Mumbai post 7/11 has certainly emerged stronger and hopefully becomes more wiser in terms of its security which have been thwarted so many times now. One would have to commend the the denizens of Mumbai in India for having shown an unwavering spirit, but also one cannot ignore the shades of gray which emerged with the blasts.
Despite the city getting back to normalcy within a short span what the blasts also brought to light was insensitive ( if one could say so) coverage of the whole episode by media- primarily the electronic media.
Television reporters in a bid to grab a live feed to gain an advantage in the cat and mouse chase between different news channels overlooked the humane aspect of pain and trauma. The trauma of injured victims and their aggrieved ones was sidelined for an alibi which could be made into a flash news.
One could say that the city got back to normalcy quickly indeed. But resilience apart it was to an extent the lack of alternatives which made people to resort to the same mode of conveyance the next day in a bid to earn a livelihood.
Was there an alternative the commuters and the residents of the city had? Could the students sit at home and not go to school? Could government officials stay away from work? If the city administration was so concerned of the security, why didn’t it declare a day’s leave to assess the security situation? Well, such questions just affirm above statements of the ‘lack’ mentioned above.
Journalism is all about respecting the ‘fine’ lines between ethics and reporting. Providing unadulterated facts to people is the primary responsibility but at the same time a certain degree of sensitivity also needs to be adhered to in reporting.
News about the blasts and the resilience of the city dwellers that was portrayed as facts had another dimension to it- that of acceptance and lack of alternatives.
Media arms and informs people. Hence it becomes imperative to maintain a certain degree of sensitivity towards coverage of events.
So, do you feel the same..?