placed on media in many conflict ridden countries where media is struggling to find ways of professionalism in covering such sensitive events. The competition amongst television news channels to break the news first – is the key guiding force of the media, rushing to the scene and starting live coverage with blow-by-blow accounts.

In Pakistan, for example, broadcast media were critisised for their coverage of the Red Mosque (GHQ) incident in 2007. In India it was the dramatic Bombay attack a year later. During the Bombay attack in November 2008, it was alleged that the Pakistani handlers of the attackers monitored the live media coverage of the incident. This provided them with the necessary information via mobile phones on the movements of the security forces.

A few days later, the scathing criticism of the media’s coverage of the Bombay attacks prompted the News Broadcasters Association to unveil self-regulatory guidelines for telecast of sensitive events, reported The Times of India.

Need for responsible media behaviour 

The expected outcome of unprofessional behavior by the media in such events where coverage escalates an incident would be the intervention of governments with new laws and regulations. This, however, could prompt the same media to accuse authorities of curbing press freedom – a classic catch twenty-two situation.

Zaffar Abbas, the Editor-in-Chief of Pakistan’s most reputed newspaper Dawn took the lead through one of his pieces in generating a public discourse on the issue before the government took steps to intervene. One of the most experienced and respected editors in South Asia, Zaffar wrote a comprehensive story in his paper last December urging the media to adapt more responsible approach in covering live such sensitive events.

He uses the GHQ hostage taking event as a classic example where one television channel was arbitrarily taken off the air, albeit briefly, during the terror attack and hostage drama apparently due to pressure from the Inter-Services Public Relations directorate – the PR wing of the Pakistan military. 

“Such tactics by official agencies are neither acceptable nor helpful in promoting a culture of free media, tolerance and healthy debate. It is important to call on the authorities to desist from such practices. But it is equally important for us in the media to find time for introspection and an appraisal of our own performance in order to improve news coverage of issues like hijacking or hostage-taking which are, to state the obvious, sensitive in nature,” Zaffar argued in his piece.

The hostage-taking drama at the GHQ was the first such incident in the country since the advent of 24-hour independent television in Pakistan. The last major hostage situation occurred way back in early 1994 when a group of Afghan ‘mujahideen’ hijacked a school bus and brought it to Islamabad. The 36-hour-long drama ended with Pakistani commandos storming the Afghan embassy and killing the three hostage-takers. 

No space for hostage-takers

The former BBC correspondent turned newspaper editor Zaffar remembers his own experience in covering a hostage-taking incident in Pakistan.

- While working for the BBC back then, covering a hostage situation proved to be a huge learning experience for me, particularly when BBC radio refused to broadcast an interview I had done with one of the hostage-takers. Initially I was a bit upset but was soon made to realise how crucial it was not to give space to hostage-takers, especially when a large number of children were still in their captivity, he says.

He further stated in his article that it is now becoming clear that some militant groups are astute enough to realise the importance of employing multiple methods to strike at the country’s civilian and security establishment and, at times, people at large. This throws up new challenges for the media, particularly television news. It also underlines the need to review the manner of coverage, taking some input from guidelines developed and used by international media organisations. These guidelines can be adapted to suit the local environment and conditions. 

Guidelines for Pakistani media

Having highlighted his argument Zaffar proposed a guideline for the Pakistani broadcast media which prompted a wide public discourse mainly among the media owners and senior managers and ultimately it paved the way for adopting a common platform in addressing the issue with the participation of all major broadcasting institutions in the country. Now the media heads are united at least on one common agenda – to have professional standards in covering sensitive events and not to give way simply for the competition among themselves.

International Media Support  is working closely working with this influential group in Pakistan. It will soon commence a safety training programme along with the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) which would address this issue as well. Also it attempts to bring these learnt lessons to other parts of the world such as Philippines through its multi-faceted activities.

Guidelines Proposed by Zaffar Abbas for Pakistani Media

There are several guidelines agreed to and published by various news organisations like the BBC, CNN and others to deal with the coverage of a range of sensitive issues. Some of them can be useful for our TV networks to evolve their own working codes.Hijacking, hostage-taking and sieges 

• We must be aware that anything we broadcast may be heard by the perpetrators. 
• Always report demands in context. If it is a hostage situation, mention the nature of the threat to captives in case the demand for money or release of imprisoned militants is not met. 
• Consider carefully the ethical issues raised by providing a platform to perpetrators of such crimes. 
• Ensure a perpetrator is not interviewed live on air. 
• If possible, install a time delay when broadcasting sensitive stories live, for example a school siege or plane hijacking. This is particularly important when the outcome is unpredictable. 
• When reporting stories relating to hijacking, kidnapping, hostage-taking, etc, listen to advice from the authorities about anything which, if reported, could exacerbate the situation and place lives at risk, but of course without becoming the authorities’ mouthpiece. 
Reporting terror
• Acts of terror should be reported in a timely manner, accurately, fully and responsibly. But there is no value-addition if severed limbs of victims of bomb explosions or bodies are shown. 
• Credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgment. 
• Instead of loosely using the term ‘terrorist’, words which specifically describe the perpetrator — bomber, attacker, gunman, insurgent, militant — may be preferable. 
• It is usually inappropriate to use terms like ‘court martial’ or ‘execute’ in the absence of a clear judicial process. There have been many examples in recent months of media reporting events under labels such as ‘Taliban execute American spy’. This is plain and simple killing, even murder, but not execution. 
• The idea is to move away from using other people’s language, and to remain objective and report in ways that enable viewers to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.