Disclaimer: The note/s given below is/ are a compilation of information taken from various sources. The references to the sources are provided at the end. The views expressed in the note/s are those of the concerned student/s/ intern/s.. The blogger or the compiler will not be responsible in any manner whatsoever regarding the authenticity of the information provided in the note/s. 

These notes are being compiled to help the students for educational purposes during Covid-19 pandemic.

Live Reporting and its criticism in India.

News broadcasting is the medium of broadcasting of various news events and other information via television, radio, or internet in the field of broadcast journalism. The content is usually either produced locally in a radio studio or television studio newsroom, or by a broadcast network. It may also include additional material such as sports coverage weather forecasts, traffic reports, commentary and other material that the broadcaster feels is relevant to their audience.

Live television is a television production broadcast in real-time, as events happen, in the present. In a secondary meaning, it may refer to streaming television over the internet. In most cases live programming is not being recorded as it is shown on TV, but rather was not rehearsed or edited and is being shown only as it was recorded prior to being aired. Shows broadcast live include newscasts, morning shows, awards shows, sports programs, reality programs and, occasionally, episodes of scripted television series.

Live television was more common until the late 1950s, when videotape technology was invented. Because of the prohibitive cost, adoption was slow, and some television shows remained live until the 1970s, such as soap operas. To prevent unforeseen issues, live television programs may be delayed, which allows censors to edit the program. Some programs may be broadcast live in certain time zones and delayed in others.

Media ethics largely covers four broad aspects namely – truth & authenticity, sensationalism, conflict of interest and appropriateness of media contents. Any compromise on any of these tenets in the garb of freedom of speech and expression can have extremely detrimental effects on the thought process of the society. Truth and authenticity are the two prime principles of ethics that form the basic platter for any kind of media content. It covers not only the commitment to tell the truth without fear or favor, but also to resist from spreading half-truth or made-up information specifically intended to deceive the audience.

At a time, when the entire media fraternity is regarded as the fourth pillar of a robust and thriving democracy, it is imperative upon the conscientious section of society to ponder upon the need for accountability and self-restraint in this arena. In the last few years, there had been plentiful of instances where media overreach and hyper- activism had caused wilful influence and unwarranted media goof-ups. The live coverage of 26/11 Mumbai attacks by media houses came under extensive criticism for prioritizing vested commercial interests over national security.

The undue competition among themselves in showing exclusives on minute-to-minute basis had nearly jeopardized the strategic planning of the security forces out there. Even across the border, the wall-to-wall coverage of Nepal earthquake had come in for severe denunciation for the alleged disaster tourism and had brought disrepute to the entire fraternity. These two instances clearly violated the two ethical concerns of sensationalism and appropriateness of media contents. Notwithstanding with the authenticity and due diligence shown in the act, the scintillating and chilling effects coming from such human tragedies proved extremely embarrassing and eye-opening for the media.

The selective attention and distortion of media contents exhibited in the TV shows is tantamount to breach of ethical standards. The irrelevant obsession with the corridors of power in Delhi at the cost of ground realities in the farthest corners of the country is totally unprofessional. This may seem contrary to the freedom of expression, but it carries the essence of moral obligation of journalism. The classic example of this preferential treatment was seen last year when non-stop coverage of high profile Sheena Bora murder case overshadowed the plight of flood victims in Chennai and Assam. The list is exhaustive and disappointing at the same time.

The eve-teasing incident of Jasleen Kaur that was much sensationalized and the morphed anti- India sloganeering video in JNU case was portrayed as twisted truth in the media which resulted in an extensive media trial in an aggressive, intimidating and brow-beating style treating the accused as guilty within no time. When outrage on beef consumption and sloganeering by fringe outfits was preferred to be aired on national media to critical issues like rising inflation and the farmer suicides, the gap in credibility widened.

The Noida murders of teenage girl Aarushi Talwar and middle-aged Hemraj—live-in domestic help at the Talwars’ home—took place on May 16, 2008. Media reports, primarily on account of the CBI innuendos, had by now moved into the realm of certainties, resulting in widespread outrage against the Talwar couple though the reported, debated, and dramatized obviousness of the Talwars’ guilt had yet failed to produce any evidence. The media routinely insinuated though that the Talwars had influenced the investigation. The Talwar story lingered on primetime for a long while live footage dominated the reportage when the story appeared on prime time, far more disturbing were the reconstructed enactments, liberally mixed with old footage, to extend the life of the story beyond primetime. Some of these enactments were used in support of news stories, such as morphed footage suggesting a fourteen-year-old taking her clothes off to speculate about what family secrets might have led to Aarushi’s “honor killing".

Coverage of the 67-hour Mumbai terrorist attacks, brought unprecedented condemnation, especially of 24-hour television news channels. Critics described it as "TV terror" for showing gory scenes, being too aggressive, and often reporting incorrect information as fact. In the following days, critics say, many Indian journalists were overly dramatic, sensationalist and quick to report live "exclusives" of unconfirmed rumours. Many said that TV anchors were overwrought and quick to blame Pakistan for the attacks. “It’s high time we realize and accept that we are at fault," said Shishir Joshi, the editorial director of Mid-Day, a Mumbai newspaper. "We did well getting into the line of fire, but from an ethical point of view we screwed up big-time." Recognizing the missteps in coverage, National Broadcaster Association revealed a new set of rules for the industry. The guidelines ban broadcasting of footage that could reveal security operations and live contact with hostages or attackers.

Television coverage of the attacks showed dead bodies and hostages trapped in rooms, revealed commando operations and positions and reported the location of hostages at the Taj Mahal Hotel. Senior news editors are accused of playing martial music between updates and providing airtime to Bollywood actors and other members of Mumbai's chatterati. One station even aired a telephone conversation with one of the 10 gunmen

"One of the ill effects of unrestrained coverage is that of provoking anger amongst the masses," said K.G. Balakrishnan, then chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, during a conference on terrorism in New Delhi.

The relatively young medium of 24-hour television news received the lion's share of criticism. They were also criticized for focusing on the sieges at the Taj and Oberoi hotels — domains of the country's wealthy and ruling elite — while largely ignoring the train station that was littered with the bodies of migrant workers. Fifty-eight people were gunned down there. "A media crackdown is not the answer — self-regulated media is at the core of Indian democracy," said Arnab Goswami, the editor-in-chief of the Times Now television channel. "This incident should highlight the need for government and media to work together."

The media has criticized both local and federal government for failing to set up fixed police lines around hostage sites and for not providing regular press briefings.

• The Internet has brought about profound and rapid changes in the structuring, delivery, and economics of news media.
• Immediate news delivery has become the norm.
• The pressure for immediate delivery increases the tension between factual accuracy and “getting there first” in news reporting.
• Because people can get instant news for free online, subscriptions to print media are down, and so are advertising revenues.
• Most journalistic codes of ethics are based on the premise that the news media exists to provide citizens with the information they need to function in a free and democratic society. Journalists should conform to several ethical obligations:
• Present news stories that inform and serve the needs of citizens.
• Present issues fairly.
• Present stories in a way that addresses their complexity.
• Present diverse perspectives.
• Monitor government and corporations.
• Responsible journalism
• ensures accuracy (even if it means causing delays);
• reports the truth;
• stays loyal to citizens by putting the public interest above all else;
• is protective and sensitive to those involved in the news;
• remains objective and presents information in a neutral way; and
• allows for commentary and opposition.

All news stories contain some bias because of the diversity of journalists’ perspectives. While the news media is often criticized for representing a political bias in reporting, ethical journalists always strive to present issues in a fair and comprehensive way.